Sitting of 29 June 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 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:
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords].
Salford Corporation Bill [Lords].
Londonderry Bridge Commissioners Bill [Lords].
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time To-morrow.
Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
St. Anne's-on-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  1. Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any definite steps have yet been taken for the summoning of the Assembly of the League of Nations in the autumn of the present year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to the hon. Member for Yeovil on 17th June last. So far as I am aware, no answer has yet been received by the Council of the League from President Wilson.

  BRITISH AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS.
  2. Mr. DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are made, if any, that Ambassadors and Consular Agents shall be of British birth; if it is insistent that they shall know the language of the country to which they are accredited, and, in the case of Consuls, Vice-Consuls, and their staffs, if commercial knowledge and a broad grasp of the trade in such countries is regarded as essential; how many such representatives have been appointed since the Armistice; how many are of foreign nationality; and to what countries the latter have been appointed?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As the reply is long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the reply referred to:
  The rule, as regards nationality, applied to candidates for the Diplomatic Service and the Salaried Consular Service, is that they must be natural-born British subjects, and born within the United Kingdom or self-governing Dominions, of parents also born within those territories, but the Secretary of State has power to grant dispensation from this rule when the special circumstances of the case justify departure from it.
  As successful candidates are liable to service in many different countries, it is impossible to provide, in the examination, that they shall know the language of every particular country to which they may be sent. It is not essential that Ambassadors should in every case know the language of the country to which they are accredited, but the language qualifications of Consular officers are one of the chief determining factors in the selection of individuals for particular posts.
  Commercial knowledge has been taken into account in the selection of Consular officers since the Armistice. Entry into the Consular Service by open competitive examination will be reintroduced this year. A special two-year course at the London School of Economics has been arranged for successful candidates.
  The number of persons appointed since the Armistice to the Diplomatic Service is 59, to the salaried Consular Service is 112, to the unsalaried Consular Service is 74. All are British subjects with the exception that five of the unsalaried Consular officers are of foreign nationality, namely, three Norwegian, one Swiss, and one American, all of whom have been appointed to unsalaried posts in their countries of origin in the absence of a suitable resident British subject.

  RUSSIA.

    EASTERN SIBERIA.
    3. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any further statement regarding the position in Eastern Siberia and the Maritime Province; whether an elected Government is established in this area or in Vladivostok; and, if so, what are its relations with His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is that Nikolaevsk has been occupied by Japanese forces; otherwise no internal change has taken place in the situation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, the relations between the local Government and His Majesty's Consul at Vladivostok
    218
    are of an unofficial nature; I understand that its relations with the Japanese Government are of the same kind, though I have no very definite information on this point.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will this House be informed of the whole policy of our Japanese Allies, in view of the great importance to trades and to the Empire?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a question which should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

    BRITISH MILITARY MISSIONS.
    18. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the whole of the British military and air mission has now been withdrawn from the Ukraine and the Crimea; and whether they are on their way home to England direct?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The withdrawal is now in progress. As regards the second part of the question, the personnel of the Mission as withdrawn is being concentrated at Constantinople, and will be sent home from there direct.

    KIEFF.
    24. Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War in what capacity the British officers who are reported to have been present at the capture of Kieff and to have denied the destruction of Vladimir Cathedral were there?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: British officers were present with the Polish forces, for the purpose of obtaining information for the use of the British Government.

    PERSIA (SOVIET CONSUL).
    6. Mr. LAWSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consul of the Soviet Republic at Meshed, in Persia, was arrested by British troops last year; and whether this is a violation of international law whilst Persia is an independent State?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Inquiries are being made, and a further reply will be given to the hon. Member in due course.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    OIL.
    7. Mr. C. WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to impose an indemnity on Turkey; and, if so, if a sum of money equal to the price paid to Turkey for the exploitation of the oil of the Baghdad and Mosul vilayets will be paid out of this indemnity to the Arab State which is to be set up?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): In reply to the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the official summary of the Financial Clauses of the Turkish Treaty, which appeared in the Press of 12th May. So far as information is available, no payments for the oil rights referred to were made to the Turkish Government.
    8. Mr. WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount of the oil of the Baghdad and Mosul vilayets was conceded before the War by Turkey to a British or part-British company?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Assurance given by the Turkish Government before the War to the Turkish Petroleum Company covered the whole of the oil rights in the two vilayets mentioned.
    Mr. WHITE: Was a concession to exploit all the oil in the Baghdad and Mosul vilayets ceded before the War to a company?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think that if the hon. Member refers to a statement made by the Prime Minister he will see that point is covered.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the great importance of this matter, why cannot the House be given the information as to concessions made before the War by the Turks to private companies in this country?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The matter was dealt with by the Prime Minister yesterday. I do not see why it is necessary to repeat it.
    9. Mr. RAFFANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the group in which the Turkish Petroleum Company has been merged; and what share of the capital of this undertaking is held by the nationals of various states, respectively?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not aware of the Turkish Petroleum Company having been merged in any group. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    10. Mr. RAFFANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any director of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is also a director of the undertaking in which the Turkish Petroleum Company has been merged?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As stated in reply to the previous questions, I am not aware that the Turkish Petroleum Company has been merged in any other undertaking.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS.
    11. Mr. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for War how many non-commissioned officers and men of the old Regular Army were granted commissions during the War; and how many have subsequently resigned their commissions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of permanent combatant commissions granted to Warrant Officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular Army during the War was 6,720, and of these 2,662 have retired or resigned.

    RE-ENLISTED PENSIONERS.
    12. Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary of State for War the number of men drawing pensions for wounds received during the recent War who have re-enlisted and are now in combatant units and cavalry regiments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is it possible to get the information?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be difficult, and would add to the burdens imposed upon the War Office staff at present. We are endeavouring to contract the staff as much as possible. We are doing six times the pre-War work with four times the pre-War staff. I have, therefore, to be very careful in regard to returns, unless there be a very definite need of them. If the hon. Gentleman will make out a case for special investigation, I will let him know what can be done.

    KING'S LIVERPOOL REGIMENT (PRIVATE G. CUBITT).
    15. Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private George Cubitt, No. 115,463, King's Liverpool Regiment, was demobilised on 21st October, 1919, and given a protection certificate at No. 1 Dispersal Unit, Prees Heath; that it was afterwards found he had been demobilised in error and notice was sent to him to rejoin his regiment; that the secretary of the Haslingden branch of the National Association of Discharged Soldiers applied, on behalf of Private Cubitt, to his headquarters for an explanation, and that no reply was forthcoming for a considerable time; that the local police authority advised Private Cubitt to remain at home pending further information; and that when he was arrested and court-martialled he was awarded field punishment and had to forfeit 90 days' pay; is he aware that the facts have been placed before his Department to obtain a remission of the sentence, as the mistake was occasioned solely by the War Office, and that this request has been refused; and will he have the case reconsidered?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that this soldier enlisted on 20th December, 1918, for a period of seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve. In October, 1919, he was sent from France to the United Kingdom to serve at home. In accordance with the usual practice he passed through a dispersal station on arrival home, and was sent on 28 days' furlough. He was issued with a protection certificate at the dispersal station in error. When this was discovered orders were twice issued for him to rejoin his depot, and as he did not comply with these orders he was eventually apprehended by the civil power. He forfeited 90 days' pay by Royal Warrant for the period of his absence. He was not court-martialled, but was awarded 96 hours' detention by his commanding officer. He did not undergo field punishment.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman say which is the most facile way of getting these cases settled—by question, or by letter to the War Office?

    WAR OFFICE, FORAGE DEPARTMENT.
    16. Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Secretary of State for War
    222
    whether full information will be distributed to farmers as to the arrangements made by the War Office to carry on the business of the Forage Department which ceases to exist at the end of the present month; what steps will be taken for the removal of forage purchased by the extinct Department but not yet removed; whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. C. W. Parker, of Peakes, Bradwell-on-Sea, from whom 50 tons of straw was purchased on the 6th January, 1919; whether this straw is still, after 18 months, obstructing the farmyard of the vendor, hindering his operations and the production and storage of home-grown food; and whether this straw will be removed in time to make room for the coming harvest?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): For some months past the baling and removal of forage has been entrusted to General Officers Commanding the various military commands, who have been instructed to bale and remove stacks as far as possible, but the work has been much hampered by the lack of transport facilities. My attention had not previously been drawn to the straw purchased from Mr. Parker, but I would point out that, in accordance with the usual practice, he is being paid interest at 5 per cent. on whatever portion of the estimated purchase price has remained unpaid, together with a further sum, amounting to 10 per cent. of the full estimated purchase price, to cover rental, loss in weight, etc.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Will my hon. Friend state how the payment of interest to the farmer in question will assist the production of food when the man's stackyard is being burdened for eighteen months with material belonging to the War Office, which should have been removed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's answer is satisfactory to Mr. Parker. in that he gets 5 per cent.; but how is that satisfactory to the taxpayer, who has to pay the 5 per cent. on materials that should have been removed years ago?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot decide the question as to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. As a matter of fact we are endeavouring to remove this forage, but it, has been difficult, as

    223
    transport has been short. The Forage Department is being disbanded and the officers are doing their best.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this straw, which is obstructing the farmyard, is removed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will have further inquiries made.

    DIRECTORATE OF GRAVES REGISTRATION.
    17. Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for War whether temporary officers serving in the Army of Occupation under the Directorate of Graves Registration and Inquiries will be retained in the Army after the 31st July or be employed in a quasi-civilian capacity by the Imperial War Graves Commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Directorate of Graves Registration and Inquiries will not close down by 31st July, and a certain number of temporary officers will be retained in the Army after that date, in order to carry the work to an early conclusion.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that full notice is given to the officers before any change is made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter before me, and I have just asked that the longest possible notice should be given.

    ARMY RESERVE.
    The following Question stood on the Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy:
    "To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to enrol some 20,000 ex-soldiers as an Army Reserve; what are the reasons for this increase of His Majesty's Army; what is the estimated annual cost of this Reserve; and what will be the estimated annual cost when it is called to the colours?"
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been asked to postpone this question.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I only wish to give a more general answer, to show that this is not an addition to the Army, but much less than the provision made in the Estimates.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    25. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has anything yet to say respecting David Jenkins, a conscientious objector, who was recently arrested by the military authorities and taken to Brecon barracks, and is now awaiting court-martial; and if he will say on what grounds this man has been arrested by the military authorities 19 months after the signing of the Armistice?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This man was arrested by the police because he was a deserter. The circumstances of the case were referred to the War Office and, in view of the fact that Private Jenkins signed an admission that he was the deserter named in the proceedings before the magistrate, a protecting certificate under the provisions of paragraph 518 of the King's Regulations was authorised.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can other people in similar positions also secure immunity from arrest?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, but each case must be judged on its merits, and exceptional circumstances justify exceptional procedure; but, broadly speaking, if a man signs a confession of having been a deserter and is identified as such, then, unless there is something quite out of the usual, we issue a protection certificate, having regard to the fact that the War has been over for some time.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that if a man desert from the Army, all he has to do is to sign a confession, and he gets a certificate?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; this refers to persons who deserted during the period of the War.
    Mr. BILLING: Is not that much worse?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Though it is much worse, in view of the time that has elapsed and other circumstances, a protection certificate is not withheld. It is not desirable that these men should be at large in the population with this hanging over their heads, and not knowing what to do or how to qualify for any civil status. It is a difficult case to decide.
    Mr. PALMER: Are there no men suffering imprisonment for desertion during the War?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, and some men were shot.
    Mr. PALMER: Are those men to be kept in custody?
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Are there cases where a protection certificate is issued in error?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This certificate was not issued in error. It was issued in compassion.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that any man who succeeded in escaping arrest during the War is now to be let go free, while those who were less cunning and who were captured are in prison?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that this man was doing alternative service, and after the Armistice he deserted thinking that that terminated the necessity for doing alternative service, and is it not to persons in that position that certificates are issued?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He has got his certificate, and why does he trouble us any more?
    Mr. BILLING: May I have an answer to my question as to whether those who escaped during the War are to be allowed to go free and those who did not are to be kept in prison?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I carefully safeguarded myself from any such inference. Obviously, something in the nature of a statute of limitations will have to come into operation.
    Mr. PALMER: Might not a general amnesty be made?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a further question.

    INTERNED OFFICERS (FIELD ALLOWANCE).
    26. Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Army and Royal Air Force interned during the War were credited with field allowance while so interned?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Interned officers of the Army and Royal Air
    226
    Force were entitled to continue to draw field allowance if they were already in receipt of the allowance at the time of internment.

    TROOPS (MIDDLE EAST).
    32. Dr. D. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of troops in the Constantinople area on 1st April and on 23rd June respectively; and how many troops were in course of transport to that area on the latter date?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I do not think it desirable to disclose the exact strength of British forces in this theatre of actual military operations.
    33. Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of troops in Mesopotamia and North-West Persia respectively on 1st April and 23rd June?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see the same objection to giving information in regard to Mesopotamia. Although there is fighting going on there, it is of a sporadic character, and I do not think any harm would be done by giving the numbers asked for.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Why? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, knowing that there are actual operations pending in this area, it is advisable to give the enemy the assistance that is suggested.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who is the best judge of that?
    HON. MEMBERS: Not you!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the right course for the Minister responsible to take is to give all possible information to the House without saying, in fact, how many men are in particular garrisons. I do not think it does any harm to show what is the general position of our forces in Mesopotamia.
    Sir J. REMNANT: In spite of the wishes of the whole House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As a matter of fact the figures have been laid before Parliament in printed documents, and there

    227
    has been very little change, as will be seen when I read them out.

    —

    MESOPOTAMIA.

    N.W. PERSIA.

    British Army, All Ranks.

    Indian Army, All Ranks.

    British Army, All Ranks.

    Indian Army, All Ranks.

    1st April, 1920

    11,450

    57,900

    1,050

    10,100

    23rd June, 1920 (Approximately.)

    9,800

    55,500

    3,700 (Including troops in Summer Camp at Karind.)

    10,500

    The figures for the Royal Air Force are:—

    —

    Mesopotamia.

    N.W. Persia.

    On 28th March

    49 officers

    4

    548 other ranks

    13

    318 natives

    9

    On 14th June (latest return).

    75 officers

    5

    562 other ranks

    26

    307 natives

    5

    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if that number includes followers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MOTOR CARS).
    13. Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made in evidence in a recent case that the chaffeur of a Government motor car, who ran into a woman, had been driving him shortly before the accident; and can he say whether the pledge of the Government that, in the interests of economy, no Minister should continue to use motor cars at the taxpayers' expense has been carried out so far as his Department is concerned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A certain number of motor cars are allocated to the War Office, and the Secretary of State is entitled to the use of one of these cars when he requires it for official purposes.
    The strength of troops in Mesopotamia and North-west Persia, respectively, on the dates specified are as follows:—
    Mr. PALMER: Did we not understand from the Leader of the House that Ministers were not to use motor cars which were employed at the expense of the State and the taxpayer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. No Minister was to have a motor car allocated to him, but a Minister who had to do public duty at any time was entitled to use a conveyance.
    Mr. PALMER: Therefore you abrogate the new rule, because a Minister can use a motor car whenever he chooses, and that might be all the time.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. That would not be in accordance either with the spirit or with the letter of the arrangement.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many cars are in the pool?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I could answer that if the question were put down. The number is not very large. War Office officials have to go on different journeys near London, and often a whole day would be lost if no conveyance were available.
    Mr. PALMER: Is it not a fact that these conveyances were not available before the War, and are we not now at peace?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: To my mind it is a delusion to suggest that the cause of economy would be served by denying Government Departments the reasonable use of facilities for rapid communication, such as are provided by the motor car and the telephone.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Could not War Office officials hire cars, or use taxis, instead of keeping cars doing nothing?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the cars are kept doing nothing. Very few cars are kept, and they are used only for official purposes. On these occasions we use them only for strictly official purposes. I am of opinion that a certain number of cars attached to a Department are necessitated by modern conditions. It is quite true that there were no cars allocated to Departments before the War, but there were then hardly any motor cars.
    Mr. PALMER: What! Hardly any motor cars in 1914!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole development of the motor car is quite a recent one. You might as well say that telephones were not installed in Departments before a certain date.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is not so much the use of the cars as the Minister who uses them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CURRAGH CAMP (DISCHARGES).
    14. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of ex-service men were recently engaged to work at the Curragh camp in Ireland, and undertook to work 66 hours a week; whether objection was taken by some local civilian painters as to the number of hours worked by these ex-service painters; whether the matter was referred to the engineer officer in charge; whether the result was that the ex-service men were discharged and lost their job; and whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which these men were dismissed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A number of painters, about 23 per cent. of whom were ex-service men, were, in the absence of suitable local labour, engaged from Dublin for service at the Curragh from time to time subsequently to November last. The weekly hours of work, which up to 1st April last were 66, were from
    230
    that date reduced to 60, as it was found that the longer hours were not conducive to satisfactory work. In order to ensure more efficient supervision a further reduction to 47 hours per week (the normal hours in this locality for other tradesmen) appeared expedient, and was effected on 8th ultimo. In consequence of this the trade society to which the men belonged are understood to have withdrawn the men. No men were dismissed, and there is no good ground for belief that the alteration of working arrangements was in any way the consequence of representations made to the commanding Engineer officer.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Does the hon. Gentleman say that these men left voluntarily, and were not dismissed at all?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have said so
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that when there is a Bill before the House for a 48-hour week—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Waddington. [See Col. 221.]

    GRETNA FACTORY.
    30. Major WILLIAM MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is increasing distress and unemployment among ex-service men hitherto employed at Gretna factory and living in that locality; and whether he will consider if any steps can be taken to secure temporary employment in the factory for these men until the future use to which the factory will be put has been finally decided upon?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think that the number of ex-service men formerly employed at His Majesty's factory, Gretna, who are now out of employment can be considerable. 33 per cent. of the total number of employés at present at the factory are ex-service men. I am afraid that there is little prospect of absorbing much additional labour at the factory as the existing employés are sufficient to cope with peace-time requirements for cordite. This factory is not adapted for alternative work on any considerable scale. The question of the future of Gretna is at present receiving close consideration.
    41. Major MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether a number of ex-service men resident in Gretna have represented to him that they have been waiting for a long period for settlement in small holdings upon Government land in that neighbourhood; and whether he will now instruct the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to carry through a scheme of settlement upon the land in question?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have received from my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a letter addressed to him which contains a representation of the nature referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I am informed that the negotiations in connection with the proposals to which I referred in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 30th March last have reached an advanced stage. I hope they will be concluded at an early date.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    49. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that great delay is occurring in the equipment of the small holdings of approved ex-service men, and that at the present rate of progress no buildings for the men or their stock will, in most instances, be available before the winter; and whether, under these circumstances, he will issue instructions that the small-holding committees of the county councils shall be granted the same privileges for the free acquisition of huts and material from the Disposal Board for the assistance of these ex-service men as are now accorded to the Territorial Force associations for the housing of the Territorial Force?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): In the present state of the building trade, some delay in the erection of new cottages and farm buildings is inevitable, but the county councils and the Ministry are arranging, wherever practicable, to adapt existing buildings in order to settle ex-service men on the land as quickly as possible. In view of the fact that the whole of any losses incurred on land settlement schemes falls to be met from public funds, there would not appear to be any object in allowing discount in respect of huts acquired by county councils for this purpose.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I be assured by my right hon. Friend that, as a matter of fact, he can get enough huts from the Disposal Board to put these ex-service men on the land?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, as far as possible, but I do not think that hutting men for land settlement is a good solution of the problem.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I quite agree.

    DISTURBANCES, JERUSALEM (MR. JABOTINSKY).
    19. Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state under what circumstances Mr. Jabotinsky was conducted to prison and the conditions of his imprisonment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that Mr. Jabotinsky was conducted to prison under the escort of a British officer, and travelled first class by rail to Haifa. He walked from the station to the civil gaol, which is quite near, and there spent the night in separate quarters. He proceeded by train the following morning to Acre, and then in a motor ambulance from the station to the civil goal, where he was handed over to the civil authorities by the British officer escorting him. He is confined in division 2 (simple confinement), and is in separate quarters. He is allowed to wear his own clothing and has his own bedding. Any food he wishes may be sent to him. He is allowed exercise in the open every two hours under supervision; facilities for bathing and medical treatment by a doctor from outside the prison if necessary. He has facilities for reading and studying. His wife visits him twice a week, and he is allowed interviews with Zionist friends at any time.
    Brigadier-General COLVIN: Is it not the fact that Mr. Jabotinsky rendered great service to this country during the War, both in the field and on the platform, and was he not quite justified in taking steps to protect himself and the Jews in Jerusalem from threatened attacks of the Arabs?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A British tribunal has found otherwise, and that has been

    233
    the opinion of Lord Allenby. The sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment has been reduced to one year, and is being served under the extremely modified conditions which I have described in detail to the House, and which I took the trouble to have telegraphed to me.
    Brigadier-General COLVIN: Will an inquiry be made into the whole circumstances?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The High Commissioner has gone out to Palestine, and Sir Herbert Samuel will have an apportunity of reviewing this, among other cases, after consultation with Lord Allenby and the authorities on the spot. I am not called upon to anticipate in any way the conclusions he may come to.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not an inquiry being held into the occurrences at Jerusalem, and will not Mr. Jabotinsky's imprisonment depend on the result of that inquiry; and when may we expect the result of it?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (CAPTAIN A. BAKER).
    27. Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain A. Baker, Royal Field Artillery, applied for a gratuity under Article 572 (a), 1914, he having rejoined as a sergeant-major on the outbreak of War, and subsequently received his commission; whether Captain Baker claimed for 13 years' service, and was his claim cut down by one year according to a letter sent to him by the Financial Secretary on the 16th instant, the reason being that he had served one day less than 13 years; whether this means to the officer in question the loss of £150; and is he aware that such treatment is common not only among officers, but also among the rank and file who claim service pensions?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir. The regulations base the grant upon the number of completed years' service, as do most regulations relating to pensions and similar matters. The same is the case with premiums payable in life insurance. It is not practicable in such cases to depart from the definite rule that a year
    234
    means an entire calendar year, as if a concession were made for 364 days the hardship would only be transferred to the case of 363 days and so on.

    SERVICE PENSIONS.
    28. Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Secretary of State for War why, in view of the numerous complaints of men who made many sacrifices during the War, and who are now suffering under what they now consider to be a serious injustice, modified service pensioners who are in receipt of service pensions under Army Order 330 (1918), assessed under Article 1151, Pay Warrant, have not been granted the increase under Army Order 325 (1919); and whether he will consider the desirability of including them under that order according to length of service?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I understand that the case of these men is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, to whom any further questions should be addressed.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (EX-SAPPER H. VOKINS).
    44. Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has yet been arrived at in the case of ex-Sapper H. Vokins, No. 133,220, Royal Engineers (Electrician), Chatham Depôt, whose claim for an alternative pension, based on pre-War earnings of £2 15s., average of 12 months, has awaited decision since 13th September, 1919?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Mr. Vokins has failed to substantiate his claim to an alternative pension, as required by Article 3 of the Royal Warrant, and his application has, therefore, after exhaustive and careful inquiry, been refused.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY(RECRUITING).
    29. Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ask the mayors of the London boroughs who have refused to co-operate in the raising of recruits for the Territorial Army to resign their membership of the London Territorial Association, so that persons who will be prepared to assist the association may be appointed in their places?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a matter for the Territorial Force Association, which appoints its own members.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT STATION, FINCHLEY.
    34. Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Air if the anti-aircraft station at Great North Road, Finchley (corner of Summer's Lane, opposite Granville Road), is still in existence; and, if so, what useful purpose it serves, how many men are employed therein, and what are their duties, if any?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A certain amount of anti-aircraft equipment is stored at this anti-aircraft station, and men are employed to safeguard it and keep it in a serviceable condition. There are also the remnants of a London anti-aircraft defence centre, and the personnel are awaiting absorption into the future Air Defence Organisation as soon as the details are settled. The number of officers is 7 and other ranks 26. Proposals are at present under discussion for the removal of the detachment and stores.

    MOTOR CAR ACT (INFRINGE MENTS).
    35. Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many police controls were in operation in the Metropolitan police area for detecting infringements of the Motor Car Act between a.m. 26th June and p.m. 28th June; how many police officers were employed; and with what success?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): There were 115 controls during the three days; 73 officers were employed, and 165 cases were reported for prosecution.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is not this giving information to the enemy?
    Mr. RAPER: Cannot the hon. Gentleman see his way to increase the speed limit, in view of the great alteration in—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a separate question.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman give instructions at the Home Office to see that all these traps are laid at dangerous corners and places where excessive driving is a common danger?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.
    Mr. HOLMES: How many times does the Noble Lord's name appear in the 165?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (WAR SERVICE).
    36. Sir J. REMNANTasked the Home Secretary if any compensation has been given to all members of the Metropolitan Police Force who served during the War for leave during that period, either by way of additional leave or a money allowance?
    Sir J. BAIRD: Men who served during the War in the Army or Navy received, while so serving, the leave to which they were entitled under the arrangements in force in the Army and Navy. They cannot claim, in addition to this, police leave for the time they were absent from the police service.
    Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask whether it is not a fact that men serving in the Metropolitan Police to-day are actually in receipt of additional leave as a substitution for the leave which they lost during the War, and if so, whether the Home Secretary can give compensation, either in the way of additional leave or in some other way, to the men who served during the War, but retired since the Armistice?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I think my hon. Friend is mixing up two things. If I understand him, does he not refer to men continuing to serve in the police during the War and therefore had arrears of leave due to them under the Police Regulations? These men certainly are getting extra leave now, so far as circumstances will permit, but their case is not on all fours with that of men serving in the Army and Navy and getting the same leave as other men in the Army and Navy.
    Sir J. REMNANT: I think the hon. Gentleman is the one who is mixed. I—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are entering into a debate.

    ALIENS (RE-ADMISSION, GREAT BRITAIN).
    37. Mr. KILEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under the Allied Conventions a number of French, Italian and Russian subjects who are domiciled here with their families left Great Britain for their respective countries; whether he is aware that those of French or Italian origin have been freely allowed to return to Great Britain, whilst admittance of those of Russian origin have been refused on the grounds that instructions to this effect have been issued by the British Government; and will he state under what Law men domiciled in this country are not allowed to return to their wives and families, many of whom are of British birth and who are now kept by the British taxpayer?
    Sir J. BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No distinction is made between French, Italians and Russians on the ground of nationality if they left in order to serve in the Allied armies; but, as there is reason to know that many Russians left this country professedly to serve in the Russian army but really to evade military service, such men are not re-admitted unless they show they have actually served in an Allied army. The law on the subject is contained in the Aliens Restriction Acts. 1914 and 1919, and the Aliens Order, 1920, Article 1.
    Mr. KILEY: May I ask how these men are able to show that they have fought in the Russian Army, seeing that when they arrived in that country it was in a state of revolution?
    Sir J. BAIRD: They have to satisfy the Consuls in order to get a visa before they can start on their journey.
    Mr. KILEY: But if the country was in a state of revolution, was it not impossible for the men to join the army?
    Sir J. BAIRD: There has always been a force fighting, one for the Allies and one against the Allies, and they could join either one or the other.
    Mr. MALONE: How do they get a visa?

    CONVICTS (WAR SERVICE).
    38. Brigadier - General SURTEESasked the Home Secretary if, at the beginning of and during the War, a number of incarcerated criminals volunteered to go to the front; how many, if any, were given that privilege on the condition that they returned to prison when their services were no longer needed; how many were rewarded and commended for bravery on the field; how many of the survivors returned to prison: how many of those allowed to retain their liberty were sufficiently provided for by the authorities to remove them from temptation; and how many have since been arrested and convicted for different offences?
    Sir J. BAIRD: A certain number of prisoners were released during the War to join the fighting forces, some as volunteers, others later under the Military Service Acts. Most, though not all, were men of previously good character who had served a substantial part of their sentence, and in no case was the condition imposed that they should return to prison when their services were no longer required. It is known that some of them earned military rewards for good service, but it has not, of course, been possible to keep records of their careers, and my right hon. Friend cannot give either the number rewarded or the number (which he believes to be small) of those convicted of subsequent offences.

    TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1913.
    39. Mr. RODGERasked the Secretary for Scotland if, in connection with the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, he will prepare and issue a list of voting areas, including parishes divided into separate areas, Section 15, Area (c), and wards in burghs comprised into one area, Section 15, Area (a), showing in each case the number of licences (public-houses, grocers, etc.); the estimated population; and the number of voters; and indicating areas where county councils or town councils have passed resolutions under Section 43 (18) of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, resolving not to distinguish local government electors in the spring or autumn register or both?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am prepared to have a table compiled and issued giving a list of "Areas" as defined in Section 15 of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, and, so far as practicable, the population of each "Area" according to the last Census. As the Register of Electors eligible for the purpose of polling under the Act will not be prepared, generally speaking, until later in the present year, it is impossible at present to give the number of such electors. I am prepared, however, to include in the table the number of electors in each "Area" for the purposes of a requisition under Section 5, together with the information referred to in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. Statistics showing the number of licences in all "Areas" could only be obtained by means of a special return involving much labour, and I do not feel able, as at present advised, to include such statistics in the proposed table. My hon. Friend will remember that statistics relating to the areas of burghs having separate licensing courts and counties are published in the Annual Reports on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland.

  HOUSING.

    SUBSIDY (SCOTLAND).
    40. Major W. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether private builders of workmen's houses in Scotland are required to submit the plans of such houses to the local authority not later than the 30th of this month in order to qualify for the increased subsidy; and, whether, if so, he will arrange to extend the period in question?
    Mr. MUNRO: The question of extending the period within which private builders may qualify for subsidy has been considered by the Government. The regulation requiring plans to be submitted by 30th June has been rescinded, and there is now no restriction as to date of submission of plans.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    71. Sir F. FLANNERYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if he can state the number of certificates which have been given under Section 1 of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Acts, 1918, by the Board of Agriculture that premises
    240
    were required for the occupation of a person engaged or employed in agricultural work of urgent national importance; whether such certificates have been frequently refused although applied for; whether he is aware that great hardship has arisen to farm workers and others owing to the difficulty of finding accommodation for living at a reasonable distance near their work; whether this disability has applied to many soldiers returned from the War and has seriously interfered with the cultivation of farms in Essex; and whether the Board of Agriculture would approve of such certificates being in future granted by the county agricultural committees instead of by the Department in London?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The number of certificates issued by the Ministry between the date of the passing of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, and the date of its repeal by the Act of December, 1919, was 22. In a number of cases applications for certificates were refused, but in every instance the Ministry obtained a full report from the County Agricultural Executive Committee before coming to a decision. In reply to the third part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that while the Bill was under discussion, an undertaking was given by the Minister in charge that no certificate would be issued except for most urgent reasons and subject to other accommodation being available for the person proposed to be evicted. There is no doubt that the restrictions imposed by the Act causes much inconvenience in agricultural districts, but the Ministry has no information that this is specially the case in Essex. The issue of certificates ceased with the repeal of the 1918 Act, but is proposed to be revived by the Increase of Rent Bill, under which the certificates may be issued by the County Agricultural Committees as well as by the Ministry.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    43. Mr. LAMBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, having regard to the fact that £6,400,000 has been spent on the national shipyards at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury, he will state the total tonnage and the market value of the

    241
    ships that have been commenced and completed at these yards, leaving out of account the ships being built when the yards were acquired by the Government?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Vessels with an aggregate deadweight tonnage of 15,312 tons and a market value of approximately £570,000 were in various stages of construction at the date of the acquisition of the yards at Chepstow by the Government, and subsequently completed. On the 2nd March, 1920, when these yards were taken over by private purchasers, it was estimated that approximately 24,200 tons, having a market value of approximately £710,000, had been worked into the three H Type and the six N Type vessels, of a total tonnage of about 74,000 tons, then under construction. Two of these vessels were in an advanced stage of construction, and one, the "War Glory," of 10,500 tons deadweight, was launched on the 21st April, 1920.
    Mr. PALMER: Then are we to understand that ships worth £710,000 have cost us £6,400,000?
    Colonel WILSON: My hon. Friend must not understand anything of the sort. That is the capital cost of the whole undertaking.

    S.S. "BRUSSELS."
    45. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the late Captain Fryatt's ship, the "Brussels," being sold, he will take steps to ensure that the proceeds of the sale shall be applied in establishing some memorial or endowing some seamen's institution with which the name of Captain Fryatt will be permanently associated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Government have decided to adopt the course suggested in the question, and the arrangements necessary to carry out their decision will be made.

    DEPARTMENTAL ANSWERS (POSTAGE).
    46. Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say whether any decision has been reached with regard to supplying Members with franked envelopes from Departments in order to enable
    242
    them to pass on Departmental replies to their correspondents free of charge?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As was promised by the Prime Minister, the subject has been very carefuly considered, but the Government have decided that it would not be desirable to adopt the course suggested in the question. If, however, any Member desires to save the cost of postage on such correspondence, it would be open to him, when forwarding a letter to the Minister concerned, to ask that a reply should be sent direct to the correspondent.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that scarcely any Member could feel confidence in these Departments that these letters would ever reach their correspondents; and, secondly, does my right hon. Friend mean that Ministers alone are to enjoy this privilege which they deny to every other Member of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The last question is a very old one. The position of Ministers is different in many respects. They enjoy larger salaries, for instance. With regard to the first part of the question, I hope the hon. Member is mistaken in not feeling confidence in the Departments.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House this assurance, that the Department will not only send a reply to the constituents in question, but will send a copy to the Member at the same time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like to have that considered. Of course, it would mean double postage, but I will consider that.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider putting ordinary Members of Parliament on the same footing as Ministers, and rely on them to pay their motor fines by means of franked envelopes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have never had that experience.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has my right hon. Friend observed that outside bodies are subsidising Members of Parliament, and increasing their salaries in order to enable them to meet their expenses? Does he think that desirable?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Assuming these Departments do as the right hon. Gentleman assures us they will do, and answer these questions correctly, what is the difference between their sending franked replies and sending them through Members?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is great administrative difficulty to begin with, and great danger of abuses arising.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Cannot Members of the House of Commons be trusted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not Members of the House of Commons. If these franks are sent they must be available in all Departments, and cases of abuse arising were discovered during the War.
    Mr. HOGGE: On account of the absolutely unsatisfactory nature of this reply, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    NATIONAL INCOME.
    47. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the Treasury to prepare an estimate or alternative estimates of the national income?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As stated in the answer given on 3rd June to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East, all estimates of national income involve a considerable amount of guess-work, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to give official endorsement to any particular estimate.

  IRELAND.

    HUNGER STRIKERS.
    48. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it is the considered policy of the Government to inform persons convicted of offences in Ireland who go on hunger strike that they must face the consequences of their action, he will state why, subsequent to the release in the middle of April of 66 hunger strikers from Mountjoy prison, of whom more than half had been convicted of various seditious and treasonable crimes, there has been a further release since that date of
    244
    16 prisoners who went on hunger strike after having been convicted by court-martial of various offences?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a question on this subject on the 21st June.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I have an answer why the Government, having declared they are not going to allow people who have been convicted out on hunger strike, they have, according to official answers, let out 16 in the last two months?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend's information, I presume, is derived from the answer to which I have referred, and to which I have nothing to add.

    INCOME TAX COLLECTION.
    54. Colonel ASHLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to secure the payment of Income Tax in many parts of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Carrick-on-Shannon (Nos. 1 and 2) district councils and board of guardians have refused to supply the supervisor of Income Tax with any particulars regarding assessments; that the Birr (No. 1) district council has decided that no information be given for Income Tax purposes; and that many other newly elected local bodies have passed similar resolutions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that all possible steps are being taken to ensure that all liability to Income Tax is assessed, and the duty collected without undue delay.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify that statement, and say what the steps are?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will amplify it to say that the Inland Revenue Authorities are generally successful in dealing with the grudging as well as the willing taxpayer. I suggest it is not beyond their ingenuity to deal with the passive resister.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is not the difficulty that they do not know which horse to back—the de facto or the de lege Government?

    DISTURBANCES IN FERMOY.
    Lord R. CECIL (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information as to the proceedings reported to have taken place at Fermoy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not received any official report at the War Office yet on this subject, but the Irish Office have handed me a telegram to the effect that plate glass and other windows in about 50 houses were broken in Fermoy last night by about 400 military men.
    Captain BENN: Will these occurrences be catalogued in the list of outrages published every week?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No doubt the House can judge of the value of that suggestion.

    ARMS (TRAFFIC) CONVENTION.
    50. Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister if the draft of the Arms (Traffic) Convention has been drawn up in its final form and approved by the Allied and Associated Powers; whether other nations have been officially invited to signify their assent and sign that instrument; whether the Government have any information as to the date by which it is possible to hope that this convention will be ratified by the great Powers; whether traffic in arms is being indulged in between many countries, irrespective of the fact that the draft of the convention has been signed as a provisional step towards final ratification; and whether the Government will undertake that British trade will not suffer as a result of the confusion at present obtaining through lack of decision on the part of various Government Departments?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Convention in question was signed by the representatives of practically all the Allied and Associated Powers in September, 1919, and has been laid before Parliament. Other nations have been invited to give an undertaking to adhere to the Convention when ratified by the signatories, and
    246
    in the meantime to observe its provisions, and this invitation has been accepted in several cases. I cannot at present forecast the date by which the Convention will be ratified by the great Powers. The protocol of the Convention was drawn up with a view to preventing any traffic in arms taking place contrary to the terms of the Convention, pending its ratification, but I understand that in some countries it is difficult, in view of the domestic legislation in force, to give full effect to the protocol. The question of undertaking a revision of the protocol, in order to meet the difficulty thus caused in securing a uniform application by the different countries of the terms of the Convention and protocol, is now under discussion with the principal Powers interested.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the meantime, is His Majecty's Government going to supply arms to anyone who wants them to fight with?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I deny the imputation.
    Lord R. CECIL: How many Powers have ratified, and are the Government making representations to those Powers who have not ratified?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I pointed out in the last part of the answer, the question of undertaking a revision of the protocol is under discussion in order to secure that.
    Mr. BILLING: Have the League of Nations been consulted, and have they been asked to take action in the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like notice of that.

    ALLIED CONFERENCE.
    51. Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister what reasons made it necessary for the French Premier to confer with him prior to the General Conference of the Allied Powers at Boulogne?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The advantage of an interchange of views between the Prime Ministers of the two countries is, I think, obvious.

  MUNITIONS.

    GOVERNMENT SURPLUS STORES.
    53. Mr. CLOUGHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the public criticisms, he will appoint a Select Committee of the House to visit the various munitions dumps, aerodromes, and similar places in the country in order to ascertain whether clearance of surplus stock can be expedited in the public interest?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any general public criticisms in connection with the disposal of surplus clearing stock, and His Majesty's Government do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by adopting the suggestion in the question. During the 18 months which have elapsed since the inception of the Disposal Board, a sum on the sale of surplus stock of £250,000,000 has been realised.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    55. Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of extra Government officials that it has been necessary to add in order to perform the new duties arising from the introduction of Imperial Preference; and what is the estimated amount of the additional cost?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No additional officials have been engaged specifically for purposes of Imperial Preference. The work forms an integral part of the ordinary duties of Customs and Excise officials, and it would be impossible to separate the cost of this one item from the rest.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Am I to understand from the answer that no extra officials have been engaged for this work?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think the answer is perfectly explicit.

  FINANCE BILL.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    56. Mr. GOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any estimate of the contingent liability of the Treasury for claims for repayment of Excess Profits Duty; whether his Budget
    248
    estimate of the expected yield of this duty is in any way affected by the present industrial depression; and whether the continuance and increase of this tax is largely responsible for the increasing unemployment amongst the working classes?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It has been a principle of the Excess Profits Duty throughout its life that when in any accounting period a deficiency of profit is sustained by a business, as compared with its standard of profit, the trader may claim a repayment out of the Excess Profits Duty previously paid by him, or a set-off against Excess Profits Duty subsequently payable. The amount of the repayment or set-off is equivalent, not to the amount of the deficiency, as has been recently suggested, but to a percentage thereof, the percentage being the same as the percentage rate of Excess Profits Duty in force in the period in which the deficiency is sustained. The experience of past years suggests that the cost to the Exchequer of this provision to be anticipated during the current financial year will approximate to £22,000,000. The cost is taken into account in all estimates of the net Exchequer receipt of Excess Profits Duty. Of course, if a long period of industrial depression were to set in, the future yield of all direct taxes, including the Excess Profits Duty, would be adversely affected.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Excess Profits Duty is just the thing that is going to produce industrial depression?

    INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (CREDIT FACILITIES).
    57. Mr. HOLMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the banks, on representations from him, have declined credit facilities to industrial undertakings and have called for a reduction of debit balances; whether he is aware that most industrial undertakings trade upon elasticity of credit and reasonably secured bank loans or overdrafts; and whether, in view of the necessity for continued production in order to avoid unemployment, he will suggest some means by which industrial concerns can obtain sufficient money or credit to enable them to satisfactorily maintain and, if possible, develop their trade?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a similar question on 12th May. The subject, obviously, does not lend itself to treatment in the form of question and answer.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this recommendation to the bankers to restrict advances even for trade purposes has had the effect of throwing an enormous quantity of Government stock upon the market and seriously depreciating its market value for sale?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Obviously it is very uncomfortable for the man with an over- draft.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that fact; if not, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not here to tell us?
    Mr. HOLMES: In view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is it not the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen the bankers since 12th May, when he gave his previous answer?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    PEMBREY FARM SETTLEMENT.
    72. Mr. SIDNEY ROBINSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture what money has been expended on the Pembrey farm colony and how many houses have been or are being erected on the estate and how many discharged soldiers have been settled in the colony or what prospect there is of any settlements being made?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The expenditure to date on the Pembrey settlement, including purchase money, is approximately £66,000. Twelve houses are in course of erection, and are approaching completion. Seventeen ex-service men and 2 ex-service women have been settled at Pembrey. In addition 20 civilians are employed there. The question of the future of this settlement has been discussed by a Departmental Committee, and their report is receiving the careful consideration of the Minister.
    Mr. ROBINSON: When shall we have the report of this Committee?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will circulate the report as soon as possible.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can my right hon. Friend say how much it has cost to settle each of these persons on a small holding; does it not work out at something like £3,000 apiece?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but the place is not completed£[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]£obviously! I have stated that a certain number of houses are building and have not yet been completed; until they are completed how on earth can we settle the men? But I put it to my right hon. Friend: would it not be much better to reserve the discussion until the report is published?
    Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish it to go forth to the country that it is costing us £3,000 a time to settle these men on the land£that is what he said just now?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly not; that is a complete misapprehension of what I said.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    WHEAT COMMISSION (PURCHASES).
    58. Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Food if he will state for each of the years 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1919 the quantities and values of wheat, flour, and other foodstuffs bought by the Wheat Commission; and the cost of the Wheat Commission for each of these years?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The answer to this question can be given more conveniently in the form of a statistical table. I will, therefore, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the information referred to:
    The quantities and values of wheat, Flour and other foodstuffs bought by the Wheat Commission are as follows:—
    (1) Purchases on behalf of the British and Allied Governments:—

    Tons.

    Value. £

    1916

    …

    2,042,000

    27,065,000

    1917

    …

    14,979,000

    211,081,000

    1918

    …

    16,531,000

    271,656,000

    1919

    …

    8,865,000

    155,017,000

    The above figures do not include freight and insurance, as the Wheat Commission was not responsible for such items of cost on shipments to destinations other than the United Kingdom.
    (2) In addition to the foregoing transactions, the following purchases on a cost freight and insurance basis were made for British account only:—

    Tons.

    Value.£

    1916

    …

    264,000

    4,298,000

    1917

    …

    870,000

    19,216,000

    1918

    …

    147,000

    3,027,000

    1919

    …

    Nil.

    Nil.

    The cost of salaries and establishment expenses of the Wheat Commission for the calendar years was as follows:—

    £

    1916

    …

    …

    …

    …

    460

    1917

    …

    …

    …

    …

    18,000

    1918

    …

    …

    …

    …

    120,000

    1919

    …

    …

    …

    …

    160,000

    SUGAR.
    61. Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the restrictions causing annoyance to the community and disturbance to traders for which the control of sugar is responsible, he can give any indication of its early removal?
    Mr. McCURDY: The answer is in the negative. I am aware that the equitable rationing among all classes of the community of the short supplies of sugar available may cause annoyance to some individuals and some disturbance to traders. But the abandonment of all attempts at equitable distribution might, I fear, lead to annoyance and disturbances of a much more serious character.

    LIVESTOCK COMMISSIONERS.
    62. Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Minister of Food the number of Livestock Commissioners; the salaries paid to these officials; and how long it is intended to employ them?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Ministry of Food employed 12 Livestock Commissioners in Great Britain, at salaries ranging from £600 to £1,000, the total annual cost being £9,100. The appointments of all these officers will terminate at the end of next month.

    FOOD COMMISSIONERS.
    63. Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Minister of Food the number of Divisional Food Commissioners, Divisional Deputy-Food Commissioners, and Assistant Food Commissioners employed by the Ministry and the salaries paid to them respectively; and whether he will indicate how many of them give their whole time to the duties of their office, and what is the difference in salary between whole-time and part-time officials?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Ministry of Food at present employs 11 Divisional Food Commissioners, 9 Deputy-Food Commissioners, and 48 Assistant Food Commissioners at an annual cost of £10,900, £5,800 and £19,593 respectively. All of these officers, with the exception of one Commissioner and three Assistant Commissioners, give their whole time to the Ministry of Food. In fixing the salaries paid to the latter, due consideration is paid to the amount of time given to the Ministry.

    DIRECTOR OF VEGETABLE SUPPLIES.
    64. Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Minister of Food the salaries of the Director of Vegetable Supplies, Deputy-Director of Vegetable Supplies, and the Director of Fish Supplies, respectively; and whether these are whole-time or part-time appointments?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Director of Vegetable Supplies serves the Ministry without remuneration. The post of Deputy-Director of Vegetable Supplies does not exist, and that of Director of Fish Supplies has lapsed owing to the reduction and reorganisation of the work of the Division.
    Mr. LAMBERT: What is the use of a Director of Vegetable Supplies£does he produce any vegetables?
    Mr. McCURDY: I think my right hon. Friend understands, without me giving him the information, that the functions of a director are not the same as those of an agricultural producer.

    PIG MARKET, YORKS.
    65. Mr. E. WOODasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction caused to farmers by the continuance of the present restrictions on York pig market; and when these restrictions will be withdrawn?
    Mr. McCURDY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not responsible for any restrictions on the slaughter or sale of pigs.
    Mr. WOOD: Can my right hon. Friend say who is responsible?

    DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NOTTINGHAM.
    66. Mr. ATKEYasked the Minister of Food if he will state the amount of salary paid to the District Commissioner at Nottingham; the nature of his duties; the number of staff employed; the amount of their salaries; how long it is proposed to maintain this establishment; whether he is aware that the continued occupation of premises requisitioned from the International University Society, in Westminster Buildings, Nottingham, is causing great inconvenience to that business; and will he give instructions to the District Commissioner to remove to the alternative premises which have been offered to him?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Divisional Food Commissioner receives a salary of £900 per annum. His duties consist of the general supervision of the distribution and prices of foodstuffs in his division and the administration of the Statutory Orders issued by the Food Controller. The number of staff employed at present is 66, at an annual cost of about £16,000. It is necessary to maintain a divisional staff so long as sugar rationing and statutory control in the case of particular commodities are continued. I would point out that the reorganisation of regional administration, which takes effect on the 30th of this month, will result in the work hitherto done by 1,848 local food control committees being done by about 490 local food offices and in a reduction in staff by 3,400. In the case of the North Midlands division, of which Nottingham is the headquarters, the regional staff will be reduced by more than half on the 30th June. This reorganisation places an additional burden for the time being on divisional headquarters, but a considerable reduction of this staff will be effected by the end of the year. The question of accommodation is one for His Majesty's Office of Works, but I am communicating with that Department as regards the representations made by the hon. Member, with a view to ascertaining if alternative accommodation could be found for the Divisional Commissioner.
    Mr. ATKEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how his Majesty's Office of Works controls the situation; and will he direct that Office to remove these gentlemen to alternative premises?
    Mr. McCURDY: I have no power to issue a mandatory injunction to the Office of Works, whose duty it is, not mine, to provide the premises in question; but I am in communication with them upon the question.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Could not the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Director to the Office of Works?

    OFFICIALS (NUMBER).
    69. Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Food the number of officials employed in the Sugar Department and in the Bread and Flour Department of the Ministry, respectively?
    Mr. McCURDY: The number of officers employed in the Sugar Distribution Branch of the Ministry is 12, and the number in the Flour and Bread Section of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies is eight.
    70. Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Food whether he can state the number of the staff employed at 96, 98, and 100, Cromwell Road, at Grosvenor House, Upper Grosvenor Street, at 35, Park Street, W., at Palace Chambers, Westminster, and at the New County Hall, respectively; and whether it is necessary to retain all these premises for the accommodation of the officials of the Ministry?
    Mr. McCURDY: The premises formerly occupied by the Ministry of Food at Upper Grosvenor Street and New County Hall were surrendered some time ago. The numbers employed at the other premises referred to by the hon. Member are as follows

    Cromwell Road

    …

    …

    357

    Grosvenor House

    …

    …

    239

    35, Park Street

    …

    …

    57

    Palace Chambers

    …

    …

    996

    Arrangements are under contemplation for the surrender of Grosvenor House next month and for distributing the staff at present housed there between 35, Park Street, Palace Chambers, and Cromwell Road, respectively.

    FERTILISERS.
    73. Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture what is the reason for the increase in the price of fertilisers, and especially of basic slag; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of limiting the exportation of basic slag in order that an ample supply may be available for this country at reasonable prices?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The reason for the increase in the price of fertilisers is the increased cost of production and enhanced demand. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the prices which have been fixed for fertilisers for the 1920–21 season (which has only been done in the case of sulphate of ammonia and basic slag) are prices reached by agreement, and are not fixed by the exercise of any legal powers. In the case of basic slag, the relatively large advance in price is accounted for by the fact that there has been practically no advance for the last two years. In regard to the last part of the question, the exportation of basic slag is, at present, severely restricted; a Bill is now before Parliament under which powers are sought to continue this restriction in respect of basic slag and of other fertilisers.

    EAST AFRICA (REPATRIATION OF GERMANS).
    74. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if German planters, ranchers, and missionaries, settled for many years in German East Africa, and against whom no charges have been brought, are being expelled from the former German dependency and their propery confiscated without compensation; and whether these alleged proceedings have the sanction of the League of Nations, from which the British Government presumably holds a mandate for administering that country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): Article 122 of the Treaty of Peace provides that the Governments exercising authority over the late German Colonies may arrange for the repatriation of German nationals and the disposal of their property. Under the terms of this Article steps are being taken for the re-
    256
    patriation of the German nationals remaining in the Tanganyika territory, but exceptions may be made in cases where the Administrator considers this desirable. As provided in Article 297 of the Treaty, steps are being taken to liquidate the estates in the territory belonging to German nationals. Under the same Article the owners will have a right to be compensated by the German Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we do not respect the rights of property of the Germans in East Africa, how can we insist upon the Russians respecting our rights in their country?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that these unfortunate German settlers are absolutely ruined, and their property is sold? Who buys their property?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Their properties are sold by public auction, and they have a right of redress through the German Government.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is there not a great deal of misgivings amongst British residents in East Africa?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir. I have not heard of it. No doubt there may be cases of considerable hardship.
    Captain W. BENN: Do we understand that the Government is seizing the property of religious missions?
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that the German missionaries were the principal German agents during the War?

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES (CHAR-WOMEN).
    75. Viscount CURZONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will grant a Return showing the number of charwomen employed in each Government office on the 1st of June, 1914, 1919, and 1920?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has collected the information from the various Departments, and proposes, with the Noble

    257
    Lord's permission, to have the Return printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the return mentioned:
    List showing the number of charwomen employed by each Government Office on 1st June, 1914, 1919 and 1920.

    Department.

    Charwomen employed.

    June, 1914.

    June, 1919.

    June, 1920.

    Ministry of Pensions

    Nil.

    426

    366

    Ministry of Shipping

    Nil.

    41

    41

    Home Office

    28

    31

    32

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    14

    14

    14

    Lord Privy Seal

    Nil.

    1

    1

    H.M. Stationery Office

    8

    22

    22

    Privy Council Office

    19

    19

    19

    Irish Office

    2

    2

    2

    Board of Education

    48

    48

    57

    War Cabinet and Committee of Imperial Defence.

    3

    27

    22

    India Office

    5

    6

    6

    H.M. Treasury

    16

    16

    20

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    28

    72

    74

    War Office

    98

    402

    379

    Civil Service Commission

    15

    16

    13

    Ministry of Transport

    Nil.

    Nil.

    48

    Air Ministry

    Nil.

    182

    170

    H.M. Office of Works

    36

    50

    59

    Royal Mint

    8

    9

    9

    Colonial Office

    15

    17

    17

    Ministry of Munitions

    Nil.

    489

    287

    Paymaster General's Department.

    6

    8

    9

    Duchy of Lancaster

    Nil.

    Nil.

    1

    Post Office

    574

    621

    633

    Board of Customs and Excise.

    25

    26

    29

    Office of Woods

    8

    10

    10

    Ministry of Health

    94

    131

    151

    Board of Control (Lunacy)

    6

    6

    6

    Imperial War Graves

    Nil.

    8

    12

    Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.

    2

    5

    5

    Foreign Office

    10

    37

    43

    Charity Commission

    6

    6

    6

    Admiralty

    96

    463

    314

    Public Trustee

    1

    34

    47

    Ministry of Labour

    Nil

    323

    338

    Inland Revenue

    87

    101

    97

    Board of Trade

    107

    233

    195

    Scottish Office

    7

    7

    7

    Department of Overseas Trade.

    —

    5

    24

    Ministry of Food

    Nil

    99

    73

  BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY.

    APPOINTMENT OF LORD D'ABERNON.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHER (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the statement that a British Ambassador has been appointed to Germany; whether, in view of the fact that Germany has hitherto failed to carry out many of the most important and urgent provisions of the Peace Treaty as to the surrender of war material, disarmament, reparation and surrender of war criminals, and that drastic steps may become necessary to endorse these provisions, it is proper or desirable to appoint an Ambassador at the present time; and whether France and our other Allies have been consulted on the subject and with what result?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; Lord d'Abernon has been offered, and has accepted the post of British Ambassador in Germany. This appointment was made in pursuance of an agreement unanimously arrived at by the Allied Powers at the recent Conference at Boulogne, where the suggestion that Ambassadors should be sent to Berlin without further delay emanated from the French Government. The remaining Great Powers either have already made, or are about to make, similar appointments.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it not be possible to postpone these appointments until, at any rate, Germany has proved herself worthy to be admitted to the League of Nations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend does not perhaps know that we are already represented by a Charge d'Affaires, and the whole question is whether or not we should be better represented by an Ambassador.
    Colonel BURN: Is there any truth in the statement that Lord d'Abernon has been appointed against the views of the Foreign Office?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: None whatever. The name of Lord d'Abernon was first suggested by my Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary (Earl Curzon).
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Do the French Government also intend to appoint an Ambassador to Berlin.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that the suggestion that an Ambas-

    259
    sador should be appointed without delay was made by the French Government.
    Mr. BILLING: Have any instructions been given to accelerate the trial of the German war criminals in German?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH BILL,
  "to amend the Law with respect to the statutory limits on postal and telegraph rates, and with respect to the remuneration to be paid to railway companies for the conveyance of postal parcels, and otherwise to amend the Post Office Acts, 1908 to 1915," presented by Mr. ILLINGWORTH; supported by Mr. Pike Pease and Mr. Baldwin; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (CONTINUANCE) BILL, "to continue temporarily the office of Food Controller and to make further provision with respect to his powers, and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Mr. M'CURDY; supported by Mr. Munro, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Hugh Barrie, and Sir William Mitchell-Thomson; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,
  Seaham Harbour Dock Bill, without Amendment.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, with an Amendment.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
  Upper Mersey Navigation Bill,
  Wrexham District Tramways Bill,
  Swansea Corporation Bill,
  Wood Green Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the substitution of a memorandum and articles of association for the provisions of the contracts of co-partnery, royal charter, and private Acts now constituting and governing the
  260
  North British and Mercantile Insurance Company and for the registration of the company under the Companies Act, 1908 to 1917, as a company limited by shares; and for other purposes." [North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the acquisition and management by the urban district council of Exmouth for recreation and other purposes of lands and foreshore within their district; and for other purposes." [Exmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
  Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
  North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords],
  Exmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  EDINBURGH BOUNDARIES EXTENSION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee B: Mr. Baldwin.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This subject has been discussed already at some length on the occasions when the Money Resolution has been before the House upon which the Bill is founded, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to go into any long explanation of the objects of this Measure. I think that anything we can reasonably do to assist the shattered countries of Europe which have been disorganised by the War to rehabilitate their trade is an object which this House would agree to readily. If we can carry out the intentions of this Bill, we shall not fail to do something to assist substantially those countries. The most important thing is to get machinery and arrange the transport of articles of all kinds which will enable them to start various branches of trade in their country. Their difficulty is the position of the exchange, and the intention is to enable them to have a long credit of three years, so that, by the end of that time, they may reasonably hope to find the exchange improve in their direction and be able to pay what it is impossible for them to pay at the present rate of exchange. I suggest that this proposal is desirable in the interests of the commerce of Europe, and still more desirable in the wider interests of humanity. It is also likely to be efficacious to the trade of this country, because it will enable new channels of trade to be opened up in countries where we have not hitherto traded, and as those countries improve the trade with them, I hope, will develop to a considerable extent and prove very remunerative to the traders of this country. I should like to remind the House of certain steps which have already been taken in this direction by the United States of America, who have established a War Finance Corporation, which has 1,000,000,000 dollars to use for this purpose. If we allow other countries to step in in front of us and secure the trade of those countries, we shall find it very difficult later on to make our way there.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is it not the object of this American Corporation to serve any country with which American business men may wish to enter into relationship, and not merely a few selected countries?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure about that. At any rate, that corporation will work with a much larger sum than we are asking for, and it will, of course, cover any of the countries that are mentioned in the schedule of this Bill. The shares of this Corporation are held by the American Government and the Secretary to the Treasury is chairman. It is not a private concern but a Government concern. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two about the financial arrangements. In so doing I will answer a supplementary question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite as to the authority under which the money already spent in this direction has been extended. The House will remember that the Prime Minister, on the 18th August last, stated here that the Government had decided to advance £26,000,000 for this purpose, and that it was intended to put that proposal into the form of a Bill. It was, in fact, put into a Bill, the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill, which, however, was withdrawn, but Treasury sanction was given to the proposed operation of the Export Credit Department, and a Supplementary Estimate was passed in this House, on the 17th or 18th March, for a sum of £100,000, which more than covers the expenditure for that year. Provision has been made in the Estimates in the Unclassified Services for £2,000,000 for this purpose out of the £26,000,000 which we may ultimately spend in this direction.
  At present the amount spent is very small, something like £28,000. It is easy to understand why it is not larger. It is because trade has been so free in other directions that there has not been any necessity for traders to venture into undertakings where there is as large a risk as this involves. There has been circulated to this House a White Paper giving the conditions under which these credits will be granted. I will give an example of the way in which the scheme will work. A, we will say, is an exporter from this country; B is an importer in Rumania. A wants to sell to somebody in Rumania a machine which will cost,

  285
  together with insurance, freight and commission, £1,000. If he cannot get credit through his banker, or in any other way, and wishes to take advantage of this scheme, A would be introduced by his banker to the Export Credit Department. He will say that a man in Rumania is willing to buy his article for, say, £1,200, and is willing to put up a security through his bank in Rumania, with our agent in Rumania, either in currency or in some other form of security which is satisfactory to our agents, and to repay the whole amount with interest within a period not exceeding three years. If the Export Department is satisfied by their own agent out there, they will pay an amount representing 80 per cent.7—they cannot go beyond that—of the cost price, including freight, insurance and commission, which is charged to the exporter in order to cover the expenses of the Department, and any loss which the Department may be involved in owing to bad debts. When the money is repaid to the Department, as it comes in it will be paid in the proportion of four-fifths to the Government and one-fifth to the exporter until the Government's 80 per cent. is paid off, and then the rest goes to the exporter. I do not think I need go into further details, all of which are clearly set out in the White Paper, and I hope the House—
  4.0 P.M.
  Captain W. BENN: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling us about paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, referring to the business of insurance, and saying whether that includes insurance against variations of exchange?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No; against abnormal risks. It was originally adopted when there were greater risks than there are now, and it was intended to reassure traders who otherwise would be afraid of trading with countries where there was disturbance. As a matter of fact, only £15,000 has been insured, and there has been no loss. It is not intended in any way to go behind the ordinary insurance agents; it is merely intended to be a safeguard in case there be such disturbance in any country that the ordinary insurance agent will not take up the insurance except at a very prohibitive figure.
  Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now,"
  286
  and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I rise to move the rejection of the Bill, not, of course, on political grounds, and obviously not out of any hostility to the present Government, and much less to the Member of that Government who has introduced the Bill, and for whose invariable courtesy and hard work during the time that he has been at the Board of Trade we are all exceedingly grateful. We have never gone to him on any occasion without being received with courtesy and with attention. I very much regret to find myself in the position of being obliged to move the rejection of this Bill, but I do so purely as a business man and purely on business grounds. The objects of the Bill are to assist British trade and manufacture and to assist trade with specified countries whose names are mentioned in the Schedule. Of course, we all approve of those objects. There cannot be any doubt that if the State can legitimately assist British trade and manufacture, within limits we ought to do it, and there cannot be any doubt that each of the countries mentioned in the Schedule is a country where British trade is exceedingly desirable and where to a very large extent before the War that trade was with Germany. It is obvious that we ought to pick it up, to the advantage of our own trade and commerce, if there are any reasonable means of doing so. Consequently, though I entirely approve of these objects, yet there is a right way and a wrong way to do a thing of this kind. A Sub-Committee of the Commercial Committee of this House came unanimously to the conclusion, after carefully examining the whole situation, that the Board of Trade proposal was the wrong one. What does it involve? This Bill would set up at the Board of Trade a banking business with an initial capital of £26,000,000, provided by the country at a time when a sum of that amount is exceedingly important, and ought to be used in other directions, if it be not required in this direction. I do not think that it is, and I think the House will agree with me, when I have made my explanation of this project and how it ought to be carried out from a business point of view, that it is not necessary that the State should sink any portion whatever of this £26,000,000.
  The Board of Trade are going into banking business. They are going to

  287
  establish a very important bank with an initial capital bigger than that of any bank that has ever been started in this country. Necessarily, it will have to compete with existing banks in the financial market, and we have to ask ourselves whether we have any kind of experience of this sort of thing and whether anywhere an experiment has been tried from which we can learn any lessons. There has been such an experiment. It was tried in Germany for a period of from ten to twelve years before the War. They tried by a variety of means to carry out a scheme whereby the State could assist German traders and manufacturers. Eventually, after about two years experimental work, they perfected that scheme, and, when I tell the House that it enabled Germany in about ten years to double her foreign trade without finding a single penny of German money, I think it will probably agree that, if possible, these very desirable objects should be carried out in this country on similar lines and, without our setting up an enormous new Department necessarily with big salaries, because people do not manage banks on two or three hundred a year; you would have to get the best talent and pay very large salaries. We ought, in a matter of this importance, to take a lesson from experience, and I can only assume that the Board of Trade, in drawing up this scheme, have not known anything about that which was done in Germany during that period or, if there are any officials at the Board of Trade who knew about it, that they have not been consulted. What does this Bill do? It creates a new Department. The Board of Trade become bankers. They embark on a new line of business with a new army of officials, not only in London, but, as the hon. Gentleman has already pointed out, in each of the ten countries.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN indicated dissent.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: The hon. Gentleman forgets that a few moments ago he said that their agents or representatives would collect the proceeds of the goods and distribute them, one-fifth to somebody and four-fifths to somebody else. They could not go there and collect these moneys unless they were constituted agents or representatives. We are going to have all this paraphernalia of this new
  288
  Department and all these huge salaries, and I can see a new building about the size of the Foreign Office arising on some new site to take up the enormous Foreign Trade Banking Department of the country conducted by the Board of Trade and its officials. This is no time to make such new Departments. There is no necessity to enter into competition with the existing banks. The object should be to assist the existing machinery and not to replace it. We had a Debate a few weeks ago upon the Financial Resolution of this Bill. That Debate, in which a number of Members took part, disclosed the fact that in various parts of the House there were considerable misapprehensions as to the objects of the scheme and also as to the method of carrying it out. We now have the White Paper of the Board of Trade to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and it is called "Export Credits: Revised Conditions." We now know that the Board of Trade are to get £26,000,000 in British sterling, and we now know how they propose to deal with that money. I would, first of all, point out the countries to which the Bill refers. They are: Finland, Latvia, Esthonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Serb-Croat-Slovene-State, Rumania, Georgia, and Armenia. There are ten already, and the Board of Trade could add another ten. They take power by Order, which is to lie on the Table for a number of days, to add any other countries that they may see fit. Secondly as to the parties who are to receive the credits. Of course the new Bank could refuse to give facilities to any one or more of the countries that are named. Consequently, not a penny of this £26,000,000 might conceivably be used for any of these ten countries, but practically the whole of it might be used for some other ten countries of which we have not at present heard. That is an important matter, because everyone who is familiar with the practice of the House knows what becomes of Orders that lie on the Table for twenty-eight days. Both the Bill and these revised conditions disclose who are the parties to whom these credits may be given. We will take, first of all, the words of the Bill£
  "Persons domiciled in or companies incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom."

  289
  When we look in the conditions, we find, not the same words, but other words—
  "Individual firms or companies domiciled or incorporated in the United Kingdom."
  This may seem a small point, and probably it is; but the House will see that there is obviously an inconsistency, and I think it is important that we should know exactly who is going to get the money. There are many such concerns which are foreign concerns, but which, to some extent, are domiciled in the United Kingdom. For instance, there is a well-known Paris house which has a very large business in all these countries mentioned in the Schedule, and which has a domicile in London. Under the Bill it could not get an advance, but under the Board of Trade Regulations just out it could. Is it too much to suggest that, when we are specifying the people to whom this £26,000,000 may be advanced, there should be no inconsistency or difficulty whatever with regard to the exact people who are to be put in a position to receive the money?
  The third objection to this method of carrying it out is that there is a possibility of favouritism and discrimination. How are these credits to be allocated? The Bill says, "the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury, may make arrangements". The conditions say, "the Government are prepared to consider applications". Both of these statements make it clear that the application may be refused, and that is quite right. There are, no doubt, many cases in which such an application should be refused. On what principle, however, is it intended that such applications shall be dealt with? Is each of the ten countries to have £2,600,000? Not at all; that is negatived by the power to admit other countries. Is it possible that three of the ten countries might get all the £26,000,000, so that none would be left for the other seven? Are certain individual firms or specified companies to get a preference, and, if so, to what extent? Who is to be the judge? How is it to be carried out? Is it possible that some firms or people might so ingratiate themselves with this new Department as practically to get all there is? I do not know. In any case, both the Bill and the revised conditions leave this subject absolutely undetermined.
  Fourthly, there is a very strong objection as to the proportion of the money
  290
  that is to be advanced—it is to be a proportion of the cost price and not a proportion of the invoice price of the goods. We have to study these revised conditions, and what do we find? The British-domiciled proposing exporter has to make an application in writing, and he must give the exact cost of the goods—not the value, not what he is selling them for, but the exact cost. He is allowed to add to such cost (a) the freight; (b) the insurance; (c) the Overseas Trade Department's Commission. When the application is put in, and is entertained by the new Banking Department of the Board of Trade, the applicant has at the same time to hand to the Department a bill of exchange drawn upon the foreign importer. That bill, of course, will not be for the mere cost, or the freight, or the insurance, or the commission; obviously it must be for the full price at which the goods are being sold. That full price must also include all the profit and expenses of the transaction, and all the interest and charges for, say, three years. Therefore, the bill of exchange must be for a very different sum from the cost and the other items which are dealt with at the commencement. The exporter next has to get an advance, from this new bank, of 80 per cent. of that cost, freight, insurance and commission. This 80 per cent. advance is made "without recourse," and commercial men in the House will understand at once the great difference between an advance made without recourse on security of a bill of exchange and an advance made by a banker who has the security of all the names on the bill. The British exporter parts with the bill of exchange and the bill of lading to the Overseas Trade Department, in exchange for the money, and he is also required at the same time to produce an undertaking signed by the importer's banker abroad, that the importer will accept the bill on presentation. Personally, I should have thought that this condition would, in practice, make the business almost impossible, as this banker's guarantee, according to the regulations and the bill, amounts to saying that the importer will forthwith put up the required security.
  The British trader gets that 80 per cent. advance, therefore, not on the amount of the bill, but on the cost,

  291
  freight, insurance and commission, and he has to furnish the Board of Trade, when he gets that money, with a banker's guarantee from the foreign country in question that the importer will accept the bill and put up all the security indicated in the conditions. The effect, as I think the House will see, is to make the transaction almost prohibitive. By Clause 6, the security is to be large enough to cover the amount, not of the advance, but of the bill of exchange, together with a reasonable margin, and the further we go into this the more we see how likely the whole business is to be made impracticable. Again, what is this security to be? The security is to be by deposit of currency, hypothecation of produce or of government securities of the foreign country, or a banker's guarantee, and it has to be deposited with the Department's agent in the foreign country. This new bank of the Board of Trade has, therefore, to have in that foreign country an agency, who are to take the responsibility for receiving the security, and, of course, for its value, amount, and stability. It is quite evident that they will have a considerable responsibility, and will, therefore, require to be correspondingly remunerated. I think—and a number of other business men who have looked into this matter agree with me—that the conditions as to the amount and nature of the deposits are absolutely unreasonable.
  In order to make the matter quite clear, I should like to take a simple illustrative case. Suppose that a British exporter wants to sell goods to a purchaser in the country mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that is to say, Roumania; and suppose that the goods have cost him £1,000. The freight on iron or other heavy goods of that description to the value of £1,000 would be, say, £400 from Liverpool to Galatz. The insurance would be, say, £40, and the Overseas Trade Department's commission which this bank is going to charge, namely, 12 per cent. for three years, would be £120. Those items add up to £560. Then we have to add three years' interest, because interest must be added up to the date when the bill is due. Such interest is to be 1 per cent. above Bank Rate, and I will take it at 8 per cent. On that basis the interest would be £240. What is the British trader to get for his profit, risk, expense,
  292
  and the deferred payment of half his money for three years? He must get something for that, and I put it down at the very modest sum, on this transaction, of £400. The consequence is that you have a bill of exchange for £2,200 representing the invoice price of the goods. It does not matter, for the sake of the illustration, whether these figures are absolutely accurate or not; they will serve to explain to the House what the nature of the transaction is. This new bank of the Board of Trade is to allow the exporter to add the freight, insurance and commission to the £1,000 of cost, making, as we have seen, £1,560. Then the new bank is to advance 80 per cent. of that sum, namely, £1,248, which is just about half the amount of the bill of exchange which the exporter has to draw. I hope the House realises what that 80 per cent. means, namely, that it is not 80 per cent. of the amount of the bill, but 80 per cent. of the cost, freight, insurance and commission. I would also ask the House to note that the security to be given to this new bank is not limited to the £1,248 advanced; it is to be, under these regulations, a security for the £2,220, with a reasonable margin. What is a reasonable margin? I suggest that we might put it at 10 per cent., and in that case the security would have to be for £2,420. Moreover, according to the conditions, that security has to be maintained intact and valid for the whole of the three years, and I invite the House to consider what that means. In Roumania, which is the country given by an illustration by the hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill, the exchange might wobble up and down between 37 and 260. At the present moment I believe it is about 160. The consequence is that it would be almost impossible from one week to another to know what the value of the security was in terms of British sterling, and there is no provision anywhere that I can find, either in the Bill or in the Board of Trade conditions, which gives the slightest indication as to how this security is to be maintained, especially having regard to the fact that there may be an alteration in values of almost cent. per cent. due to variations in the exchange one way or the other from day to day.
  I have given one or two reasons why the procedure indicated in these conditions is objectionable, and why, unless it is radically modified, no business man could,

  293
  in my judgment, agree to it. We are told that, without Parliamentary authority, and in anticipation of this Bill, transactions amounting to some thousands of pounds have actually been entered into. It would be interesting to know how far these objectionable features which I have referred to have been adhered to or relaxed in the actual transactions so far carried out. Another, and a serious, feature is the indication that this Department of Overseas Trade and this new bank is to have agents in each of these ten foreign countries who are to receive the proceeds of the goods. They are not only to have the responsibility of assessing the value of the security that is originally given, and of seeing that that security is maintained, but when the goods are sold they are to have the responsibility of receiving the proceeds. This is very disquieting. It means a staff of new and extra officials in this country: it means another staff in each of the ten countries mentioned, with which there are transactions to be carried out; it means their salaries, and we see at once eleven more sets of officials somewhere or other. Taking this business out of the hands of the financial people who are ready and able to do it at present, and to set up this bank, is a wrong way to carry out these transactions, and is creating another army of officials and another swollen set of salaries which will have to be large because business of this kind cannot possibly be conducted by inferior people with small salaries.
  What was the system under which these identical objects were achieved with so much success during the ten or twelve years before the War in Germany? Fortunately, it will not take more than five minutes at the outside to explain what that German system was eventually, when it was perfected over a course of ten or twelve years from the manner in which it originally started. The German Department for the Increase and Advance of Foreign Trade had a staff, obviously. That staff was brought up in the commercial schools which were established for the purpose, and all the boys who distinguished themselves in those schools were drafted abroad to get business and to report openings for trade. That is exactly what we want. That is what the commercial community has been crying out for in this country for the last twenty years. It has been crying out for
  294
  trade experts who will go to these different countries, and when they find an opening for this or that class of goods will report it so that this country can get some of the trade. The Commercial Committee of the House of Commons, which consists of men representing all shades of opinion on different sides of the House, has been agitating for this for years. We brought our complaints to the notice of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, but it was found that our diplomatic representatives abroad were either too proud or perhaps they were not authorised to deal with matters of business, or to do practically anything to help the trade of the country. At all events, they did not do so, and during the ten or twelve years before the War whilst we had no such facilities Germany had a fully equipped system for carrying out the expansion of German foreign trade, and they did it with very great effect and very great success. That is what we want, and that is exactly what the Bill does not give us.
  Upon these reports being received in Berlin from the trade emissaries they were submitted to and examined by a committee of bankers. They consisted of the big German banks, namely, the Deutsche Bank, the Disconto, the Dresdner Bank, etc. There were a very considerable number of these banks. They joined together from a patriotic point of view, and also for the benefit of their business, to support German trade and German exports. The bills of exchange drawn upon and accepted by the foreign importers were arrived at exactly in the way I have described in the early part of these remarks. When accepted they were laid before that committee of German banks for the purpose of their foreign trade, and were discounted by them on one condition, that the trade representatives of Germany in the particular country where the goods were going gave a certificate that the transaction was a bonâ fide one, that the price was reasonable, and that the purchaser was a reasonably good man. Those were three simple conditions, and when you got a bonâ fide transaction and you got an authorised trade representative in the country who was prepared to give a certificate upon those three points, is it not clear to every business man that it would be reasonably good business to dis-

  295
  count that bill? The committee of German bankers discounted those bills, and they had a guarantee from the German Government of 75 per cent. of the whole of their risks. I investigated this matter thoroughly on the spot and elsewhere whenever I could find any particulars of it, but it was kept very secret. The bankers never lost any money by discounting those bills, for the simple reason that they charged a commission of 3 per cent. on the discount, and that commission formed a pool of reserve, and when there were a few losses they were charged against the pool, and the consequence was that on the whole of the transactions the German bankers never lost sixpence, and the State never lost anything, as far as I can make out. The result was that the German exporter or manufacturer, as the case may be, was able to get, not 80 per cent. of his cost price, but the whole proceeds of the bill, and to get them without recourse. He had not to wait for three years, and take in driblets a fifth now and a fifth then as the goods were sold. He got the whole of his money at once, whereas under the scheme we are considering, instead of getting the whole of the money down, he only gets an advance of practically a half of the sum for which he is obliged to draw the bill.
  Incidentally also I may mention that the German Banks who discounted these Bills, were able to rediscount them in London and thus English money was used for German business and enabled German traders to cut out their English competitors.
  I shall probably be told that this Bill is a serious effort first to assist our own manufacturers and traders and secondly to assist the trade of these named countries, and that I am opposing excellent and worthy objects. I am not opposing those objects. I admit most frankly that the objects of the Bill are objects which we all support, and which we all ought to have at heart, but there is a right way and a wrong way to carry them out, and the Board of Trade have unfortunately chosen the wrong way. What we want to do is to help our British trade and manufacture. We are crying out for trade representatives and trade agents in all countries. We were told the Overseas Department would do this. They made a somewhat serious effort, I think, about 18 months ago. What
  296
  exactly caused it to be relaxed I do not know, but it was intimated in general terms that the Treasury, I think, was opposed to some of the salaries proposed to be given. If so, it is a penny wise and pound foolish policy. This country ought to have in every other country in the world an accredited trade representative and staff, so that everything which can possibly be done for British trade and manufacture should be done, and we should get business in this country if we possibly can. For the finance of such a scheme we do not want a new bank. There is no bank required at the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade is the very last place in London at which there ought to be a new bank. We want an authorised committee representing the existing British banks, which. will meet, say, once a week, and will discount acceptances against shipments of goods to those countries in all cases where the transaction and the bona fides of the consignee are certified, and where the transaction is approved of by the Overseas Trade Department representative. The Board of Trade having got their financial Resolution of £26,000,000, surely our country can go as far as Germany went before the War, and be willing to give a guarantee to the committee of bankers on foreign trade of 75 or 80 per cent. of the amount of the bill. I shall probably be told that our British bankers will not appoint a committee and will not work together. I am afraid there is a considerable amount of truth in that suggestion. All over the world, where there are manufacturers of certain classes and where there are bankers, we find that people in different countries, including France, Italy, and America, are willing to co-operate together and to do things for the common benefit and to make a pool of the proceeds. But in England the spirit of competition is still so keen that I may possibly be told our banks in London would not form such a committee and would not work together. Have the bankers been asked to form such a committee, and, if so, what was their reply? I shall also be told that discount "without recourse" is impossible in England, and no doubt that was a great feature of the German system. It is also true that our bankers do not practise it, and that British banks will not discount bills, as a rule, without recourse. I believe they would if it were put to them with a government guarantee and as a complete

  297
  scheme. In any case, if the existing British banks were to refuse, I think the City of London is strong enough to form a new big bank, and that there is money, without Government assistance, for this purpose, and I know some people who would undertake to do something of that description if they had the opportunity. But in the first place, business of this patriotic importance, of this banking importance, ought to be undertaken by the existing machinery. If not, we should be able to replace it.
  Finally, I submit with confidence that State participation is not wanted in banking and in finance. However important it may have been at one time to have have had State control in coal—a nice mess they have made of it-or in food—a nice mess they have made of it—and other things, I am satisfied that there is no necessity whatever for our country and our Board of Trade to embark upon the field of banking and finance. No new Department is necessary. The procedure of the Bill, with all its machinery and its officials is entirely misconceived. In moving the rejection I realise that the objects of the Bill are so important, so desirable in themselves, that I would ask whether it would be too much for the Government to appoint a small Committee to see whether these objects cannot be carried out on somewhat similar lines to what we know they were carried out in another country, and whether we could not save the idea of having to make this new gigantic bank for foreign trade, with its £26,000,000 of capital, and save all this army of officials with which we are now threatened, leaving to the commonsense of the financial and banking interests of this country to conduct their business which, I believe, if they were properly asked and properly organised, they would be quite willing to do.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am somewhat surprised to find myself seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, and I want to say from the little I know, mostly through travel abroad, of the operations of British business methods in foreign countries, that I entirely agree with every word he said. As I was called out of the House, I am not sure if he supplemented his remarks by drawing atten-
  298
  tion to the great need to-day of an efficient and reorganised Consular Service, with much wider powers, with better pay, and more expert members, which ought to be an integral part of our foreign trade. I do not like to hear of these new agents being appointed for the Board of Trade in foreign countries. If the Consular Service was reorganised and brought up to date, and if efficient commercial attaches were appointed to the principal countries of Europe, it would go far to encourage that British trade which we all wish to encourage in every possible way. I would also draw attention to the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-day admitted, in answer to a question, that the banks of this country have been requested by the Government, for reasons that have not been explained to this House, to call in credits, and to refuse further facilities even for legitimate export trade. When the Treasury admits that that is being done, it is extraordinary that the Board of Trade should come forward to-day to ask for £26,000,000 for a scheme of this sort to artificially bolster up certain firms in trade in foreign countries. That shows an extraordinary lack of co-ordination between two great Government Departments. You have the Treasury actually encouraging the banks to refuse credits to legitimate trading interests, and you have the Board of Trade coming down with what I think is a crack-brained scheme for artificially bolstering up trade. If the Government really have the welfare of British trade and industry at heart they should at once assist the banks, if necessary, by giving them extra backing or guarantees, and encourage them in every way to assist our export trade, and get trade started in our own industries and in the interests of the shattered countries of Europe and Asia Minor.
  I have another objection to this Bill, and it is that it has been conceived on a totally wrong basis. It is the old attempt to distinguish in Europe the sheep from the goats. Credits can only be given, apparently, for trade with certain selected countries mentioned in the schedule. Many months ago the Government stated with commendable courage that it was their desire that trade should be re-opened as soon as possible with the countries of our late enemies. That is a necessity which even the most rabid protectionist in this

  299
  country will accept. We cannot possibly expect to sell to these countries unless we buy from them. The great need of this country and of Europe to-day is to get the machinery of trade started again. If this scheme is so good, as the hon. Member who introduced the Bill maintains, why has it not been extended to other countries? Take, for example, the most glaring case—the case of Austria. Our newspapers are filled to-day with advertisements of a very harrowing description asking the benevolent to subscribe money to relieve the starving population of Austria. Austria is being spoon-fed to-day. She is depending upon charity, but Sir William Gould and Sir George Paish, the Commissioners in Central and Eastern Europe, have told us that this charity must be looked upon purely and simply as a stop-gap, and that at the earliest possible moment we must let these people help themselves. It is possible to demoralise a nation by charity just as it is possible to demoralise a human being by charity. Nations can get out of the habit of depending on their own exertions and out of the habit of frugality, and the sooner they can help themselves the better. I cannot understand why the Board of Trade have not included Austria in the schedule. Would it be possible to enlarge the schedule now and include that country?
  I interrupted the hon. Member who introduced the Bill by asking if it was not a fact that the American Committee which has been granted very large credits by the Government of the United States for encouraging trade in this way does not deal in all countries, but he was unable to inform me whether that was so or not. My information is that this American Committee deals in all countries. They have carte blanche to make all the arrangements they can, mainly with the object of encouraging American trade and in, "the wider interests of humanity," to quote the hon. Gentleman's own words, I am told that Americans are going about in Austria buying up factories, mines, forests, estates, and in some cases whole townships, and they are getting them at very good prices from the American point of view. To use a vulgar expression, they are scooping the pool. If there is anything in it to attract American business men, and if American business men are able to avail themselves of the Government's scheme, we in this country ought to have the same oppor-
  300
  tunities and be allowed to extend into our late enemy countries or any countries where it will pay us to enter into business relations with those countries. The same thing applies in a lesser degree to Germany. Surely to-day it is realised that the great industrial commercial machine of Europe will not get going again until Germany is producing and working. What is the use of the hon. and right hon. Members declaring that our need is greater production if they only preach it as regards our own people and our own factories? We must have the whole world producing, or else we shall never get down prices and we shall have slump after slump and trade crisis after trade crisis. It is common knowledge that it is an urgent necessity that these countries should be put on their feet and set to work, and I think the key country for the whole of Europe, owing to her position and her means of transportation, is Germany. Whether we like it or not, we have to realise that it is in our best interests that Germany once more should take her place as a great working and distributing country in Europe. The sooner that is done the better will it be for Europe. I regret that the Government have not seen their way and have not had enough courage to include Germany in the schedule.
  5.0 P.M.
  The same thing applies to Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey, when at last we get some sort of settled conditions in Turkey. I would remind hon. Members that Turkey was one of our most lucrative and valuable markets in the past, and it will be a bad day for the industries of Yorkshire and Lancashire if the Turkish Empire is to be permanently estranged from this country. I regret very much that Turkey has not been included in the Schedule. I suppose it is partly due to prejudice against an old enemy country. I could understand that, but I cannot understand another obvious intention of the Government. This Bill is an attempt to put a cordon sanitaire round Russia, and I am going to prove it by drawing attention to one glaring case of omission from the Schedule. Take the Republic of Azerbaijan—a rich country with some of the most flourishing oil-producing wells in the world—Baku. Azerbaijan was recognised de facto at the same time as Georgia by His Majesty's Government. It was recognised in a fit of panic after Denikin's army collapsed. Azerbaijan

  301
  has chosen the form of Government which is apparently wished for by the majority of the Tartar population of that country. It is as highly civilised as the neighbouring Republic of Georgia, and was recognised at the same time, but I suppose it has committed an unpardonable sin by entering into relationship with the Soviet Republic of Russia. In that respect Azerbaijan has followed the lead of His Majesty's Government. Why has it not been included in this Schedule, unless for the reason I have suggested—that we are simply attempting to form a cordon sanitaire in the commercial world as well as in the naval and military world? The natural resources of Azerbaijan are richer than those of Georgia, yet Georgia is included in the Schedule and Azerbaijan is left out. If the reason is that Azerbaijan has committed the unpardonable sin of entering into relations with Russia, which apparently we only are to be allowed to do. What about Esthonia? She has made complete peace with Russia and is one of the chief means of entry for considerable quantities of commercial goods that are entering Russia. Why is Esthonia in the Schedule? I suppose because this Bill was drafted some time ago and the Government cannot find an excuse for keeping Esthonia out. The same thing applies to Armenia. Armenia is in relationship with the Moscow government. If my information is correct, something like a maximalist government has been formed in Armenia, and if that is a valid reason for leaving Azerbaijan out of the Schedule why has her neighbour Armenia not also been left out? For want of some better explanation we must conclude that the choice of the countries to which these credits are being extended is purely political with a political object which could not be openly expressed to the people of this country.
  Then why, I would ask, subject to some arrangement being made between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Moscow, is Russia not included? The Prime Minister again and again during the last few months told us how necessary it is—I think one reason he gave was in order to smash Bolshevism in this country—that we should once more trade with Russia. He told us that we trade with cannibal countries and therefore we should not hesitate to trade with the
  302
  Russian Republic. He told us it is quite necessary from the point of view of the food supplies of the world that we should get food from Russia and that there are in Russia raw materials which are quite essential to the trade of this country, for instance, timber which is so badly needed for housing. Those timber supplies alone would have enabled the Government to give some assistance to trade in the Soviet portions of Russia, which are now practically the whole of Russia provided, of course, that the arrangements can be carried through. I am not here attacking the long delay in entering into these relations, I hope to do that at the appropriate time, but I am complaining that if the Government of this country really want to assist British trade as they say, and we are not blinded by political prejudice or actuated by political motives, which cannot be explained openly to the people of this country, they should be prepared to give credits to commence trade with Russia. That is the country with the greatest possibilities, where possibly the insurance rates for trade to it are highest and where probably business men would have the greatest difficulty in getting credit to make a fresh start. Unless the Government can explain the omission of Russia from the Schedule of this Bill, the House should reject the Bill. Otherwise it is a condemnation of the Government's own policy as explained by the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister.
  I am going, in conclusion, to make what I hope is a constructive suggestion. Something much more than this is needed if we are going to make up the awful results of the Government's policy since the Armistice. Europe is staggering on the brink of terrible disaster. We do not know how many countries will have actually gone bankrupt within the next twelve months, or how many revolutions will have taken place. There are whole areas of desolation, starvation and misery. What is required is not isolated action by this country, or possible rivalry to isolated action by France or the United States. What is wanted is international action, and that should take the form of an international loan to supply credit, possibly on the lines as laid down in this Bill, to enable countries of Central and Eastern Europe to start to trade themselves. Trade cannot be started by simply supplying credit. To this end we have got

  303
  to set these people going. If they have nothing to send to us they cannot buy our goods. That is elementary economics. The whole policy as indicated in this Bill shows a prejudiced outlook on the part of the Government. They have not yet learned to think internationally; until they learn to think internationally and get other countries to do the same, international trade cannot be started. Until international trade is started all round there will not be a basis of security established anywhere and these countries that I have mentioned will totter over the brink of the precipice. We are all roped together and they will haul us with them. I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. HILTON YOUNG: The hon. Member for the Edgehill Division of Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) has directed against this Bill in two particulars very powerful criticism. The first part of his criticism was directed against the machinery of the Bill as set out in the Regulations of the Board of Trade. With that, I may say with all deference, I am in cost cordial agreement. The scheme has not proved so far of much practical utility. The cause is fully established by those considerations which the hon. Member has advanced. The terms are too hard. They are too severe in those two particulars in particular—the amount of security which is demanded which is placed on the higher scale instead of the lower scale, and the rates of commission, etc. With those criticisms many Members who cordially support the Bill would probably be in agreement. But these are criticisms directed against the actual terms of the scheme under the Regulations, and it is quite in accordance with the actual principles of the Bill that such conditions should be amended, and I may express the most earnest hope that the officials and the Ministry concerned should consult with the members of the banking community—of course, I know that there have been many consultations already—to see whether it is possible to ameliorate those terms.
  The hon. Member proceeded to direct criticism against the principle of the central framework of the Bill, and I could not but think that there was in his mind a certain misapprehension as to what the purpose of the Bill is. It seemed to me at one time as if he were criticising this
  304
  Bill, not for failing to achieve its own purpose, but for not being a perfectly different Bill, for not being a Bill simply for the expansion of British trade abroad. That would be a most desirable Bill, which I would hope to see very much on such lines as he described. But we are up against an immediate urgent necessity which has to be dealt with in a brief period of time. If we had to wait to deal with that emergency until such time as we could complete the education of a rising generation on the subject, obviously we must wait until a time when the emergency would be left to settle itself. It is a very urgent practical necessity of the day how to restore trade with these ravaged countries.
  When I grasped the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for what he thought to be the more superior and more practical way of dealing with it, I could not but think also that here, too, there was something in the nature of a misapprehension as to what the real crux in the matter is. The German scheme so admirably designed and organised, as all such schemes were in Germany, and so effective as he truly said, had this feature—that it was a scheme for the promotion of trade in ordinary times and to deal with ordinary risks. For those purposes the recommendations referring to the insurances, reserve funds, etc., were perfectly adequate. But the situation in which we are differs from that situation in just this particular, which makes that scheme inappropriate and useless that the risks are not ordinary. They are too great. The prospect of loss, if I may say so, is too certain to make it possible for the banking and commercial community to deal with this unassisted out of their own resources. That I take it to be the real necessity for the introduction of State action in the present circumstances.
  Nobody could agree more readily than I with the hon. Member in his lack of sympathy for any fresh appearance of new Government Departments in any fresh sphere of industry in all cases, and more particularly so when it involves the establishment of a new bureau and new salaries. But when there is work to be done which can only be done by the introduction of the strong hand of the State, with the State working with banking and commercial community, then it is the greater good of the country against a lesser evil. That is how it would work

  305
  out. In reference to the voluntary committee of the bankers to which he referred, I am afraid that the answer must be given which he anticipated, that the work has not been done because it could not be done. It is because we are brought up against the actual magnitude of the risks involved, and that people are quite rightly considering their own security and their own immediate necessity that they could not be justified in taking this on without a guarantee.
  I may refer to two other things which appear to me to be imperfect in the structure of the Bill. They are both already well known to the house, but need emphasis. One of them was brought up in the criticism of the hon. Member. That is the difficulties of the variation of exchange. It is true, as he says, that these excessive variabilities of exchange in present conditions must reduce many of those provisions, particularly when the security takes the form of currency, to an absolutely nugatory state. There will be losses. This is recognised, and that is why the Bill is introduced, but it goes deeper. If one takes a somewhat wider view, one cannot but see that this effort to restore international trade with countries in such a state of disorganisation can never be successful until another work first has been undertaken. That is the restoration of some stability in international exchanges and in currency. It is needless to labour that. It is almost unnecessary to go so far afield from the broad issue to embark in discussions on losses due to exchange. It will not be denied by those who have sought to be humble students of this question that the difficulties and enormous risks and the actual impossibilities of making bargains which are involved in foreign trade in the ravaged countries because of the variations of exchange, must paralyse trade until, after some international effort, something has been done to establish again in Europe either stability in the main currencies involved, or possibly a standard currency, a currency for reference in international trade. That is one thing which, I believe, is recognised as standing in the way of the restoration of international trade on these lines.
  Let me join my voice in what has, I understand, been something of a chorus in previous debates and has been referred
  306
  to in this Debate—the chorus on the subject of the restriction of this Bill to commerce in manufactured articles. Quite apart from any controversial issues, I think it is something in the nature of an absurdity to approach customers with offers to trade and to refuse to sell them the only things they want. I am not in the least putting this wholly from the point of view of foreign nations. I do not think there is real antinomy between the two aspects of the question. May I put it in this way? By selling them manufactured articles we may relieve their temporary necessity, but we do not put them in the way of earning a living; we do not put them in the way of earning enough money to pay us for what we sell them. Here are countries whose industries need to be restarted. In order to restart those industries they need two things. With an ingenuity which I admired, the representative of the Government responsible for the Bill put his case in the strongest way possible by referring to the sales of machinery. You cannot work machinery unless you have something to work in the machinery. The second necessity is raw material. As long as we confine, or seek to confine, our supplies to these countries merely to manufactured articles, so long will we give them no true encouragement in setting to work to make a living and to earn money with which to pay us. We must see that they get their fair share of the supply of raw materials. There is one trifling point on which I invite information. It will be of great interest if we can be told a little more about what I might call the financial history of the credit which is going to be used in these operations. What will be the nature of the fund, the banking fund on which the Government will draw? Is it to be that hard-worked fund, the Civil Contingencies Fund, of which such strangely novel uses have recently been made? If not, is a new fund to be established?
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The position I take up in regard to this Bill is rather paradoxical. I agree with every word of what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford), but I will support the Bill. I hope the Secretary to the Board of Trade will not take it amiss if I say that I am of opinion that the Board of Trade has come down here with the Board of Trade tongue in the Board of Trade cheek to offer this Bill to the

  307
  House. They tell us that after a few months they have lent no more than £28,000. That is because no one will take the trouble to borrow money under any Bill of this kind, full of red-tape provisions. The whole thing reminds me very much of the annuity and insurance proposals of the Post Office Savings Bank, which used to be advertised in jejune ways in the old days in the books and all the literature that came out of the Post Office. What was the result? No one invested in Post Office annuities or insurance. They could get the same thing much better and much cheaper in the great British insurance companies, in the Alliance or Phœnix, or Royal. The same thing will happen here. No one will trouble the Board of Trade to borrow money, when there are all these hedgments, restrictions, and provisions. They will render it so difficult to get the money that people will prefer to go without the loan. I do not think there will be many solvent people who will be refused loans by the banks. If those people who are worth lending to go to the bank they can get the money right enough; it is only the people who are not worth lending to who do not get the money, provided, of course, it is for legitimate export trade. I myself, if I were at the Board of Trade, would not lend money to Rumania at present. If the Board of Trade wish to subsidise Rumania, well and good. She has been our Ally, and we have helped her through all her financial troubles, but at present I do not think that Rumania takes the trouble to maintain her own Government credit in this country. How, then, can a trader expect to get his money back from traders in Rumania if the Rumanian Government does not take the trouble to pay to British holders their interest on Rumanian Government loans?
  The hon. Member for the Ancient City of Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) has asked how this money was going to be dealt with. I take it that the £26,000,000, if used as credits, will not be disbursed in cash by cheque. The Government will write its name across the bills and put the bills on the market. I should have thought the Government would be better advised not to put these credits in circulation until it is found that these credits do represent values or goods which will come back from abroad in due course. The hon. Member for Norwich also spoke
  308
  about the necessity for exchanges being adjusted. I do not think you will ever get trade to work properly in Eastern Europe or Middle Europe until you have adjusted the exchange. It is impossible to carry out trade with other countries when the exchange is loaded seven times against those other countries. Speaking on broad lines, my view is that this Bill will not do nearly as much good as the system adopted by the East India Company in the early days of the 17th century of going back to ordinary common barter. Let us send our goods to Rumania, or Constantinople, or the Crimea, in ships sent out by the manufacturers, and let them be there under the control of a. super-cargo, and let him find goods there to bring back here. I am entirely with the last speaker in the view that we can never re-establish trade on broader lines with these East European nations until the question of exchange has been dealt with, and we cannot stabilise exchange with Germany, or Russia, or any Eastern country while they are continually flooding their markets week by week from the printing press. I will vote for this Bill, though I entirely agree with the statement of the hon. Member for Liverpool. It is a silly Bill. I believe that it will never come into operation to the extent planned. It will simply die of neglect. It is merely a sop to public opinion, like the Profiteering Bill, a sop to those who imagine foreign trade can be re-established impersonally, and without human skill and risk.
  There is the question of agents who are to act for our Government abroad. How can Government officials be found to do that? Our own banking institutions abroad, with their agents, will probably do the work for the Board of Trade. Why not, therefore, leave the whole of the business to the banks? If you like to guarantee the banks a small proportion of their losses, do so. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool in his statement about the way in which German banks set up credits for their manufacturers before the War. I have for 20 years studied the whole of the machinations of the German banks through their overseas branches. Berlin then found out how the foreign branches were able to open export business abroad. But the great German banks were in closer connection with the great manufacturing industries in Germany than

  309
  our banks are with our great manufacturing interests. In many cases the banks in Germany have members of their own board of staff on the boards of these great manufacturing companies. They knew what was going on in German manufacturing circles, and they knew from their own directors what the companies were doing in foreign countries. Then, again, in this country we do not like the "trustification" of businesses. In Germany they have the system of cartels. The German banks had not to deal with small individual, first-class private firms, as we have them in this country—there are hundreds of them, with £100,000 or £200,000 capital, and they are the backbone of this country. German banks could very well lend money to these great cartels or accept their bills. They went further. After they had taken the bills and put their names on the backs of them they did not go to the German Government to guarantee those bills. They came to Lombard Street and handed them round from bank to bank. Why? I am not a banker, but I think the banks in this country are very ignorant in the way they carry on foreign business. They leave the acceptance trade to the great accepting houses in this country. What they should do is to learn, not to lend money, as they have done, because of the names on the bills, but they should learn to lend money on the merits of the trade. In the past they were content to lend British money on foreign bills with the names of German banks to guarantee their payment; they relied on the German investigations which warranted German banks to accept or endorse, and did not care to take the trouble to do the same for British manufacturing exporters. They took the line of least resistance. They could in their own organisations have a department looking into the type of trade offered to them or credits asked for, just as the Board of Trade proposes to do under this Bill. When the British banks have learnt to understand the merits of the trade abroad which is offered to them, they will willingly, with the knowledge they have, grant credits to the great British exporters, and we shall not need then to have a Bill like this brought down to the House of Commons. But in any case, with exchange in Eastern Europe in confusion, the easiest and safest way to reopen trade is to take out goods. barter them on the spot for
  310
  native products, raw or manufactured, just as we did in the early days of the John Company, till trade itself provides its own credits without Board of Trade help. However, I shall vote for the Bill, as it discloses to the public a good object lesson how not to do the thing.
  Major BARNETT: I desire to support the Amendment. My hon. Friend (Mr. A. M. Samuel) professed to support the Bill, but he damned it with the faintest of faint praise, and I think every argument he used was an argument strongly in support of the Amendment. There is one statement of his which I desire to challenge, and that is the statement that the British manufacturer of good credit and standing will always do trade in countries like Rumania, or Spain, or Italy. I say that in the years before the War the Germans took our trade from us in those countries by their banking methods, and by their banking methods alone. In a country like Rumania or Spain, where credit is the one thing that the shopkeeper wanted, the German found cut what goods were required and the quality, and he offered credit. The British merchant and manufacturer got no assistance whatever from his bank, and he had to insist on cash as against shipping documents, whereas the German could rely on his own banks with the guarantee of the German Government behind them. What happened? His paper came to London, and our money on deposit at 4 per cent. went to finance the German manufacturer and the German merchant. That is exactly the state of things we want to avoid. The hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), in a very lucid and interesting speech, seemed to me to prove rather too much. He said that we were up against an urgent financial problem owing to the condition of these countries, and there I agree; but what is the inference he draws from that? It is that we ought to have a new banking system set up by the Board of Trade, which knows nothing of banking, with this capital of £26,000,000. If the problem is an urgent one, and I do not deny that it is, why should we not utilise the banking experience that at present exists rather than improvise banking in the Board of Trade? It would suffice to have a Government guarantee to meet an abnormal situation.

  311
  There was a Debate on the Financial Resolution in connection with this Bill on the 12th April last, and in that Debate the question was raised as to the way in which the facilities were to be given. I am bound to say, having read that Debate very carefully, that I do not think the Bill meets what was then stated. The hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) asked this question:
  "Do I understand they [that is, the credits] are only to be given to British firms, or are they to be given to foreign firms as well, or are the credits to be given to foreign Governments?"
  The President of the Board of Trade replied:
  "It is perfectly clear that credits will only be granted to British firms."
  Subsequently in the same Debate the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "The hon. and learned Member for York asked whether this would be limited to British firms and sellers in this country. Yes, the advances will be so limited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1920, Vol. 127, Cols. 1414 and 1419.]
  I ask the House now to look at the Bill, Clause 1 (1) (a), which says:—
  "Make arrangements for granting to persons domiciled in or to companies incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom credits in connection with the export to any country specified."
  That is a very different case. We have heard from the Mover of the Amendment that there are rich and influential firms domiciled in this country which could not be called British firms. I venture to say that the pledge which was given to this House was that the facilities were to be given to British firms or to companies incorporated under British law, and we should always insist on a certain proportion of the capital being held by British shareholders. This is a Committee point, but it is a point which will have to be very closely looked into in that stage. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull who seconded the Amendment would, I think, be satisfied if the Schedule of the Bill were recast. His objection seemed to me to be chiefly levelled against the non-inclusion in the Schedule of certain late enemy countries.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I supported the hon. Member who moved the Amendment on the purely business side as well.
  Major BARNETT: As to the Schedule, it was made clear that the object of this measure was to give facilities to trade with Allied countries or parts of enemy countries which would have been allied if they had had the chance. I think we are doing the right thing here in the wrong way. I do not think it is necessary to set aside such a large sum as 26 millions for these credits. If our Government were prepared to adopt the German system and back its own banking people, then I believe that without finding a single sovereign it would be able to help our trade a very great deal more than trade is helped under this Bill. The Bill at one and the same time tries to do too much, and does too little. It sets out with the noble and chivalrous purpose of lending 26 millions to help trade with these countries, and then a cold fit seems to come to the Board of Trade, and every possible precaution is taken to save the taxpayer from any conceivable loss. There is not a farthing being risked, and I am afraid that the credits are so thoroughly safeguarded that comparatively little business will be done. In the discussion on the Finance Resolution it appeared that we had been doing business in a provisional way for months past, and that the credits then amounted to £290,000. Some people were surprised that so little had been asked for, but I think it is surprising that so much was asked for under the conditions then laid down, and which are now set out in a White Paper. Those conditions involve the putting up of security out in Rumania or Georgia, or Poland, or Czecho-Slovakia to the full amount plus a margin of 15 per cent. Is it not perfectly obvious that if a merchant in one of those countries, in spite of the depreciation of the currency, is in a position to put up the full amount of the purchase money plus the insurance and the margin of 15 per cent., he would say "Thank you for nothing, I will pay for my goods." In order to protect this 26 millions against any possible loss, we have made business entirely problematical. There is one class of people in a country, say, like Poland or Rumania whose necessities have not been considered. There is the case of the old-standing firm that has always kept its engagements, but which may have been hard hit by the War. When you get that information from a responsible person on the spot as

  313
  the Germans did, then take those peoples' bills instead of saying, "We are going to give you credit, and will you kindly put up security for the full amount of the currency, plus 15 per cent." There never was credit offered to a starving and almost bankrupt people on such terms. That is why I say it is very surprising that £290,000 should have been applied for. Whether my hon. Friend persists in the Amendment or not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and here I desire to associate myself with every word said in his praise, will reconsider the Bill in the light of the criticism offered in this House, and if the Bill gets a Second Reading, then in the Committee stage we may make it a more workmanlike and useful measure.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: We hardly ever have the consideration of an economic problem without the charge being levelled at Members of the Labour party that they are somewhat unorthodox in their views on these matters. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) made the statement that what we ought to do in Europe was to go back to a system of barter. I confess in the study of this particular Bill that was a very interesting statement, because we all recall in the study of barter that the main objection which was offered was that it did not lend itself to the necessary mobility and fluidity which was essential for world commerce. In the consideration of European economic problems at the present time, it is precisely that fluidity and mobility which we require. Barter may seem to some a short cut and a ready means of overcoming the undoubtedly great difficulty of exchange, but I do not believe personally that it offers any solution at all. We on the Labour Benches, having considered this much criticised Measure, have come to the conclusion that this Bill ought to be supported, but supported with so many reservations that we are really in the last resort among the opposition. The principle is undeniably sound, but the method by which the Government embarks on the task is unsound in seven out of eight heads. May I try to indicate what we on the Labour Benches had in mind when the European War concluded, and when we were confronted with the economic reconstruction of Europe and indeed of a large part of the world as well.
  314
  The Noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil) will not think me irreverent if I say that we attach tremendous importance to the success of the League of Nations on two points. First of all, we believe that it would be a great political ideal, and a practical ideal, and in the second place we believe that it would speedily bring into being some great and comprehensive economic programme, and with the political ideal on the one side and the economic ideal on the other, we should be able to establish a set of world conditions which would make the recurrence of war impossible and contribute at the very earliest moment to the reconstruction of all forms of healthy and beneficent enterprise. That is the ideal which we hold. Now let us at the moment ignore the political considerations, which after all are not relevant perhaps except to a minor extent, and let us look at the problem of economic reconstruction in Europe. I confess that when we view that great problem, applying to all the countries, to our late enemies as well as to those who were associated with us in the conduct of that great campaign, when we view that great, comprehensive problem, this Bill amounts to very little more—I do not use the word offensively—than a farcical attempt to meet the situation, and it is farcical mainly because it ignores elementary, plain, humble, economic considerations which we in the Labour movement readily understand. The Bill proposes within the limits of £226,000,000 to give credit to a certain number of exporters to countries, countries in the main, I think, associated with us or broken off from other countries, and it proposes to give that credit to such exporters upon a more or less elaborate set of conditions.
  Many of us study from week to week the "Economic Review," which gives a generally faithful account from the foreign Press of economic conditions in Europe, and I find in that journal a great mass of contradictions. I find, side by side with the terrible economic conditions in Europe, in many parts of Europe waste and luxury and great expenditure, in the midst of sorrow and death and destruction of the most awful kind, shameless and profligate waste of resources. That is a very striking fact to begin with, but I suppose from the time of the decay of the Roman

  315
  Empire onwards, if not before, that has been true of human society. That is the first consideration; and then there is another consideration which emerges from the study of these reports. It is this, that what many of these countries require is not machinery, not manufactured articles, not the finished products of this country in any shape or form, but raw materials. That is actually what they require, and I admit that it is rather odd to find that desire for raw materials in some of these countries where they themselves in the past were large producers of these very raw materials which they now urgently require, but which, for one reason or another—labour troubles, financial troubles, or general economic unsettlement—they are unable to turn out at the present time. If we are going to reconstruct industry and commerce in Europe, I think it is altogether the wrong way to go about it to establish a scheme which is only going to apply to manufactured articles, and that within comparatively narrow limits, and to say that that is to be practically, for the purposes of this Bill, the beginning and the end of our contribution. On a minor point, have we ever decided in the economic structure of this country what is raw material and what is a manufactured article? I remember well the tremendous controversies of 1903 onwards to the effect that many of the so-called manufactured articles were really the raw materials of industry. Who is going to decide, for the purposes of this Bill, where the line is to be drawn, and on what footing are we going to make the best contribution we can to these distressed countries?
  There is to my mind, however, a far larger criticism. I have been very much impressed recently, not only by the speeches of hon. Members opposite and of this side of the House as well, but also in the study of current economic literature, by the continual reminder of the fact that if we are going to save Europe, and, indeed, save the world, we shall require to pool our resources of all kinds. We shall require to pool not merely our resources of character, of ability, and of talent, not merely our resources of credit, but also our resources of raw materials and manufactured and partially manufactured articles. That campaign, to
  316
  whatever extent we may carry it, is believed to be absolutely necessary if we are going to re-establish industry and commerce, and if we are going to save the world, not merely materially, but, what seems to me to be far more important, intellectually and morally as well. If these things are true, and if we are going to pool our resources in Europe, is it not clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that we cannot have regard to a measure of this kind, introduced in the British House of Commons, without asking ourselves what contribution to these countries and to other countries is being made by other lands out of their resources, whether they have been badly penalised by the War, or whether they have been associated with us in the conflict and have been victorious, and are now directing their minds to substantially the same aims as ourselves? When we have regard to facts of that nature, surely every hon. Member must agree that what we require is not a Bill of this kind, with £26,000,000 applied to a limited number of small countries, but some comprehensive scheme.
  I am very willing to admit, not without sorrow and regret, that probably in these matters we cannot wait for the economic side of the League of Nations. The Supreme Council, or whatever it is called, may not help us very much in the interval, but surely we should be able to devise at a comparatively early date some general, sound, and yet comprehensive policy of the kind of principles we are going to adopt, and the kind of campaign in which we are going to engage, at all events, to give Europe a chance. We have not heard from the hon. Gentleman representing the Government anything at all on that very important side of the problem. I agree, because I wish to be perfectly fair, that it is perhaps asking too much to get a mass of information of that kind, but I press the argument now for this reason, that I am not sure that the indirect and certainly not the intentional result of a measure of this kind, assuming a similar activity is embarked upon by other countries, will not be to give an excessive amount of credit and provision to certain parts of Europe, and to leave other parts of Europe struggling for credit and the means of life, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is in our interests, to put it no higher than that, that they should be encouraged and

  317
  revived at the earliest possible moment. How far has the proposal of this Bill been considered strictly and seriously in the light of international considerations, and more particularly in the light of an international and certainly a European economic policy? I am going to support the Bill because I think its intention is good, but it is too humble, its proposals are so very moderate, that I have no enthusiasm at all in the task, and I only give my vote because I hope the Government will embark upon a wider scheme, and make provision on the international lines which all of us, whatever our views of our late enemies or friends may be, believe to be absolutely necessary for Europe and the world at the present time.
  Lieut.-Colonel WILLEY: Unquestionably firms of strong credit who wish to do business with any of the countries in the Schedule to the Bill can obtain the necessary credit from their bankers to enable them to do that, if they like to take the risk of long credits which it involves, but the money is lent to them not upon the wisdom or justification of the foreign trade, but upon the strength of their own name. Therefore, the point we want to consider here is the case of the small firms who are struggling to develop our foreign trade, who perhaps before the War had built up a small business which was only able to carry out transactions of a relatively small nature. They to-day wish to renew their relations which they had before the War with firms possibly of good standing in those foreign countries, but they are not able to do it because they cannot get from their banks the accommodations which larger firms can get. The aim of this Bill, therefore, should be to assist those smaller firms in participating in the volume of business which is going gradually to build up the total international trade which has been so strongly pressed upon the House as a desirable aim to keep before us at the present time. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill led the House into considerable details regarding the commercial transactions involved under the conditions of this credit, and he clothed the difficulties which any exporter would face in the way of arranging the acceptance of bills with such a lurid aspect as almost to frighten anybody not familiar with the usual procedure by which this is carried
  318
  out. Surely this business is for the most part the resumption of the normal trade of this country with those countries on the Schedule, and, with regard to the Schedule, may I interpose here this, that objection has been made that we do not go far enough and that we should include other countries, but surely we want to begin by giving assistance to our friends and not including promiscuously our late enemies as well. I therefore urge that the Board of Trade, in spite of appeals that the list should be extended, should limit it strictly to countries which were our friends during the War. With regard to the volume of business which it is contemplated will be covered by this Bill, surely the drawing of a bill on any of these countries does not necessarily involve so intricate a procedure as has been suggested. The objection was made that the bill would have to be drawn for the amount of the invoice, plus all expenses and profit, but surely in this particular transaction the exporter can draw for what he likes, and if he likes to put on a charge 50 per cent. above the cost price of the commodities, surely that is his business and is no fault of the scheme.
  6.0 P.M.
  May I refer to the complaint that has been made that the whole Bill is unnecessary, because if a firm is in a position to put up a collateral security or get a bank guarantee it clearly is not in a position of requiring the assistance which this Bill gives? Surely one of the objects here is to provide a means of getting over the difficulties of the exchange. Surely in the event of a manufacturer in any of these countries wishing to obtain a manufactured article or component parts, the whole object of this Bill is that he should be able to obtain the commodity on a basis which does not involve payment in sterling until such period as he may be able to re-export. On these grounds I take exception to the objection which has been made there. May I examine the claim that the ordinary procedure ought to permit of this without the assistance of the Bill? Is not the position to-day that no joint stock bank in London will accept for discount a bill drawn on any of the countries in the Schedule—at any rate, not on the ordinary lines which existed before the War? Before the War these bills did not necessarily form a portion of the overdraft, but formed a

  319
  portion of the accommodation which fell within a man's discount and not his overdraft. There is no joint stock bank in London which will discount paper drawn on any of the countries in the Schedule as they would before the War. The additional point, therefore, which has been made, that ordinary banking procedure should be sufficient, inasmuch as the banks themselves could make possible some procedure of this kind for providing accommodation to the exporter with a State guarantee—I see that the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill nods assent. The State, then, through the Treasury, is to assume a contingent liability to any extent which the joint stock banks might discount bills under this Bill. The bankers do not feel justified in getting together and asking the Exchequer to give a guarantee? Why? There are many exporters in this country who formerly did business with firms of good standing in the countries named in the Schedule whose credit rate in currency is fully equal to what it was before the War, but whose rate of sterling to-day is negligible because of the depreciation in the currency. They are not prepared to do any business, because while the exporter here is prepared to take the commercial risk, he cannot face the political hazard, and that is the whole difficulty. If it is not possible for the Exchequer to give a guarantee, obviously the banks would not themselves assume that responsibility.
  I would like to associate myself with the plea made by hon. Members on the Labour Benches, with others also, that this scheme should be extended to raw material or that some analogous scheme should be introduced, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will explore the possibility of expounding a scheme which will include the possibility of raw material. At the present moment I would limit it to Empire-produced raw material. Many difficulties which exist in this country at the present moment with regard to the high cost of living, result directly from the fact that machinery, which formerly produced goods which competed in countries to which we exported, is to-day standing idle, because of the impossibility of the owners of these factories purchasing their raw material. Therefore, the consumer is compelled to buy at a high price, and
  320
  that produces very largely the wide margin between the cost of the article and the selling price, which, by a false term, has been branded as profiteering by the manufacturer. Manufacturers are unable to distinguish between the exported article and the article used at home. The justification of having this extended to raw materials would appear to appeal particularly to the Labour Benches from the desirability of avoiding what exists to-day. Countries which owe us money, or, anyhow, which owe money to countries which owe us money, are to-day compelled to see their industrial population out of work, and drawing out-of-work pay, and are piling up State indebtedness, and thereby reducing their position to meet their obligations.
  There are three points of detail in the working of the scheme to which I would like to refer. Difficulty has been expressed that the importer is compelled to use a bank which might be selected by the Department, and which might not be the bank with which he ordinarily does business. It would be perfectly easy to visualise the disadvantage of that procedure. Facility should be given to the importer to use the bank with which he normally does business, and not be tied down to the bank which the Department indicates that he should use, because the bank in the importing country, not normally being in business relations with the importer, says, "Here is an opportunity to bleed this customer," and charges excessive rates, which make it much more difficult for business under the scheme to be put through. With regard to deposits of currency, surely some modification should be given in the terms laid down with regard to the percentage of currency to be deposited above the full amount of the bill drawn, particularly in the case of the wide fluctuations of the exchange. There is a further aspect. This Bill provides the credit for three years. Therefore it is possible that indebtedness by the importer will not be cleared off and be finally remitted to the exporter until the end of that period. Meanwhile, the Inland Revenue must insist that the full face value of the bill shall be included in the trading result which will rank in the succeeding year for Income Tax. It is therefore conceivable that money may have to be paid out to the Income Tax authorities which has only been earned on paper, and

  321
  which will not be cashed until three years afterwards.
  Finally, I would like again to lay emphasis on the need of this Bill on the ground that it is going to make possible the employment of machinery on the Continent, and in that way we are going more rapidly than in any other way to reduce prices in this country of many commodities of universal need, the high price of which results not, as is so often represented, from the wickedness of the manufacturer in charging excessive prices, but because of the price he is forced to charge in order to avoid discrimination between the export and import trade, and if competition in neutral markets, resulting from the employment of machinery now standing idle in those countries, comes about, that will assist very materially in reducing the cost of living in this country.
  Captain W. BENN: We have had an extremely valuable Debate this afternoon from different points of view. We have had a great deal of extremely practical experience brought to bear by hon. Members who are highly qualified to speak, and who, in matters of detail, are able to instruct the House in a manner I would not even presume to do. But, looking at it from this narrow point of view—and I am trying to envisage it from a much wider aspect—it is interesting to remember that, although the scheme has been going on for some time with a good deal of money at disposal, it has been, from the standpoint of practical results, a failure. Out of a large sum of money put at the disposal of the exporters of this country only £28,000 has actually been taken up. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade talked about a similar scheme in America, but is it not a fact that exactly the same failure dogged the steps they took there? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will subsequently, through the Department, provide an answer. I am informed by a very good financier that the scheme has broken down. Even those who have had no great experience in these matters realise that when you get a Government Department dealing with trade matters, it is bound to make such narrow arrangements, and to take such care about mistakes or losses which might be criticised by the public, as really to eliminate from the business all that element of adventure which is the real essence of success.
  322
  Consequently you find that, while what we knew under the old title of "merchant adventurers" making a success of their ventures, Government concerns cannot make a big success.
  If the matter succeeds, well and good. If it fails, the official knows he will have to bear the whole burden on his own shoulders. So that I think one may, even from the business point of view, say that there is a very great deal of criticism to be urged against this Bill. I will not deal with such matters as possible favouritism of firms, or of a very, unsatisfactory character of individual dealings between Government Departments and firms. Take, for instance, the matter of export licences. Many people in this House and the country generally were highly dissatisfied with the Government for the way in which this matter was carried out, for there was the possibility of some firms succeeding in their application, and others failing; yet both were at the time convinced that they were quite qualified to receive the paper. There is something else objectionable in the machinery. We are setting up or extending—I suppose it is the latter—an Overseas Trading Department. I suppose that is the machinery. It means the employment of a great many people and the expenditure of a good deal of money. There are a great many people in the country who are getting alarmed at the number of Government employés, and the extension of their activities to the particular trades of these people. But this is my point: In the Post Office, which is the largest trading enterprise in which this country indulges, the receipts and expenditure are both shown in the accounts presented to this House. If we wish to criticise we see that every Member's salary is put down, and is, therefore, known to the House. We have the facts to go upon. As I understand it, however, by reading the conditions which have been published in connection with this scheme, it is intended that the scheme shall be self-supporting, and the expenses of the Departments set up shall be defrayed out of commissions taken under the scheme. That really means that we are putting the credit of the State at the disposal of the Department, and are permitting the Department to charge such rates of commission as may be considered proper; and we are considering it as a

  323
  trading concern which is not coming under the detailed scrutiny of the Supply Committee of this House. There seems to me to be some explanation required from the Government. It seems to me to be a very serious encroachment upon the privileges of this House.
  The real criticism that I make on this Bill follows much the lines of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is conceived in much too narrow a spirit. The hon. and gallant Member who preceded me said quite frankly: "Of course, we must use our own money to assist our friends. That is his conception. Every line of the Bill is stamped with the narrowness. My conception is that if we are to reconstruct Europe economically it must be done in the light of the principle that Europe is an economic whole—that we are members one of another, and that one part of Europe cannot possibly suffer unless the other parts suffer also, whether these people happen to be our old enemies or our Allies. I would criticise the restrictions on the import of manufactured articles, the preference as between the different classes of manufactured articles—those in which it can be shown that the greater part of the manufacture has been done in this country. Surely such a way of dealing with a matter may operate very foolishly. Suppose a man making an article, the very best in the world, finds that the ingredients he requires can only be obtained outside this island. Suppose, on the other hand, there is a man who makes an inferior article, using for that manufacture things that in various respects are made in this island. The one man who is damaging our shipping by discouraging importation, and damaging our reputation in foreign countries by the inferiority of the article, gets the preference if he can show that even a single ingredient of the manufactured article is produced in this country. Surely this is much too narrow a way to deal with this important matter. If the hon. Gentleman opposite reads the Regulations I think he will agree that that is precisely their effect.
  I venture to suggest first that to consider such matters is taking a very limited view of what is required; and,
  324
  secondly, to say that raw material comes in the way it does within the scope of this credit scheme is really ignoring one of the greatest needs of the moment. There is one point I should like to know and question the hon. Gentleman about once again, and that is in regard to insurance against a falling exchange. I understand Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 has been put in as an insurance against a falling exchange—
  "Subject to the provision … any sums repaid to the Board of Trade in respect of credits … may be applied by the Board for the purpose of any further credits so granted at any subsequent date."
  As is said by Sir W. Goode in his Review of the "Economic Conditions in Central Europe," people will not take bad money in exchange for food or coal. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak about this matter when he comes to reply to the Debate.
  We have had two very important Reports on the economic conditions of trade in Europe. One is the Report of the "Economic Conditions in Central Europe," by Sir Wm. Goode, and the other a Report by Professor Starling as to the "Food Conditions and Economic Condition of Germany." If we look at these Reports, we shall find—and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House in going into details of these matters—that what these countries require at the present time is certainly machinery and, in some cases, manufactured articies, but much more do they require raw materials. Let us take the case of the present economic conditions in Central Europe. If we look on page 6 of the Report, we find that Sir Wm. Goode lays it down that the things required for the future of Europe east of the Rhine is (a) restoration of peace; (b) credits—(i) food in most countries, (ii) raw materials in all countries, (iii) stabilisation of currencies. Sir Wm. Goode then goes on to refer to the need for transport. and he also refers to economic solidarity, about which I shall make a few remarks later. Let us look at page 10 of this Report. Sir Wm. Goode speaks about the need for raw material and for manure. He also speaks about the "spectre of unemployment" and its great danger. Dealing with the CzechoSlovak Republic, it is stated in the Report that President Masaryk had pointed out in October, 1919, that it was

  325
  impossible to put his people to work without wool and cotton for the factories, and that if raw material were not forthcoming the industrial population would have to leave the country. There was a review in "The Times" newspaper that I read only a few days ago. Speaking about the economic reconstruction of Europe, they pointed out much the same as this Report. Speaking about Czecho-Slovakia again, it is stated that what was required within an area of 50,000 miles is raw materials. Then we come to Poland, and what Sir Wm. Goode says about that country. On page 10 we find the following:
  "Raw materials in great demand include cotton, wool, iron and iron ore, canning materials, fertilisers, jute, chemicals, rubber, vegetable oils, and high-speed steel."
  I should like to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in finis connection, whether it is possible that credits can be, or have been, obtained for the purpose of purchasing munitions for Poland? We have had rather unsatisfactory answers to questions on this matter. When we have put questions, we have had—I do not want to use the word "evasive," because that might be considered offensive, but we have asked concerning the export of munitions, and I ask now whether travellers from abroad have been asking for assistance to establish munition factories. The hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Department has dealt rather lightly, and not in a very illuminating manner, with these queries. Is there any possibility of a credit being got from his Department for this purpose? This suggested establishment of munition factories is a very serious question, and one that certainly deserves the utmost scrutiny of this House. There are other countries in the Bill. Take the case of Rumania. If we look at page 11 in the Report, which I am quoting, there is a reference to Rumania, which says that what is required is cotton and wool manufactures, and clothing, iron and steel, and other machinery. Take the Serbs. We read that cotton, wool, and clothing material, also salt, fertilisers, and oils, are badly needed. Then there is Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania dealt with on the same page of the Report. It is all the same story. It is obvious that it must be so. The main thing that all these people need is raw materials to
  326
  start their industries and get their economic health re-established.
  I come to the question as to why certain countries are given preference over others. One of the States was in communication with the Soviet Republic in Russia and the other was not. The one that is not, is rewarded for its virtue by being made available for the credits of this country, but the one that has established relations with the Southern Republic of Russia is cut out. I am coming to that in a moment, but it is impossible to evade certain conclusions in this matter. Why are Hungary and Austria left out? I do not want needlessly to go into details, but I see again Sir Wm. Goode in his Report makes it perfectly clear that raw material is wanted here, and "The Times," in the same economic survey to which I have alluded, reinforces that opinion. Again I ask, why is it that some countries were put in and taken out again? I say it is impossible to evade the conclusion that it is because this Bill is endeavouring to do what used to be the policy of the cordon sanitaire. In the Schedule of the Bill there is a list of States, and the hon. Members will find that they form one geographical line from the Baltic to the Black Sea. We are supplying, to use the words of the Prime Minister, a string of small States with the necessary equipment to set up a real barrier against an invasion by force of arms. There you are speaking in a military sense. Now we find that the economic policy of the Government is being shaped in exactly the same mould. This is to assist and encourage those forces which are opposing Bolshevism. Those are the words of the Secretary of State for War.
  I do not approach this question of what should be our trading relations with other countries from the point of view of sympathy with the system in Russia, for which I have hardly any sympathy at all. I approach this matter from our own point of view and the good of this country, and I ask whether, in allowing the policy of the country to be shaped by the War Secretary to suit his own schemes, we are not really damaging the needs of this country. There was a return made to the House of Lords which gave some very interesting particulars about the food production of the world and the needs of the world. It showed

  327
  that there was a slight decrease in production, and at the same time a rise in our own needs. Figures were given of the enormous production of the countries admitted to this Schedule before the War. With regard to Russia, M. Krassin, although he did not indicate that the transport was ready for the export of the goods, stated that in his opinion there was a surplus of 15,000,000 tons of wheat which might be exported front Russia.
  Surely, in the interests of this country, one may ask that this scheme, which professes to settle the economic conditions of Europe, why it is that Russia is excluded, more especially when we need all these enormous sources of supply in order to reduce prices in this country. The reason is that the Government are in fact carrying out a blockade of Russia. Of course, there is no real blockade, but the hon. Gentleman has told us that he does not issue export licences to a man who wishes to sell anything in Russia. I understand it is a fact that no one is allowed to know where the mines are in the Baltic, except with the approval of the British Admiral. We have heard a great deal about the desirability of establishing trade relations with Germany, but she is not included in this Schedule. I do not know how you have to proceed if you wish to get another country added to this list after the Bill is passed, but why is Germany not included? Is it because we do not wish to re-establish trade relations with Germany, or because we are pursuing the idea that because we object to Germany we have to carry on a sort of silly spiteful economic quarrel?
  Why not take the common-sense and manly course? In our own interests the sooner we establish trade relations with Germany the better. The result of this sort of thing is only creating difficulties for ourselves in Germany. First of all, we insist upon a rigorous adherence of the terms of the Peace Treaty, including the pursuit of the War criminals, a policy which led to the Kapp putsch. By such a policy as this in Germany you create such conditions of hardship that one acts upon the other, and you get a state of affairs which is the main cause of our troubles to-day. Instead of adopting a
  328
  sensible policy you have set one section against the other, and you find it almost impossible now for Germany to re-establish itself. What Germany requires first is food, and then raw material, and then quiet. I stayed in Germany a few weeks ago and they all say there, "Leave us alone and let us get to business." Surely it is in the interests of this country that we should establish business with Germany as soon as possible. I do not wish to enlarge upon that point.
  A report has been issued by Professor Starling and it is a most illuminating document. With regard to food, whereas the right quantity in Germany is represented by 3,300, the actual amount is 1,700, and under those circumstances what is the use of talking about the economic reconstruction of Europe when you have an enormous industrious country nourished on that scale? The figures of the death-rate are equally surprising. There was an increase of the death-rate among civilians from a percentage of 9½ in 1915 to 37 in 1918. What is the good of killing all these people who might be making goods to interchange with us, and who might be assisting us in economic reconstruction. I will not mention the increase in the mortality among children, but it is most affecting and appeals strongly to anyone who knows the real state of affairs. We have annexed the Island of Nauru, from which the Germans got their phosphates, and we are pressing them for a big indemnity. Professor Starling says:
  "There are no marked feelings of resentment against the Allies, especially against the English, and they are ready to work for whoever will feed them and clothe them. There is, in fact, in Germany a magnificent business paralysed for lack of working capital, and to be controlled by anyone who will supply this working capital."
  That is a summary of what should be done for the economic restarting of the Germans. That, I think, is a conclusive argument to advance against the Government for not including Germany in the Schedule. In conclusion, I want to say what, in my view, would have been the right way to deal with this question, and I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend behind me. I suggest that this partial treatment, this differentiation between what the hon. Member calls our friends is, if not actually, very nearly a breach of our

  329
  Treaty obligations. In the Note which we sent to Germany we said that:
  "The Treaty of Peace should be based upon the 14 points of President Wilson's Adress of 8th January, 1918. … These are the principles upon which hostilities were abandoned in November, 1918, these are the principles upon which the Allied and associated Powers agreed that peace might be based, these are the principles which have guided them in the deliberations which have led to the formulation of the conditions of peace."
  One of the fourteen points was:
  "The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance."
  Here we are using the credit of the country and bringing in a Bill in order, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, to assist our friends. We want a much wider conception of this question. We would much rather look forward to the Conference at Brussels representing all the countries in the world, which, although it is not associated with the members of the Council and the League of Nations, yet it will be the most complete representation of the League of Nations we have yet had. We believe that it is by action on their part which will include an economic survey of the whole of the needs of Europe, and which may include some joint international action for the purpose of providing the necessary credits that will bring down the economic barriers in Eastern Europe. We should use the credit of the League of Nations to prevent these new States setting up economic barriers. That is what we think is the right way to go to work, and not by means of a measure which may be harmless in many of its aspects, but far too narrow, and which ignores the fundamental fact which is the essential to economic unity of the whole of the Continent of Europe.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: After listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, I am rather surprised at the conclusion that he is going to vote against this Bill.
  Captain BENN: No, I am not going to vote against this Bill.
  Lord R. CECIL: Then his speech has merely been a demonstration against the Government. Let me compliment him upon the skill with which he has intro-
  330
  duced even such a matter as the Kapp putsch into this question of the export of British goods to certain countries. As to what has been said about the exclusion of enemy countries, I think it would be quite a mistake to say that in your treatment of enemy countries it is improper to assist them from an economic point of view. If that were the basis of the exclusion of enemy countries from this Bill I should be entirely against it, and certainly when it comes to the Committee stage there is a great deal to be said for including all those countries and giving them an opportunity and the right to trade with us. There are some countries who are not in a position to trade with us at the present time, and which we could not properly think of dealing with under the provisions of this Bill. For instance, I doubt very much whether it would, from a business point of view, be practicable to apply the provisions of this Bill to Russia. It is not practical to suggest you can assist exports from this country to Russia. I do not think it is a business proposition. That the Government have not been moved in this matter by a narrow view of the economic situation of the world is shown by the fact that many friendly countries, including France and Italy, are omitted from the Schedule of the Bill. There might be a case for assisting them. There are many similar cases that might be mentioned. I think the Government would be perfectly right to consider with an open mind any proposals that may be made to extend the schedule, subject, of course, to this: that if you have only a limited sum of money to deal with, it is no use trying to cover too wide a field. I do not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke in his view of the general political and economic situation of Germany. I agree, however, with what has been said in several quarters, and I think the Government themselves will admit that they are disappointed at the comparatively slight use which has hitherto been made of the facilities already provided, and I hope they will consider whether something cannot be done to extend those facilities. As a general proposition it is a bad thing for a Government to interfere in matters such as this, but even my hon. Friend who is so very strong on this point, does not think that the thing can be done without Government assistance at all. This is not really, strictly speaking, a

  331
  commercial proposition, and that lies at the foundation of the whole situation. You must bring the Government in to some extent.
  Objection has been taken to the conditions laid down in the White Paper. I am inclined to think that the proposals of my hon. Friend could be carried out under the Bill if the Government chose to modify the White Paper in that direction. With a trifling alteration of the wording of the Bill he could do everything my hon. Friend desires. The real point is, do we think, broadly speaking, it is desirable that the Government should come to the assistance of these countries, or, as I would prefer, of the whole world? Is it right for the Government to come to the assistance of the commercial world in this terrific crisis, or should we leave it entirely to private enterprise? I do not believe anyone will say you can hope to set the industries of Europe going without some assistance, direct or indirect, from State effort. The only question is, are the conditions right? I hope the Government will allow me to say I share the view of a good many of its critics that the conditions in the White Paper as they stand are too severe. I may be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that this is a case in which the purists of the Treasury have taken rather too academic a view. The whole case for the Bill is that you cannot leave this to unassisted commercial effort. It is no use, therefore, making your conditions so severe that no risk is incurred at all. If you do that, ordinary private enterprise can do the work as well as the Government. The excuse for Government interference is that this is a matter in which private enterprise cannot be expected to take the great risks involved, and therefore your conditions must be such as to make it possible for private individuals to deal with those dangers themselves.
  I hope the Government will take the greatest precautions against possible favouritism. I am told I am rather fanatical on this point, but I feel that the great danger of Government intervention is this, that the most energetic, the most skilful, and the most powerful are likely to get the most assistance. That is a very grave danger, and any suspicion of that kind would be absolutely fatal to the success of this scheme; it would do infinite harm not only to the Government,
  332
  but to the whole commercial and political life of this country. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will, as indeed I am sure he will, take the greatest precautions to prevent any possible favouritism. Another criticism is based on the fact that the operation of the Bill is confined to manufactured articles, and raw material is excluded. I quite agree there is a great deal to be said for that on paper, but my hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that the main want of these countries at this moment, apart from food—which is not a thing that we can supply, because we do not grow any surplus for export—is manufactured articles, such as boots, clothes, agricultural and railway machinery, iron pipes, boilers, and so on. Someone was telling me only the other day of the immense quantity of boiler tubes required for the repair of locomotives, and, looking at that particular aspect of the question, I quite agree it is very desirable that we should help in every way. Surely, if we could get the transport system of Europe working, you would not only supply machinery from this country, but you would better facilitate the supply of raw material than by any other plan? Transport all over the world has broken down. An immense part of the difficulties of Germany are due to lack of transport. The same may be said of Austria, while as regards Russia the trouble is almost wholly one of transport. There is plenty of food there, but the problem is to distribute it. The same is to a very great extent true of all parts of Europe. When my hon. Friend quotes passages from the report of Sir William Goode and Professor Starling to show that there is a great want of food and raw material, he must not forget that one cause is the breakdown of transport and other facilities. Therefore, I think it is quite a legitimate thing to begin by saying we will facilitate the export of manufactured goods. The great point, however, is to take anything we can get at the moment, to build up the economic position of Europe. I quite agree that this Bill is not going to solve the economic problem for Europe; indeed, the Government do not suggest that for a moment. That is a very much wider question than is covered by this Bill.
  7.0 P.M.
  The case for the Bill is really overwhelming, and I desire to express my

  333
  warmest thanks to the Government for introducing it. It is a delusion to suppose that this Bill has been introduced under the malign influence of the Secretary of State for War. I do not possess an absolutely unequivocal admiration for that distinguished statesman, and in this case I think he is guilty of some suggestion of this kind. I will not tax my memory as to the exact facts, but I thing a suggestion of this nature was made a year or two ago by a body quite free from the influence of the Secretary for War. I refer to the Supreme Economic Council of Paris. Some plan of this kind, that the Government should use its credit in order to facilitate exports to Europe was a proposal made, I believe, by the Economic Council. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last as to the necessity for taking a wide outlook in this matter. I agree that the case for this Bill can be based on humanity, but I think it may also be based on the strictest grounds of economy. At the present moment what are we doing all over these countries? We are supplying them with food and other materials by charity. That is really what it amounts to. It is a fatal policy. I am not asking that it should be discontinued. I admit it is essential; it cannot be avoided, but it is not only not doing good, it is doing harm to those people who are compulsorily unemployed, and it only makes for further disaster. The only thing to do is to get them back to work, and for that raw material and machinery are needed. On the grounds of economy it is desirable that we should assist in every way to restore the economic position of Europe, and get people back to work. I entirely agree that we cannot stand alone in a world which may go to rack and ruin around us without injuring us. That is a fantastic theory, only less fantastic than the theory that a disaster in some foreign country is, for some mysterious reason, a commercial advantage to this country, That is a pure delusion. The prosperity of the whole world is inter-dependent. It is merely self-interest—enlightened self-interest that should induce us to do everything we can to set the whole of Europe on its legs, and enable it to resume its commercial life, and in saying that I include not only the countries that fought with us, but enemy countries as well. I am, therefore, most fully of
  334
  opinion that the case for this Bill has been established. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) that this Bill is not enough, but it is a step in the right direction. Do not let us say that half a loaf is worse than no bread. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a matter that can be effectively tackled by this country alone, and I endorse everything he has said as to the place of the League of Nations in this as in so many other matters. I think, however, that he was, perhaps, not quite just to that body. It has done something. It has begun to make an economic move. Personally, I wish it would make that move more rapidly, and that the Economic Conference had already met, instead of being always going to meet. Still, I believe that the Economic Conference is likely to do more than anything else that can be done to set Europe on its legs; but that is in the future. Who knows what will happen when the Economic Conference meets? It may take a long time to arrive at conclusions, and its conclusions will necessarily, I suppose, have to be submitted to the League of Nations and the Governments which compose it. There must be delay. Here is a little thing which the Government has induced the financial authorities of the country to sanction. It will do some good; it will make some improvement in the situation. I think the House would be reckless if it did not welcome this proposal, strengthening and amending it by all means in Committee, but giving it a Second Reading at the present time.
  Mr. HASLAM: I am sure the House is much indebted to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Sir W. Rutherford) for his excellent speech. I think that every point of his speech deserved consideration. After considering it myself, I have not come to the conclusion that it is desirable to go the length of this Bill. I should like to add that, when the hon. Member mentioned the Commercial Committee, he was referring to the decision of a Sub-Committee, and not to the whole Committee. The matter was considered by the Sub-Committee, and the conclusions they came to were those which he mentioned. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Samuel) opposed this Bill at every point, and said that it would serve to show the Government the kind

  335
  of Bill that they ought to avoid in future. That may be desirable in the case of a child; it may be well in teaching a child to walk, to allow it first to fall. But, when a large commercial and industrial proposition like this is being dealt with, I think hon. Members should take it more seriously. My commercial instincts are opposed to this Bill, but, at the same time, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) said, we have to consider the particular circumstances of to-day. These circumstances demand that we should help to put on their legs those countries which are suffering the most through the War, and we can do that best by affording them the means of getting the machinery which they require for conducting their business in the future. It cannot be done by means of doles or charity.
  One fear that I have with regard to this Measure is that it is a precedent. It appears to me to be a bad precedent to set up a Government Department for banking purposes. We never know where such a change in our financial relations may ultimately lead. I think that that is a real danger, and I trust that in Committee some words may be found which will make it distinctly understood that the Government will in future undertake to provide banking facilities. I agree with the hon. Member for Edge Hill that a far better plan would have been for the Government to associate themselves with the banks of the country. That, I understand, has been successful in Germany, and possibly in other countries. The hon. Member for Farnham referred to barter, and I agree that, in the present state of the exchanges, there is practically no other way of trading with those countries than by sending shiploads of goods, and knowing what goods are going to be obtained in return. The exchanges vary from day to day, and, as long as those countries continue to increase their fiduciary paper issues, those difficulties will continue. At the recent Commercial Conference in Paris a resolution was unanimously passed, by the representatives of twelve nations, to the effect that immediate steps should be taken to prevent a further issue of paper currency in those countries where there has been a large increase owing to the War. Nothing would do more to stabilise our trading relations with those countries
  336
  than some international measure whereby the issue of paper money would be in some way prevented from increasing. In Germany, for instance, it is being increased from day to day. How, under those circumstances, can we expect the exchange to be right? On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that this Bill, provided that it is amended in Committee, has just reason for its introduction. I hope that when it reaches the Committee stage it will be so amended as to make it quite clear that in the future a Banking Department will not become one of the principal attributes of the British Government.
  Mr. LORDEN: Everyone who has dealt with this Bill has done so from the point of view that something needs to be done, but I do not think that that something has been absolutely defined in the Bill. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that it would be a mistake for the Board of Trade or for the Export Credits Department to enter into a banking scheme. That would mean the creation of a big Department, and probably they would have to cast about all over the place for men to run it. The result would be another huge Department carried on by men who do not understand the work, and that is the gravamen of the whole case. I think that Section 1 (1) (a), which deals with advances, might be eliminated, and the Bill confined to dealing with insurance. Any of the people who would apply for these advances would find their own banks just as ready to advance the money, provided that there was some guarantee as to the political situation, about which, however, the Government are really the only people who know. If the Government would set up an insurance scheme on the lnes of their insurance scheme during the War, others would come in when they knew that the Government were ready to do so. The Bill itself is largely unobjectionable, but the White Paper makes it absolutely ineffective. The safeguards in the White Paper are of such an extreme nature that hardly anybody would entertain them. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said, in his opening remarks, that, although this has been in force for nearly twelve months, only £28,000 has been taken up, and he rather made light of the insurance part of the scheme, stating that only £15,000 had been insured. It has already

  337
  been pointed out that the sum of £26,000,000 is inadequate, even for the countries included in the Bill. That £26,000,000 would only represent a volume of business, on a pre-War basis, of some £8,000,000, which would be a very small amount to divide amongst the various countries. If the scheme were limited to insurance or guarantee, that £26,000,000 would do £500,000,000 worth of business. The White Paper must be amended. I do not suppose that anyone in his sober senses would undertake to leave the matter, as provided in Section 12, to the caprice of a Department. I do not think any trader, however high his opinion may be of Government methods, would feel comfortable under that Clause, which states that—
  "At any time after the maturity of the Bill, or after any default, the Department will be entitled to close a transaction and transfer the bill of exchange and relative security to the exporter—any proceeds which may have been received being allocated on the lines indicated above."
  It is true that that is modified by Clause 13, but even then, it does not give the security that is wanted. The merchants who export will be prepared to arrange with their bankers, and it is only in cases where the banker has taken very large commitments in a particular country that he would ask the Government to make any advance. The hon. Member for Edge Hill suggested that the Government should cone suit a Committee, and I think it would be very wise to get together a Committee of experts who would be able to advise as to what is really wanted. Everyone who has spoken has agreed that something must be done, and if that could be limited to an insurance scheme I feel quite sure that the House would vote unanimously in favour of its being carried out. Many people have laboured the point with regard to including or excluding certain countries. The Board of Trade in the White Paper leaves that quite open. They suggest certain countries, and they go on:
  "Any variations which may be made from time to time in the countries to which the scheme relates will be announced."
  They leave it open in that respect, and therefore there has been too much made of that point, because when you have worked this £26,000,000 out, and you find you are going to embrace other countries, you will want a great deal more. I hope the Government will limit it very severely to simply an insurance scheme.
  Mr. KILEY: I have followed the Debate with considerable interest, as I was anxious to ascertain what was the primary object of the proposal. Was it to help British trade or to do something to restore the ten different countries named in the White Paper? If I gather aright the sense of the views of those who have taken part in the Debate, the primary object which we should have in view is to do what we can to help those countries which have been allied to us in the War. If that is so, the question I put to myself and to others is, are we proceeding on the right lines if those lines are those which are specified in the White Paper. If the White Paper is adhered to our labour this afternoon will be in vain. That has been clearly demonstrated by the fact that during nearly 12 months the magnitude of the operations which have been performed has been limited to something like £28,000, and if that has been the case in the year that has passed what possibilities are there of that amount being increased in the year to come if the conditions which have been in operation continue? The Minister in charge of the Bill would be well advised if he were to scrap the conditions in the White Paper altogether, and take some other action with a view to assisting the object which the Government has in view. One point to which I would call attention is the period of credit. Credit can be carried on for a period of three years. See what position an importer would be in under those terms. If he sends his goods to Rumania the exchange is in the proportion of 7 to 1. On what basis does he dispose of them? On the basis of his cost at the exchange of the day? If so, he is quite safe. If not, he has six times the exchange against him. Would he be justified in taking that risk on the chance that by the time payment became due the exchange would have resumed its normal condition? I do not think any prudent man would conduct his business on those lines. Therefore he disposes of them at the current market rate. If he has done that, why are we to pay? Why should he be using our money? That appears to me to be a very serious drawback.
  After all, we want to be practical. If this Bill is to be useful in any way we must remodel the proposal altogether. I suggest that the Minister might seriously

  339
  consider the setting up of a small advisory committee. There are enough Members in the House or outside it to advise him, and they would submit practicable proposals to him. The hon. Member (Sir W. Rutherford) said he had no doubt whatever that he could find in the City of London banking firms who would do what financial business was necessary for the operations of the Bill. If that is so, it would be better for the Government and the country at large, if they want to accomplish anything, to have a serious and practical scheme in operation, and for that purpose the Minister should seriously consider scrapping the conditions which are being placed before the House and setting up an advisory committee. One of the serious drawbacks in the Bill is that all the operations are to be conducted by practically one individual. I am not saying a word against him. I have no doubt he is a person of considerable standing and knowledge, but to place all the operations in the hands of one individual, however capable, extending as they will to many transactions with many different countries, is a very serious proposition and one which I am not inclined to be enthusiastic about, whereas if the Government will seriously consider the advisability, before taking any further action, beyond obtaininig the Second Reading, of withdrawing the conditions which they have submitted to us and the setting up of an advisory committee, something useful might arise out of the Debate.
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I do not oppose the Bill in any way, but I feel bound to criticise the principle of allowing the Government to go in for further credits. We have an enormous debt and we are asked to provide another £26,000,000. We are providing money for our Allies, but are we in a position to provide further money? There is absolutely no liability on the part of the borrowers in this country for repayment. It has been suggested that if the Government would introduce a system of insurance the banks would be able to finance the operation. That is absolutely impossible. There is no bank which would trade with the money deposited with it and lock it up for five years. The Bill nominally gives a credit for three years, but the people in the different countries mentioned in the Schedule have a right to extend that credit to five years. The hon.
  340
  Member (Mr. Kiley) suggested, that if they sold their goods at the price of the exchange of the day they ought to be able to remit the money to this country, but if he knew human nature he would know perfectly well that in these countries, if once they get hold of £26,000,000 of British money, they are going to keep it and utilise it in trade all over the world if it pays them to do it. They are not going to realise it and send it to this country when the Government has given them five years. There is nothing in the Bill at all. It is merely an authority to the Government without stating any terms, but the White Paper, which, I presume, is not binding on the Government, because it can be altered to-morrow, provides for interest to be paid, and as the interest in these different countries varies sometimes up to 9 or 10 per cent., that is another inducement to these merchants who are receiving the credit not to remit the proceeds, because even if they utilise the money locally and lay it out again, they can make almost double the interest they are paying. Under the circumstances, I think the whole principle of the Bill is a mistake, and it is being introduced not so much in the interest of the manufacturers of this country as of the merchants in the different countries named in the Schedule. I should not be surprised if the Bill had been suggested by interested people in this country, and I should very much like to see a Clause introduced in Committee, by which every three or six months a list is to be published of the companies or individuals who are taking credit under this authorization.
  The suggestion has been made that up to the present only a very small use has been made of this vast credit. It is not because the goods are not wanted in these countries or that there are no buyers. The principal reason is the lack of transport. You cannot transport goods to Poland. Throughout the whole of the country you have to go through there is a shortage of rolling stock. The Bill has not been passed by the House of Commons yet. The Government have taken advantage of the intention of the House to pass it to put it into operation by advancing money twelve months ago. We do not know to whom, but from what I can hear the people who are doing this business are not the people who were trading with those countries before the War, but people who have established

  341
  business for the purpose of taking advantage of this £26,000,000. Consequently it would be most interesting if the Committee would introduce a Clause to enable the public to know who are the people who have been taking advantage of this financial facility. The ostensible reason is to help our manufacturers, but, as a matter of fact, they get very little benefit from it, and the people who will derive the benefit are almost entirely foreigners. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House of Commons was responsible for the extravagance of the Government, and that the expenditure in all directions was under the control of the House of Commons, but in this Bill, as in all others, opposition is impossible. The Government is going to invest £26,000,000. On other occasions they want to engage in expenditure on all sorts of things, and they tell us, "This is not a free Vote. If you do not vote for this we are going to resign." If financial questions are made subject to the Government not allowing the House a free Vote the House and the country must lay the onus for the expenditure on the Government, because we have absolutely no control in the matter. I am not opposing the Bill in any way, but on behalf of the commercial community I feel I am justified in entering my protest.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I ought to tender an apology to the House for intervening at this stage, especially as I have not been able to follow the Debate. However, I can advance as a justification that I am acquainted with the origin of the proposal in regard to this Bill. As the House will be aware, for over 12 months I was the representative of this country on the Supreme Economic Council, and it was from that Council that the idea originated. Therefore it is proper that I should say that many of the remarks made today are wholly unfounded and that at any rate the central proposal of the Bill had a perfectly pure origin. On the Supreme Council we were constantly engaged in devising methods of alleviating the lot of the people in the distressed countries of Europe—charity, as the Noble Lord has described it, and correctly so. Whilst engaged in the work I often felt that the outlook was almost hopeless, for neither this country nor a combination of countries could engage for very protracted periods to supply these people with the
  342
  essentials of life. The real idea that animated us was simply to give them a start and encourage them in the restoration and upliftment of their countries; but undoubtedly, if we were to continue to undertake the task of supplying these people with the necessities of life, we should deprive them of the incentive which alone can make for the restoration of these countries. Therefore we conceived the idea that credit was essential for this purpose.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why is Austria not in?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will endeavour to state my case in my own way. I recognise the criticisms that can be advanced against the limitations of the Bill. We on the Supreme Economic Council had a more comprehensive scheme that we would have liked the Allied and Associated Governments to undertake, but it is common knowledge that this country has had to bear the greater portion of the burden. It is not for me to detail the reasons here, because that would take too long; but we have to recognise that the people of this country have borne the supreme burden during the War, and it is a burden they cannot continue indefinitely. Therefore we came to the conclusion that the proposals to be submitted to our Government must be reasonable in character and that they must have some regard to the position of our own people. As the representative of this country it became my duty to submit these proposals to the consideration of the home Cabinet, and I have only intervened for the purpose of stating how the idea originated; that I am responsible on behalf of the Supreme Economic Council for urging this proposal, not the actual amount provided for the purpose of credit, but the idea itself, and also for getting my colleagues to put it forward.
  We have never had in contemplation the possibility of the complete rehabilitation of the whole of Europe. That is a task which cannot be undertaken by this country alone. We could not be expected to undertake it. It is a task for the Allied peoples and the Associated peoples of the world, and also for those who were neutral during the War, and whose abilities are far greater, proportionately, than ours at the present time. This in no way denies to the bankers and business men the right

  343
  to make arrangements of their own. If they feel they can do better than the Government contemplates doing in this proposal it is for them to demonstrate how to do it. We were assured on all hands that, owing to the state of insecurity in Europe, private traders could not and would not undertake this work unless they were given some form of Government guarantee. I am grateful to the Government for introducing this proposal, and I feel that the Government is entitled to credit in so far as they have gone, and they ought to carry with them the general support of the House. Our experience in investigations were made through Sir William Goode and others, and it was found that it was not so much a question of the actual food itself in these countries as the ability to transport that food about the country. It was my duty as the Minister of Food to suggest to the Government the possibility of securing supplies from Russia, a proposal which now merits the approval of my hon Friends on the other side of the House. I felt that if we could re-establish trade with Russia we should be doing something to help that country and something that might be beneficial to our own country in the matter of food supplies; but whilst I satisfied myself that there was food in Russia, I had to come to the conclusion that the difficulty of collecting and transporting that food was insurmountable at the moment, and that the only possibility that lay within our power was to place within reach of these foreign countries means of credit whereby they can reconstruct their transport system and make available to the world the supplies that may be surplus to them and which would be acceptable to other countries.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have nothing to complain of in the nature of the criticisms which have been offered. Many of them have been strong, but they have been friendly to the general principle of the Bill. The House has been prolific in criticism, but it has not been prolific in suggesting any substitute for our proposals, and that is proof that the House recognises the extreme difficulty of the position. The House has also recognised that this does not pretend to be a grandiose scheme but a beginning, a tentative effort to see whether something cannot be done in this way to help trade in the distressed countries of Europe. It
  344
  has been said that it is too extravagant, and on the other hand it has been said that it is not extravagant enough. The only alternative that has been proposed is a kind of insurance scheme or guarantee in which the Government may lose but the trader cannot lose at all. That is a very fine speculation for the trader but not a good one for the Government, and I do not call it a very sporting offer. Under this scheme the trader has to take the risk of 20 per cent. of the original cost of what he is selling, and I hope he will be sportsman enough to take that risk. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the Government are trying to take the place of banking institutions. We do not want to do anything that the bankers are ready to do. We only want to come in and help where the bankers are unable or unwilling to assist, and where we think there is sufficient safeguard for our money. Some hon. Member asked about the staff, and my hon. Friend (Sir Watson Rutherford) drew a lurid picture of ten officials in each of the ten countries drawing enormous salaries and with a head office here. The agents in the foreign countries will be bankers in those countries who will derive whatever profit they require for their service from the importer in those countries. That will cost this country nothing. There go the hundred officials. The staff here consists of nine people, of whom two are messengers, and they cost £7,000 a year, which sum is already provided in the Estimates and will be open to the criticism of this House. Other criticisms could perfectly well be raised in Committee. One question relates to the countries which ought to be in the Schedule. It is suggested that this has been drawn up in conclusion with the Secretary of State for War and that it is a sort of military cordon round Russia. The Government will go into Committee with a perfectly open mind to consider the demand for the admission of any country now or at any time. To admit some countries, Russia for example, would be impossible at the present time. The same remark applies to Turkey, with whom we are still at war; but when the time comes for any of these countries to be let in, the Board of Trade will have a perfectly open mind.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about Austria?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question which we can debate in Committee. One

  345
  of the strongest criticisms was directed against the White Paper. The White Paper is not sacro sanct, but is open to alteration. It was said that the Regulations are too strict. There is a great deal of force in that criticism. On the other hand, we have to do our best to see that this country does not lose in these transactions. If we had a great number of bad debts, the commissions we charge would not be enough to cover the expense. We wish to do this without any charge upon the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, we cannot be too easy in our terms; but we are perfectly ready to reconsider them, and, if possible, to arrive at some conditions which may be more acceptable to all parties. A flaw has been discovered in the Bill as to people domiciled in this country. That can be attended to in Committee. We were asked about favouritism, and how applications were dealt with. They are dealt with as they come in. The one that comes first, provided it fulfils the conditions and safeguards that we require, gets the first chance. There is no favouritism in dealing with this matter. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) asked how the x00A3;2,000,000 estimated for this year is to be paid. It will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund voted in the Estimates, and paid in the usual way. I think that I have answered some of the detailed criticism that has been made. More criticism might be, and I hope will be made in Committee, but I trust that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill in order to get a start with this experiment, and I think that the experiment will be successful if we can all join in making the conditions as suitable as we possibly can.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  GAS REGULATION BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  GAS REGULATION BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Supply to Railway Premises.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained all gas supplied to the premises
    346
    of a railway company shall, except in case of accident or emergency, be supplied at such minimum pressure as will balance a column of water not less than twenty-tenths of an inch in height at the inlet of the primary meter or meters registering the supply to the railway company. Provided that if at any time the undertakers shall supply gas of a less calorific value than 500 British thermal units gross such pressure shall be so increased that the product of the multiplication of the number of thermal units by the number of tenths of an inch pressure as so increased shall at no time be less than 10,000.

    (2) Any gas examiner appointed under this Act may and shall for the purposes of this section at the inlet of the said meter or meters, at the request of the railway company concerned, test the pressure at which the gas is supplied, and the undertakers shall afford all reasonable facilities for making such test or tests.

    (3) Any alteration, adjustment or replacement of the burners, pipes and appliances of a railway company that may be necessary in consequence of the declared calorific value differing from the calorific value of the gas as authorised at the date of the Order under this Act, or where an illuminating standard is in force from the calorific equivalent of such illuminating standard, or in consequence of any subsequent alteration in the declared calorific value may be made by the railway company, and the undertakers shall repay to the railway company the reasonable cost of such alteration, adjustment, or replacement.—[Sir F. Banbury.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I understand from my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) that he is not prepared to accept my new Clause, but that he proposes to move two Amendments which he has shown to me, and, if that is so, I shall not press my new Clause.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for having agreed to the course which I suggest. We propose to move two Amendments which, I think, will meet his point. We quite realise that certain people, not railway companies alone, but other people as well, have certain obligations and duties in the safety of which the public is concerned. I hope that the Amendments which I shall propose will satisfy him.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 1.—Power to substitute new basis of charge
    (4) An Order under this Section—
    (c) may prescribe, subject to such conditions as the Board may think necessary, the additional charge per therm which the undertakers may make in respect of gas supplied by means of prepayment meters; and
    Mr. ATKEY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert a new paragraph—
    "(d) may require the undertakers to construct and work to the satisfaction of the Board suitable plant for the extraction of such by-products of coal as the Board considers necessary in the public interest: Provided that no such requirement shall be made if it appears to the Board that any loss of revenue due to the reduction in the calorific value and value of gas owing to such extraction will not be compensated for by the probable net proceeds of the by-pro-ducts so derived."
    Amendment not seconded.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Composition and pressure of gas to be supplied.)
    (2) The minimum permissible pressure shall be such pressure in any main, or any pipe laid between the main and the meter having an internal diameter of two inches and upwards, as to balance a column of water not less than two inches in height except as may be otherwise provided by the Order relating to any undertaking.
    (3) The Board of Trade shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause inquiries to be held into the question whether it is necessary or desirable to prescribe any limitations of the proportion of carbon monoxide which may be supplied in gas used for domestic purposes, and into the question whether it is necessary or desirable to prescribe any limitations of the proportion of incombustible constituents which may be supplied in gas so used, and may, if on any such inquiry it appears desirable, make one or more Special Orders under this Act prescribing the permissible proportion in either case, and any such Special Order may have effect either generally or as regards particular classes of undertakings, and the provisions of the Special Order shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Section.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "aid different mimima may be specified for different parts of an under-taking, or for gas of different calorific values."
    This is one of the Amendments which I am moving to meet the wishes of my
    348
    right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    "Where any undertakers are, at the time when an order is made with respect to them under this Act, under a statutory obligation to comply with conditions in relation to pressure which are in excess of the provisions as to pressure contained in this section, the order shall make such provisions as appear necessary to the Board of Trade for preserving these conditions, and this Act shall in its application to those undertakers have effect as though such last-mentioned provisions were substituted for the provisions of this section as to pressure."
    The object of this provision is to preserve to companies statutory right which they have under the Acts, to which this mainly refers, and which are in some respects amended by this Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3) leave out the words "so used".—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Prescribe Tests.)
    (4) A representative of the undertakers may be present on any occasion on which the gas examiner inspects, or alters, adjusts or replaces the testing apparatus or tests the gas, but shall not interfere with the inspection alteration, adjustment or replacement, or test.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert the words
    "For the purposes of this Sub-section the gas examiner shall, in cases where the testing place is situated elsewhere than on the works of the undertakers, give to the undertakers reasonable notice of the time at which he will attend at the testing place."
    This is merely for testing the machine to see whether it is right. Though I do not think it is necessary to give notice where the testing place is in the works, but it does seem to me only right, as the undertakers have the right to be present, that they should have notice when the testing place is situated elsewhere than in the works.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—Penalties for Failure to Comply with Prescription of Gas Referees.)
    If the undertakers fail to comply with any lawful prescription of the gas referees, or to provide or maintain any testing place, apparatus or materials, or any other matter or thing prescribed therein, or to afford to the gas examiner or gas referees access to any testing place or works in accordance with the requirements of this Act, or to afford or furnish any facilities or information in accordance with the requirements of this Act, the undertakers shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25, or in the case of a continuing offence £25 for each day during which such offence continues:
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move after the word "day" to insert the words "after such conviction."
    In Committee upstairs I undertook to consider this point further, and I find that there is precedent in the Bill in reference to the post office and telegraph lines for making the penalty run from the date of conviction rather than from the time the offence was first detected. I think it a good precedent and one which we should follow.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Forfeiture for deficient calorific value, etc.)
    (1) If on any day for a period of two hours or upwards the calorific value of gas supplied by any undertakers, ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, is more than five per cent. below the declared calorific value, the undertakers shall be liable on summary conviction to a forfeiture not exceeding five pounds for every complete one per cent. by which the calorific value is deficient in excess of such five per cent.
    (4) If in any quarter the average calorific value of the gas supplied by any undertakers, ascertained in manner prescribed by the gas referees, is less than the declared calorific value, a sum which the chief gas examiner shall determine to be as nearly as may be the amount by which the revenue of the undertakers has been improperly increased shall —
    (a) if the undertakers are a local authority, be applied towards a reduction in the price of gas in the next or some succeeding quarter; and
    (b) in any other case, be deducted from the amount applicable to payment of dividend on the ordinary capital of the undertakers for the year or half-year in which such quarter occurs, and carried forward to the
    350
    credit of the revenue account for the next following year or half-year in addition to any other amount which would otherwise have been so carried forward, and the dividend which the undertakers may pay on their ordinary capital in respect of such first-mentioned year or half-year shall be correspondingly reduced.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "Provided that, where there is no continuous record of the calorific value of the gas supplied by any undertakers, if on any occasion of testing the calorific value at any testing place is found to be more than five per cent. below the declared calorific value a second testing shall be made on the same day after an interval of not less than one hour and the mean of the two testings shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Subsection, to be the calorific value of the gas supplied by the undertakers at that testing place for a period of two hours ascertained as aforesaid."
    This is designed to meet the case of some of the undertakings which have not a continuously recording calorimeter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph:
    "(c) In every case the amount so ascertained shall be shown in the accounts of the undertakers as a separate item until the undertakers have shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that it has been applied to a reduction in the price of gas."
    This is to prevent the forfeited money being carried over from year to year, and eventually probably finding its way into the hands of the shareholders, and to see that the proper amount goes in reduction of the price of gas to the consumer.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Power to make Special Orders. 33 & 34 Vict., c. 70.)
    (1) Anything which under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, or any Act amending the same may be effected by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament may, so far as those enactments relate to gas, be effected by a Special Order made by the Board of Trade under and in accordance with the provisions of this Section, and for the purposes of the powers conferred by this Section the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, shall have effect as though Section 15 thereof, which excludes the Metropolis from the operation of the Act, were omitted therefrom.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "made", to insert the words "on the application of any local authority, company, or person".
    The object is to make it quite clear that the procedure takes place upon the application of any kind of person who is legitimately interested in such an Order being proceeded with.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not believe that these words are necessary, but they are merely declaratory, and they are only doing exactly what we should have done in any case, and therefore I have no objection to their being put in.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PENSIONS INCREASE [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for the increase of certain pensions and to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of increases as from the first day of April, 1920, in the pensions payable to persons in receipt of pensions—

  (a) under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914;

  (b) under the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 to 1912, or under the code of Regulations for public elementary schools, or under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908;

  (c) under the National School Teachers' (Ireland) Act, 1879;

  (d) under the enactments relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police

  so however that,—

  (1) An increase shall not be allowed unless the following conditions are complied with:—

  (a) The pensioner must reside in the British Islands;

  (b) The pensioner must have attained the age of sixty years, or have retired on account of physical or mental infirmity, or in the case of a pensioner who is a widow and is in receipt of the pension in respect of her husband's service, must have attained the age of forty years;

  352

  (c) The pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, including his pension, are less than one hundred and fifty pounds a year, if unmarried, or two hundred pounds a year, if married.

  (2) The increase in the pension shall be subject to the following limitations:—

  (a) Where the existing pension does not exceed fifty pounds a year it shall not be increased by more than fifty per cent.
  Where the existing pension exceeds fifty pounds a year, but does not exceed one hundred pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person or one hundred and thirty pounds a year in the case of a married person, it shall not be increased by more than forty per cent.
  Where the existing pension exceeds one hundred pounds a year, but is less than one hundred and fifty pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person, or exceeds one hundred and thirty pounds a year, but is less than two hundred pounds a year in the case of a married person, it shall not be increased by more than thirty per cent."

  Provided that—

  (i) if the amount to which a pension may be increased under the above scale is less than the amount to which a smaller pension might be increased, it may be increased to the latter amount;

  (ii) no pension shall be increased by an amount greater than is sufficient to bring the total means of the pensioner, including the increased pension, up to one hundred and fifty pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person, or two hundred pounds a year in the case of a married person;

  (b) When a pensioner is in receipt of two pensions, such pensions shall for the purposes of the above scale be treated as one pension of an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the two pensions;

  (c) Where an existing pension is a pension granted on or after the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and is larger than a pre-War pension by reason of an improvement in the pension scale or an increase in the pensionable emoluments made since that date, the pension shall not be increased by an amount greater than is sufficient to make the increased pension equal to the amount to which the pre-War pension might have been increased under the foregoing provisions."—[Sir L. Worthington Evans.]

  8.0 P.M.
  Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS(Minister without Portfolio): Perhaps I had better explain shortly to the Committee the provisions of this Resolution and of the Bill to be founded upon it. It is intended to increase the pensions in the case of retired civil servants, elementary school teachers in England and Scotland, National school teachers in Ireland, members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and employés of any police, local or other public authority who are in receipt of pensions granted before 4th August, 1914, or pensions granted since that date to which the pre-War scale of pensions applied. The Resolution states the proposed scale of increase as follows: Pensions not exceeding £50 a year will be increased by 50 per cent.; where the pension is between £50 and £100 for unmarried, or £130 for married people, there will be an increase by 40 per cent.; and where the pensions exceed £100, but are less than £150 in the case of unmarried persons, or exceed £130 and are less than £200 a year in the case of married persons, they will be increased by 30 per cent. In considering what pensions were going to be increased and what were to be left where they were, it is obvious that some strict limitation had to be put upon those whose pensions were to be increased if the expense was to be within the limits of the country at the present moment. The Cabinet Committee, which examined this question very carefully with the Departments, endeavoured to classify pensions so that those which were intended as subsistence pensions should be increased, and that those which were given, not as subsistence pensions, but rather as service pensions and were generally held by those who were capable of earning a living apart from the pension, should be increased to a less degree. It was, however, found impossible to draw any logical distinction between subsistence pensions and pensions awarded for service, so a limit had to be found in another direction. The limit chosen has been an income limit on the one side and an age limit on the other, so that the increases in pensions relate only to those pensioners over sixty years of age, or those who have retired by reason of their infirmity under the age of sixty.
  354
  The limit of income has been arranged so that those who are married should receive an increased pension, nothwith-standing that their income was higher than that of those who were unmarried, but in no case will the pension and the private means of the pensioner exceed £150 a year for unmarried persons or £200 a year for married persons. There is a class of pensioners who were not pensionable before 1914, but were pensioned at a later date, and yet have not received the higher scale which is now in operation. Power is taken by the Resolution to deal with these cases. The cost to the Exchequer of the pensions provided for in this Resolution and in the Bill will amount to about £850,000 in the first year. That is a maximum sum, and it will gradually decrease as the pensioners grow fewer. But that is not the total expense which will be incurred. This Resolution and the Bill do not deal with soldiers and sailors. Exactly the same increase is to be paid to the pre-War, peace-time, service pensions of soldiers and sailors. These will be dealt with in the ordinary way, by Royal Warrant as regards the soldiers and by Order in Council as regards the sailors. These military and naval pensions will amount to about£ £875,000 a year. The total number of persons who will be benefited by both branches of the subject, that is, by the Bill and by the Royal Warrant and Order in Council, will be about 110,000 persons over sixty. There will be some few others, the numbers of which I have no estimate for—those who retired before they were sixty on grounds of infirmity—and there will be some few widows who also will be entitled to have their pensions increased at the age of forty.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The Resolution which has been placed before the Committee is one which in its essence commands the sympathetic support of all parties in the House. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it has treated it with the necessary seriousness, because it involves a very heavy charge on the Exchequer, which is by no means confined to the present year, but which is a permanent addition to the annual charges falling upon the Exchequer.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Not permanent?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: It is one which can only be diminished by the deaths of the pensioners.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Gradually decreasing.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I daresay; but the thing to look at is the next three or four years. I am sure the Resolution will receive the earnest businesslike consideration of the Committee. In the details which the right hon. Gentleman has given of the class of pensioners I see that he puts down elementary school teachers in England and Scotland, and employés of any police, local, or other public authority. I presume he includes Scotland also in that, though it is not specifically mentioned.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Yes.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to ask when the Bill will be introduced, and whether it is intended to take it through all its stages before we rise for the Summer Recess. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also let the Committee know, although, perhaps, it is not strictly relevant, but it is mentioned in the White Paper, what opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the increase in the naval and military pensions which are to be made by Order-in-Council and Royal Warrant respectively. I presume that a proper opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the proposals of the Government in that respect.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to make one or two observations on the Resolution and to ask one or two questions. We are glad to see this Resolution on the Paper. It has been a long time making its appearance, but one can, of course, well understand that the Government have had a great many matters to consider. I am glad also to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is now in agreement, or, at any rate, in sympathy, with the proposition, because I was not able to obtain his support to the memorial which was presented to the Prime Minister on behalf of, I think, nearly 300 Members of the House of Commons. I do not know whether it would be in Order to discuss the main points of the Resolution, or whether it would be better to postpone that discussion until the Bill is introduced. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there would be some opportunity given to discuss the question of the Army and
  356
  Navy pensions. I do not know whether that opportunity will be given; but if it is to be given, in that case it will be better to postpone anything one has to say with regard to the Army and Navy pension until that opportunity.
  There are one or two matters which require a little explanation. We are pleased to know that pensioners who did not participate in the bonus, and I refer here to Civil Service pensions, will participate in this concession. The limit is fixed as regards age at sixty, or those who retired on account of infirmity; but what about the pensioners who are under sixty and who have contracted, we will say, a disease of some kind since their retirement? Are they to be included? I take it that it is intended that they should, because otherwise you will leave out of the scheme a deserving set of men who, through no fault of their own, have unfortunately been disabled, although not disabled in the service of their country, but since they were pensioned. With regard to the married and unmarried, surely there ought to be some distinction made where the widower has to have the service of a housekeeper, or where he has people dependent upon him, such as an only daughter, who has to look after him, and who is naturally an additional expense. In cases of that kind, I suggest that there should be some difference made, and that they should be treated as married cases so that there may be common fairness all round. The mart who is unmarried and is fairly healthy, although he is sixty, does not need the same requirements as the invalid who is over sixty and is unable to attend to himself. I have another suggestion to make, and here I am afraid I shall fall foul of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand he is not in a position to raise the sum which has been allocated as the limit for these concessions. But I would point out where the existing pension does not exceed £50 per year the annual advance on that pension of 50 per cent. goes a very small way indeed. Imagine anyone at sixty years of age, or those with infirmity, having to live upon £75 per year. Surely that is not the intention of the Government. An hon. Gentleman suggests that a man with that small pension may also have to keep a family, and that cannot be done upon £75 per year. Would it not be possible for the right hon.

  357
  Gentleman to consider the possibility, where the existing pension does not exceed £50, of raising it by 100 per cent.? I feel rather strongly upon this point because I brought it forward some two or three years ago, and it was suggested then that pre-War pensions of £50, or about £1 per week, should be raised by 100 per cent. It was on that basis that we worked for a very long time, and it came as a surprise to many of us to find that small pensioners were only to receive an increase of 50 per cent. Would it not be possible to re-arrange the table and have three classes, say, of pensioners of £100 and £75 and £50, and make another section between the £100 and the £50, and give the pensioner of £75 per year a larger percentage of addition than the man with £100 per year? In that way you would assist the small pensioners, and I take it that that is the object of the Government's concession.
  There is another point which I think all Members will recognise, and that is that when these concessions were made we were told that they would be given to necessitous cases, but the word "necessitous" is not mentioned in this Resolution, and whether the phrase is going to be inserted in the Bill or not, I do not know. At any rate, a necessitous case might be the case of a person who is not 60 years of age and who did not retire on account of physical infirmity, and if it is the intention of the Government to abide by their original suggestion, namely, to deal with all necessitous cases, I venture to think some change must be made in this Resolution. Again, it seems rather hard upon men and women who have saved a little money with great difficulty, say, a few pounds a year, that those few pounds a year should practically put them out, I do not say of receiving any concession at all, but at any rate of receiving the higher concession. That seems to me a very unfortunate thing, because we are asked to encourage thrift, and in years gone by people were thrifty, although I am afraid now there is a vast expenditure going on in the country and that a few pounds would not be considered very much, but in the days when these pre-War pensioners were living on a very small amount, some of them were able to save even out of that and invested sums which are now bringing in three or four
  358
  pounds a year, or perhaps a little more. Surely the Government can allow them to keep these small amounts without taking them into consideration.
  As to old age pensions, I think they should stand by themselves. The old age pension is given when a man or woman arrives at a certain age, and surely it should not be taken into consideration when you are giving these very small concessions to very small people. If you left the old age pension and then raised the 50 per cent. there might be something in that which would be appreciated by the small pensioner, but to take away his old age pension and then only to give him a 50 per cent. rise on his small amount a week is hardly doing justice to the view which I am sure the Government are desirous of adopting. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to consider these few points, I feel certain that the Resolution will be accepted unanimously by the House and that it will be very much more appreciated by the pensioners than it is at present, although I think I may say, from what I have heard from the pensioners with whom I have come in contact, that they are one and all very grateful indeed to the Government for considering their cases, but they feel that something is wanting, and that something I have endeavoured to express. I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter consideration, so that when the Bill is brought before the House we may see some improvement in the Government's proposals.
  Mr. MILLS: I think we can view this money Resolution as slightly different from the average money Resolution which is brought before this House. The average money Resolution dealing with the projected expenditure of a Department is almost invariably accompanied within a very limited period by a supplementary money Resolution, which in many cases doubles the original grant; but in this particular case the money Resolution is to cover a proposition which will dwindle with the death of the recipients and is, of course, one of the many minor problems, viewed nationally, arising out of the War. I would urge upon the Minister responsible to press upon the Government the need of reconsidering the amounts that are proposed to be granted, if at all possible. I want him to realise just exactly what are regarded as the

  359
  very minimum rates paid to the least intelligent labourer of our day and generation, and if he bears that in mind he will realise the utter inadequacy of the proposals outlined in this Resolution. Surely the fact that they are only applicable to pre-War pensions, and will decrease as recipients die out, makes it all the more necessary that we should recognise the serivce these people have rendered. There are many of them who, by reason of their occupation, are entitled to a little more of the amenities of life than those who have struggled all through their lives on a much smaller scale of living. These people during the days of their service were able to live a life of comparative comfort, and it is rather hard that in their declining days they should be reduced to a state of abject extremity, and for that very reason, if for no other, we think this sum might at least be doubled, so that provision can be given to people who have served the State, and who, because of the abnormal developments arising out of the War, are now reduced to a state of absolute penury and exhaustion.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Ever since this question of giving pre-War pensions was brought before the House, practically everybody in the House has been in favour of giving some of these poor old servants of the State a pension which would in some way relieve the extreme difficulties of living at the present time. May I also tender my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Resolution for all that he has done in order to give something towards this desirable object? I am not quite sure how one ought to proceed. Will the Resolution be put Section by Section or as a whole, because there are one or two Amendments which I should like to move in connection with it which I think will improve it and relieve some of the hardships which are likely otherwise to occur under it? In regard to the limit of 60 years, while sympathising very strongly with the other members of the Civil Service, I feel that in the case of the police that age limit of 60 is a particularly hard one. In the Civil Service generally, the age limit for retirement on pension is 60, but in the case of the police, under the Police Pension Act, 1890, the corresponding limit is placed at 55 years. That can only be taken to mean that in the
  360
  opinion of the House of Commons, based on experience, the life of the policeman is not as good as the life of an ordinary Civil Servant. That is to say, the duties which he has to perform, which expose him to great personal risks, and to all kinds of weather conditions, do not give him the same chance of long life as the ordinary Civil Servant has.
  If I may mention another point in connection with that, there is the postman, for instance, who has served four years in the Post Office service, and transferred to the police force. Those four years are only counted as three years in the police service, really showing that a smaller limit for the police is reasonable, and should be recommended to the Government for consideration, rather than treat all on the same basis where the conditions of service cannot in any sense of the word be considered as identical. As regards the question of examining into the personal position and income of all the Civil Servants, it is a most inquisitorial suggestion, and one which I do not believe will commend itself to this House. May I refer to a statement by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain? The Committee, I am sure, will forgive me for quoting him, as he has expressed what I would point out in far better language than I could express it. In addressing elementary teachers at Birmingham, he said:
  "I regard the pensions so granted as being part of the acknowledgment of service. I regard them as a system of compulsory thrift enforced by the State upon its servants. They are deductions from the salaries of servants, and they are taken into account when they accept their positions."
  That must commend itself to the Committee. The suggestion that the Government should start this inquisitorial formula amongst the men who are to-day in a very distressing condition has aroused an amount of indignation amongst them, which, I am quite sure, the Committee will not allow if they can possibly stop it. We are all asked to economise in these days, but surely that is a very expensive way of working out this system. I do not know how the Government propose to do it. Are they going to make their own inquiries by a special staff, or, if not, are they going to give it to the Old Age Pension Commissioners, which would be a most unpopular suggestion, and, if I am allowed to do so, I shall move the deletion of the Sub-section

  361
  altogether, because I am sure it is not the wish of the Committee that such should be adopted. Of course, one feels the difficulty of really discussing the subject in detail, but I would ask my right hon. Friend if he would give us some hope that, in the case of one of these pre-War pensioners who has died since 1st April last—the date fixed for the commencement of this increase—his widow will be allowed to have the difference between his old pension and the proposed new increase. It is not a very great matter, and it would help, I am sure, many a home to-day.
  There is another point which I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman. There are many cases of the kind. A police officer has retired after his full service. I have a case before me which can be vouched for. This man retired from the Metropolitan Police after 26 years' service, with a first-class certificate, on a pension of £65 4s. 6d. When leaving he had to sign the usual official form to the effect that he would rejoin the service if called upon. Then he obtained a post in the Bank of England. It may have been the post referred to by the right hon. Member for the City of London. He remained there till the outbreak of War, when he was asked to rejoin the force, which he did on 5th August, 1914, and remained there till the 31st March, 1919, so that he served a period of over 30 years in the Metropolitan Police Force. He retired on the very eve of the day when the new pay was coming in. That man cannot get any employment now. None of these pensioners can get re-employment. The Government themselves are turning them off. While the men themselves do not object to allowing the ex-service men to have all the jobs they can, they urge all the stronger that, in the case of these pensions, which are miserably mean and almost contemptible in some cases, they should be brought up to the level originally proposed, namely, that those pensions were granted on the understanding that in their declining years they should have a competency to live upon. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has drawn special attention to the Royal Irish Constabulary—one of the finest body of men in the whole world, men who are to-day boycotted and cut off from the ordinary social side of life. They are not allowed to be served at the ordinary shops, and
  362
  the lot of those men to-day is anything but a happy one. I should like very much to see the age limit reduced to 55 in the case of police constables of all forces, and the whole of the Sub-section dealing with this inquiry into the private means of these pensioners deleted. I feel strongly on this subject, and when we come to it, I shall ask your permission to be allowed to move these two Amendments? Shall I be in order in moving?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): The hon. and gallant Member can move.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Then I would like to move in Sub-section (1, b), after the word "years" ["age of sixty years"] to insert the words "or in the case of a police constable the age of fifty-five years."
  Mr. HOGGE: Will not my hon. and gallant Friend keep his Amendment back until after the general discussion on the Resolution, otherwise it will cut our discussion down to that point?
  Sir J. REMNANT: I will adopt that course.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his action. It is probably better that we should have the general discussion before we come to Amendments. We see here one of the difficulties of procedure in the House revealed in this Money Resolution. We see the extraordinary difficulty of discussing a money resolution without having seen the Bill, and the difficulty also of expressing one's views just as clearly as one would wish, knowing that any private Member who makes a suggestion in regard to increased expenditure of money would be promptly ruled out of order by the Chair as exceeding his rights. There are, however, one or two criticisms which I think ought to be made about this Resolution. We should keep clearly in mind that pensions are deferred pay. That is the first point, which the Committee doubtless will agree with, but which the Government, judging by the speech of the Minister without Portfolio, does not seem to have grasped. If it be true that all pensions are deferred pay, then it is unfair to your pensioner, who is drawing deferred pay, to treat him worse

  363
  than you are treating employés in the Government service to-day.
  Take the example of war bonus. My right hon. Friend must know that a great number of Civil servants to-day are drawing as much in war bonus as in pay, due to the increased cost of living. If that be true about the pay of Civil servants, then it is doubly true about the pension of the Civil pensioner. It is much more difficult for the pensioner, with his circumscribed payment of a few pounds, to meet the new situation, much more difficult for him or her than it is for the Civil servant who is in receipt of war bonus. This principle has been applied by the Government, not only to their own servants, but to the ranks of industry in this country. Members of the Committee will remember that railway servants' wages are governed by a sliding scale, which is drawn up from month to month by the Board of Trade, and which increases—I do not complain about that; it is the right thing—with the cost of living. That does not apply to the pensioner, yet my right hon. Friend, I think, agrees that the pensioner is still a Government servant, only that he or she is in receipt of deferred pay. I should like to hear the argument of my right hon. Friend, who is a Member of a Government that throws money about, how he can defend depriving these old Civil servants, who have a potential right to participate in the increases which have been given for existing work and 'servants—how he can defend that in this Financial Resolution?
  The second criticism is this, that it is not quite clear that the increase is as stated in the White Paper or Memorandum which explains the Resolution. The Memorandum says that the proposed scale of increases is as follows: "Pensions not exceeding —50 a year—50 per cent," and so on. If you come to the Resolution it says:
  "(2) The increase shall be subject to the following limitations: (a) where the existing pension does not exceed £50 a year, it shall not be increased by more than 50 per cent."
  The man or woman may not get the 50 per cent. He may get 40 or 30 per cent., "It shall not be increased by more than half." That phrase suggests that some body or other is going to be set up to administer these increases, or that the administration is going to be transferred to some existing Government Department. We have experience of that sort
  364
  of thing. My hon. Friend who spoke before me said—quite rightly in my opinion—that if there was one thing resented more than another by the people subjected to these Regulations it was the inquisitorial methods of the people who administer them. Take the comparative case of the Old Age pensioners and the examination by the Ministry of Pensions in connection with the alternative pension scheme. What happens in these two cases? The Old Age pensioner gets an Old Age pension, if he has a certain limited income. But immediately any addition is made to that income the Old Age Pension Committees are down upon the Old Age pensioner like a hawk in order to deprive him of the advantage of that Old Age pension.
  An Old Age pensioner may be in receipt of the full amount. He may be, say, a personal friend of my right hon. Friend opposite, who may give that old man or lady five shillings a week out of his private pocket which has nothing to do with the income of the old gentleman. The Department concerned stops or reduces the Old Age pension. For instance, there were many widowed mothers during the War who lost their only sons in the War. They were without income, and were getting Old Age pensions. The moment a mother got the pension of 5s. for the death of her son in the War, which was a contribution to them for the sacrifice of the son, down came the Old Age Pension Committee and reduced the old lady's pension. I say deliberately that we ought to keep that kind of thing in our minds. We ought to be extremely anxious as to what Government Departments we are going to hand over the administration of this business, whether it means that these increases are to be standardised, or are to be governed by the conditions which will be set up under the Regulations after we dispose of this Resolution. Many of these pensions were those applying to discharged men. As a matter of fact, to-day the circumstances in England are being examined by bailiffs, and you have a bailiff going into the homes of working people and examining into their circumstances in order to determine whether they shall have this or that amount of pension. We want to be extremely careful that if these increases are going to be made they should be handed over to some Department that will administer them sympathetically in the

  365
  spirit as well as in the letter. I have another criticism with regard to the last paragraph in the Memorandum which deals with the increased sums in service pensions in the Army and Navy. Why is the age limited to 60? If a man is entitled to a pre-War pension for service rendered at a cheaper rate because he was going to get the pension, why should that man require to wait until he is 60?
  I do not think the Government can defend this parsimonious way of dealing with the question. We have been told that this Bill affects 110,000 persons over 60 years of age. At any rate, they are getting very near the grave, and they are living in harder times than their predecessors, and unless we are very lucky they are entering upon times when conditions will be more stringent. There is one thing the State ought to do, and it is to give people who make the Empire something in their old age for the services they have rendered to the community. The Empire is made up in the homes of the people of this country, in the streets of our towns, and the roads of our villages, and I say deliberately that while it is difficult to criticise this Bill, I believe this House is generous enough to say that for people who have rendered such services there should be no parsimony, and the thing ought to be done thoroughly and well.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: The public at large will be grateful to the Government for having brought in a measure giving relief to a deserving section of the community. I believe the whole of this Committee would be glad to increase the allowances made to these pensioners if the country could afford it. Of course, all Amendments increasing this amount in the discussions on the Bill will be out of Order, but we are entitled to point out certain respects in which the Resolution might be amended, and when we come to the Bill itself we may point out certain ways in which the measure might be framed. I agree with what has been said about the age limit of 60. A specific case has been made out for lowering the age either to 55 or 50. It is quite true that in a great many cases in the civil service a pensioner does not receive his pension until 60 or later, but we are now laying down a hard and fast rule that in no case except where the pensioner suffers from some infirmity, in no circumstances can
  366
  any pensioner get a pension under the age of 60 years.
  We are told that ex-Army pensioners will be treated the same as they are under this Bill. We all know that in the Army and Navy there are a great number of men who are pensioned before they reach the age of 60, and there are a great number of them who are in an extremely necessitious position. I hope the Government will reconsider this question, and give a certain discretion to grant this relief in cases where the age of 60 has not been reached. By the Resolution, persons who are getting under £50 a year pension can have that amount increased only by 50 per cent. I have spoken to a great many of these old pensioners, and very generously and chivalrously they say, if there is only a certain amount of money available they prefer that those in receipt of very small pensions should be benefited in preference to those who are in receipt of large pensions, and they say "Let the bottom dog have the money if there is only a certain amount available." The Government might so distribute this money that those who get a good deal less than £50 a year should get a larger increase.
  May I refer to a class who have very few to speak for them in this House, and for whom I know many of my hon. Friends from Ireland have a great deal of sympathy—I refer to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. In a great number of these cases these men are in receipt of exceedingly small pensions, and owing to the condition of Ireland at the present moment there is no possibility of them increasing their earnings by getting employment because public opinion is so much against them. I have had cases brought before me of men who have been in the Royal Irish Constabulary a considerable number of years. There were times, especially in the eighties and later when this was a most dangerous service, almost as dangerous as service in the field, and yet some of these men are getting under £20 a year pension. Under this Bill a man getting £20 a year will only get 50 per cent. increase, that is an additional £10 a year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept suggestions from private Members on this question. If it should be found necessary to bring in a further Resolution altering the scope of this proposal,

  367
  and if this can be shown to be reasonable and right, I think the Government would be well advised if they would recast this Resolution.
  9.0 P.M.
  Major GRAY: I join very readily in the tribute of gratitude to the Government for submitting this proposal, but I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member opposite in regretting that the amount added to these very small pensions is so exceedingly small. I would endorse, if I may, every word he said in regard to the redistribution of the amounts even if we cannot increase them. I know that in considering a proposal of this character we are faced with very great disadvantages. Any suggestion that the amount should be increased is on a Money Resolution quite out of order, and then when we come to the Bill we have to keep ourselves strictly within the terms of the Money Resolution and unless we can, at an early stage, appeal to the Government to meet us, it is impossible for the Committee to give effective expression to its own opinions. I notice in the first Clause of this Bill the Minister proposes to include certain teachers who were superannuated, or who received pensions under the Regulations of the Code of the Board of Education. These are exceedingly hard cases. They were established first in 1851. They were continued until 1862, and were then dropped, and were subsequently re-introduced. At no date did the highest amount awarded in pension exceed £30. Many were £25, and some were as low as £20. Adding 50 per cent. to the £20, how could a man possibly live on that amount? I know of no case more pathetic than that of a servant of the State, man or woman, who, after 40 years toilsome service—and educational conditions were not as prosperous in those days as they are now, for these people were pioneers in the work—has had to retire on this very miserable pension. That pension is now to be supplemented simply by 50 per cent. I think their need is far greater than that of men and women in categories where the pensions are to be increased by not more than 30 per cent. I hope there may be a redistribution of the amount in order that some of these very hard cases may be dealt with more adequately than they are in the proposal now before us.
  368
  This sliding scale is a very rough one. Usually, when one of this character is put forward, there is some Clause with regard to adjustments. Under this scale a man whose pension is £50 would be worse off than the man with a £49 pension, because he will only get an increase of 40 per cent., while the man on the lower pension will get 50 per cent. There ought to be some Clause securing that under the adjustment not less than £25 should be added to the pension. One strong objection I desire to voice to this proposal is one which finds expression in paragraph (c) of Section 1, namely, "that the pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, including his pension, are less than £150 a year," and so forth. I will not dwell on the administrative difficulty or on the necessarily inquisitorial effort which must be made by the pension authority to ascertain what the amount is. I always regard a proposal of this sort as exceedingly vicious in principle, and I would never silently acquiesce in the retention of a proposal of this kind, which, in my opinion, is a direct discouragement of thrift. The thrifty man loses in deferred pay. The thriftless man will secure the highest amount of deferred pay. If it be right to regard pensions as deferred pay, then a man through his own thrift loses a portion of the pay to which he is entitled. The thriftless man gains. This is a principle which, I believe, has been observed far too long, and one against which the Committee will set its fact, I hope. I do not say it may not be absolutely necessary at a given moment, with the limited funds at the disposal of the Government, and the great necessity for restricting public expenditure, that these increased pensions should be given only to those in real necessity; therefore, the fixed income limit may be justified at the moment. I cannot refrain from expressing my strong opinion that, in principle, it is decidedly bad and unjustifiable from every point of view. I would rather have supplemented the work of the thrifty man than have added to the income of the thriftless. I know there are many men and women who have done their best to save during their lifetime, in addition to contributing to the Pension Fund, and these are the very people who will gain nothing under this scheme. That such should be the case is, in my judgment, deplorable.
  There is one other question I am anxious to address to the Minister in

  369
  charge of the Resolution, because an answer to it will remove a great deal of anxiety which is experienced at this moment amongst a certain class of pensioners, whose income it is proposed to increase. Under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1898, a teacher was required to contribute a certain amount every year. The State received these sums and managed the funds, and determined the particular stock in which the money should be invested, and whatever sum there was standing to the credit of that teacher by means of his own payment when he reached the age of sixty-five, that sum was used by the State to purchase for him an annuity. The State supplemented that annuity by the grant of a sum of money dependent on the number of years' service. Practically the amount was £1 for each year of service, so that the teacher with forty-four years' service received from the State fund £44, and from his own contribution the Government purchased an annuity of something like £38. I want to know from the Minister in charge what he means here in this Clause by the word "pension." Is it the £44 granted by the State? If so, that person would become eligible for the 50 per cent. increase. Or is it the £44 plus the £38, which amount was purchased by the teacher's own contribution? Is that also regarded as pension? If so, the teacher only gets an increase of 40 per cent. Those interested in this question are very anxious to know what interpretation is being placed by the Government on the word "pension" in this particular case. I am familiar with no other scheme of that character. I do not know whether there are any other schemes in which the recipients have built up their pensions in the same manner as these school teachers in the public elementary schools. They have built up these pensions, or did until two or three years ago, by their own contributions assisted by a subsidy from the State. I think something is required on the part of the Government to deal with cases of this kind. If I had the power I would move the omission of that one pernicious Clause. There is the question of those who have been thrifty, and I would arrange so that the thriftless should not be provided for at the expense of those who had been thrifty, although that seems to be inevitable in schemes of this character. I would
  370
  willingly move, if I could, the omission of that provision, and, further, if I could I would amend the scheme so that the larger sum should be given to those who have not and the smaller sum to those who have. These, I think, would be improvements in the scheme.
  Major NALL: I would like to ask the Minister in charge of this scheme whether he could not say a little more to explain who will really be included under the heading "A" for superannuation. There is a reference to employés of local boards and other authorities. Does that include the pensioners of local authorities? If that is so it raises a point which I do not think has been provided for in the Resolution. Does it cover in the case of local authorities the pensioners who were employed by local tramways? A few months ago in this House we passed a Resolution after a long Debate upon the hard case of the superannuated railway servants. The position of the Government which it has endeavoured to maintain was that these men were not State employés and have no claim upon the Government for increased pensions. That is a point of view which I think cannot be always substantiated. How can they include the pensioners of local authorities who are no more State servants than the railway men are? I put down a question for written answer on the 28th of this month, and the Minister of Transport in his reply said, "The question of increasing the pension of railway annuitants is not one for the Government, but is one for the railway companies and the trustees of the various superannuation funds." If that is so, how comes it that the local authority pensioners are to be covered in this scheme? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an explanation on this point. The case of the superannuated railway servants is one of the hardest of all these hard cases among the pensioners. I submit that it would be most unreasonable in this scheme to grant an increase to pensioners who are not actually State servants and leave out another group of men who come almost within that category and whose services are just as vital to the State as some of those who are included.
  With regard to the service pensions, while the House will agree to the proposal to increase the pensions of men over 60 years of age, I cannot see that it should

  371
  altogether cover all the others. In regard to the service pensions, should they be increased without any age limit? We have some who have arrived at the age of 60, but there are other service pensioners who are only 40 or 50 years of age who are able-bodied and in good employment, and I think we should hesitate before we propose to increase all service pensions, unless the whole question of these hard cases of pre-War pensioners is to be completely reviewed and provided for. I am not suggesting that the service pensioner should not have his pension increased. I am thinking, however, of the other hard cases, and the Government should consider the case especially of the old railway men. Some of them are on the verge of starvation, as we heard in the Debate on the Superannuation Fund. I think it would be entirely unfair, and the Resolution would be incomplete, if it did not provide in some way for them. As I understand it, the Resolution brings in one class of men who are not Government servants and ignores another class of men whose lot is every bit as hard, and whose case is every bit as deserving, as that of those men who are included.
  Mr. T. DAVIES: I hope hon. Members will have some sense of proportion in this matter and will make sure that while they are trying to do justice to one class of the community they do not inflict a serious injustice upon another class. On the last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing this House I pointed out the great hardship, inevitable it may be but none the less a hardship, of those poor people who do not get a pension until they reach the age of 70. They have a little addition to their means of livelihood from the rent of two or three houses or from other savings, and they may get £10 to £15 a year, but they cannot by any possibility increase their incomes in order to meet the higher charges which are now being made in every direction. Someone may say that such people have not to pay Income Tax. That is perfectly true, but in many cases the local rates have so gone up that they are almost equal to the rent of a house. Take the case of some of these people who have been mentioned. They include one of the most deserving class in the community, not too well paid, and certainly a most grateful class. I refer to
  372
  the agricultural labourers. I myself worked on the land as a lad 8 years old, but I will leave that for a moment, and I will take the case of the agricultural labourer. As a boy he goes on the land at 13. He cannot acquire a pension until he is 70 years of age. We have heard of men who will get their pensions at the age of 55, but the agricultural labourer, when he has reached that age has to wait 15 years more, until he is 70, in order to get his pension, and then he probably gets 10s. a week. While he is at work on the land his employer is not able to pay him very large wages, the farmer has his ups and downs, and even if the farmer were able I do not think he is always willing to do much more. At the present time he could not very well do it with the best will in the world. The farm labourer is the class of person with whom we should have the greatest sympathy. He has to pay these high prices and in many cases he has to pay increased rates and rents. That class of man has to wait until he gets his old-age pension at 70 years of age. He can get little from his savings. In that case he is worse off than any class of pensioner that you can mention. Before we go with a light heart into the question of increasing pensions for these people, let us think a little about those who cannot help themselves. I voted some time ago for the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) for increased pensions to the police, and I am going to vote for this Resolution to-night. If I had my way, no one who has served the State, if he were single, should have less than 30s. a week. or, if he were married, less than £2. At the same time, I do not want an extra penny of taxation to be imposed, because I think we have got to the limit of our capacity for taxation. While I heartily approve of increasing these pensions, I am not going to agree to it if it means that those poor people who are already paying more taxation than they ought to pay, who have no chance of increasing their incomes, and are being crushed with high prices and high rates, even where Income Tax does not come in, are going to be still further taxed. If they are. I want to give notice to the Government that, while voting for this Resolution, I shall at the same time vote against every piece of extravagance for which they are responsible. in order to

  373
  save the money for this, rather than have any increased taxation. The next time anything comes up from the Government, whether for the Army, the Navy, or anything else, I shall vote that it be reduced by 5 per cent. in order to pay for this, and I hope that that line will be followed throughout. We should not commit an injustice upon one portion of the community by increasing their already too heavy burden in order to do justice to some other class. Let us think of those people who are poor, who are not able to go in for trade unionism, and who cannot raise their incomes, but who have to meet the increased cost of living and the increased rents and rates, and are being crushed out of existence to-day. I hope that that class of the community will have the sympathy of everyone in this House, and that we shall not agree to anything that would increase their burdens. I hope that, while we do justice to old-age pensioners and to those who have served the State so well, we shall see that these increases are met by corresponding savings from the Government Exchequer.
  Mr. LANE-MITCHELL: I had a letter this morning from a constituent of mine who is an old inspector of police. He is eighty years of age, and his pension is 19s. a week, upon which he and his wife are just barely existing. His brother, who was in a similar position, died last week, probably because he had not the wherewithal to live. I want especially to plead that these increases should come speedily. I was astonished, on going into the cases I have mentioned, to find that what had happened was that this House had only provided the means to increase these pensions, and that the increases had not been actually granted. It makes one's heart sad to find that this is not proceeding as speedily as one would like. I hope that the Government will see that this is made an Act accomplished before July finishes, so that these poor people may have the money.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I am glad that, at last, I see something coming before the House which includes National School teachers in Ireland. For years the Members from Ireland have pleaded with this House of Commons to do something for those teachers. I am glad that the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police have been mentioned. So much has been said recently regarding
  374
  the courage, endurance, and bravery of these men that it is unecessary for me to say more. Everyone seems to agree that they deserve better treatment than they are receiving. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. T. Davies) referred to labourers. As we know, the National School teacher in Ireland has not been getting a labourer's wage, and yet we depend upon him for the education and training of the children who are to be come the men and women of the future. It is painful to get some of the letters that we receive with regard, not only to the National School teachers, but to the other classes of pensioners mentioned in this Resolution. One who, after 32 years' service, retired through illness—probably brought on by insufficiency of pay—has a pension of £23 a year; another, retired after 31 years' service at the age of 65, through illness, has £16 a year; another, over fifty years of age, retired through illness after thirty years' service, and still ill, is in receipt of £13 a year. That is what we have been trying to remedy. We have been trying to induce the Government to bring in an Education Bill which will include pensions, and we have been told that there is no time. We have been told that other things must be selected which are of more importance. I suppose that the re-clothing of the Army in scarlet at a cost of £3,000,000 is more important than the training of the Irish children and the payment of their teachers. It is difficult for me to understand that kind of selection. I would make a special appeal to those who are in charge of this Resolution with regard to those who are in receipt of these miserable pensions. We must recognise that they are calculated on the salaries that these people have been receiving, and that seems to me to be one of the greatest defects of this Resolution where it relates to Irish teachers. When they were in receipt of salaries of £70 or £80 a year, naturally, their pensions were based on those salaries. It is true that a War bonus was given to them, but even that will not come in in the computation of their pensions. In Scotland, where the teachers have from £140 to £160 a year, my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Gray) told us that, in addition to their ordinary pensions, they get £1 a year for every year of service, and I take it that the pensions they have been in receipt of will be based not only

  375
  on the ordinary pensions, but on this additional sum. In addition to that, the teachers in Scotland also have the advantage of having the value of their residence included in the compensation. No such thing obtains in Ireland, so that, if we are to do justice to the old pensioners and school teachers of Ireland, we must get back to the bed rock on which these pensions were based. I think that is worth the consideration of those in charge of the Bill. It is absurd to say to a teacher who is in receipt of £16 a year, "the State is going to be magnanimous to you, and add 50 per cent. to your pension." We have to deal more generously with these people than we have done in the past, and it will be necessary to see if, by some means or other, we cannot increase the original foundation on which the pension was based, before adding this 50 per cent. The pensioned school teachers of Ireland have a distinct petition to this House. I am quite satisfied that if it were left to the good sense of the Members of the House, something generous would be done. We have from time to time appealed to the Government to do something for the teachers of Ireland, but nothing has been done. Here we have an opportunity of doing something for these people, who have spent all their lives in training the children of Ireland, and teaching them the best they knew how, but, unfortunately, on miserable salaries, with the consequence that we could not get the best people. I hope the Minister in charge of the Resolution will see that, when the Bill comes before the House, something will be put into it which will give comfort and consolation to these people in their declining years and in their old age.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a moving appeal for the teachers of Ireland, who have trained the children very well, he says, but certainly not in the South of Ireland, if we can judge by what we read in the papers. We are going to have a Home Rule Bill, and these things can be dealt with by an Ulster Parliament when it is set up.
  Mr. MOLES: They could not deal with the Southern teachers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Southern Parliament will deal with the Southern
  376
  teachers, and we shall have the advantage of seeing how things are done when Ireland is governed according to its desire. I should like to bring the Committee back to the really practical situation of what is a most important proposal. What is this going to cost? The cost of this in the first year is estimated at not more than £850,000, but that is only the first year.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The cost of the pensions provided in the Bill based on this Resolution will be £850,000 in the first year, diminishing as the pensioners die off. But that is not the total cost which follows from this operation, because the Army and Navy pensioners are not included in this Resolution. They will be included in the ordinary way by Royal Warrant or an Order in Council, and the total cost for them is an additional £875,000. Practically the scheme may be said to cost £1,750,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut-Colonel Allen) is carried out, and 50 per cent. is added to pensions of £16, it does not amount to much, but what is going to happen? There will immediately be a demand to increase the scale, so that there is sufficient for these people to live more or less in comfort. What is that going to cost? I perfectly well remember when the Old Age Pension was instituted we were told that under no circumstances whatever would it cost more than £6,000,000 a year. My recollection is that at present it cots £27000,000 or £28,000,000. Therefore, I am a little sceptical when I am told it is only going to cost a certain amount. I shall be very much surprised if it does not cost a considerable amount more. What is it going to lead to? Take it for granted that when these pensioners have received what is proposed under this scheme they do not want more, which is a very big assumption, because during the last six years whenever a person's wages have been increased he has not been satisfied—he has only made it a jumping-off ground to ask for more—and as certain as I am standing here, if this Resolution is passed and the Bill founded on it is brought in, it will not satisfy the people who, it is supposed, are going to benefit, but it will only encourage them to ask for more. Then what about all the other people who will have to come in? I do not know

  377
  whether I am right or wrong in thinking that the pensions at present given by the local authorities are not included, because I have not had time to look up the Acts from 1834 to 1914. But if the local authorities pensions are not included, how much more is that going to cost? And where is the money coming from? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Allen) said the State was going to pay. Who is the State? The State has no money. My right hon. Friend is in receipt of a paltry salary of £5,000 a year. That will not go very far towards finding all this money. The State has no money; the taxpayer has to pay. What is the position of the taxpayer? Take the case of the most deserving class that one can imagine. I congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. T. Davis) who has spoken out with so much courage which has enabled him to make such a striking speech. I do not know whether the class to which I am going to refer includes the agricultural labourer; he may or may not be included. The class to which I am referring is the class who have denied themselves of certain pleasures during their younger days in order to provide for their old age, and have not depended upon the State, or upon anybody else. Agricultural labourers, when they were earning 15s. or 16s. per week, were able in many cases to save money out of that towards their old age, and other people, mounting in the scale to those who have been earning £5,000 or £6,000 a year, have denied themselves of pleasures in order to save. Those are the most deserving class in the community. There are any quantity of them who have invested their savings in houses, and their rents are restricted in order that other people who are receiving two or three times the wage they had before the War may not have to pay more rent. Those people are just as much entitled to benefit under this Resolution as the people mentioned, because living is just as much to them as it is to other people. They are going to be taxed in order to provide money for these particular pensions.
  The country is in a very serious position, and it is no use blinking the fact. I was in the City to-day, and I happened by accident to go into the office of a leading firm, where I was told that the Bank of England were asking them 7½per cent. for money. That will appeal
  378
  to hon. Members who have been in business. On the top of that serious position hon. Members come down here, and because there are certain hard cases and certain things that we would wish to relieve, if we had the money, demand money for the purpose. We have not the money to do these things. It is absurd for us to come down next week, when the Finance Bill will be before the Committee, and say that we are going to cut down the Excess Profits Duty, and this, that and the other, if at the same time we continue to impose all these extra charges on the community. What we have to do is to save money in every possible direction, and if hardships arise we cannot help them. I warn the Government that they cannot go on in this way. They must cut down expenses. It is absolutely necessary, unless they are going to ruin the country. However excellent this proposal may be, and however much we might individually desire to assist these people, we have not the money to do it. The country must recognise that we are in a position to spend no more money. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were here—he has a stiff back, and I wish he would communicate it to some other Members of the Government—I would ask him how much the expenditure of the country has increased since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget estimate. There is going to be a great deficiency on the railways. That deficiency has not been provided for in the Budget, and it runs into many millions. Let us pause before we go on in the way of the spendthrift, and let us consider whether or not, under the very exceptional circumstances in which we are placed, having emerged triumphantly from the great War, we are not going to lose all the good that we gained by the War by doing something which, though it may appeal to our humanitarian instincts, is absolutely against any business instincts.
  Dr. MURRAY: I have always looked upon the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) as the high priest of economy, but I discovered last week that my idol in economy had feet of clay and, so far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman's moral authority in regard to economy has gone for ever. I am not wrong in suggesting that he supported the Government in squandering

  379
  £115,000,000 in Russia, and in their extravagant proposals to re-clothe the Army, and in squandering £35,000,000 of money on the deserts of Mesopotamia. Therefore, when he lectures us about increasing the small pittance of these humble people I decline to listen to the right hon. Gentleman as the apostle of economy. It is always on these small things that he lectures us, but when millions are being squandered all over the world the right hon. Gentleman is dumb, except when he supports the Government in squandering hundreds of millions. Therefore, the lecture which he gave to us with so much show of moral indignation—
  Sir F. BANBURY: There was no show about it. It may have been wrong, but it was quite in earnest.
  Dr. MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman may possess his soul in patience about the efforts of hon. Gentlemen in trying to increase the amount under this Resolution, because the representative of the Government will tell us that he has pledged himself to the Treasury that he will not imitate Oliver Twist and ask for more. I should like to appeal to the Government in regard to adjustments under the scheme. Reference has been made to teachers. In Scotland there are a great many teachers, a very deserving class, male or female, who have much less than £50 a year. Some of them consider themselves passing rich on £40 a year. That is all very well in poetry, but in these days when everything is so dear it is a terrible thing that these men and women who have devoted their lives to laying well the foundations of education, should have to subsist on such a pittance. Education, after all, is very noble work, and men and women who devote themselves to the work of educating the youth of this country ought not to be allowed to spend the evening of their days trying to eke out a miserable existence upon less than £50 a year. Many, if not all of them are bearing their privations with the utmost dignity. The pensions of those whose income does not exceed £50 a year should be increased by more than 50 per cent., otherwise a very deserving class will be left in a condition in which they should not be left by what is still a rich country notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Baronet. I do not exclude others, but I emphasise the
  380
  position of the teachers because I know it better, and in all these cases where the amount is under £1 a week the authorities should have power to increase it by at least 100 per cent. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Remnant) deserves great credit for the way in which he has pleaded the cause of the policeman in this House. He has told us that policemen do not live so long as other Civil servants. I do not know whether that is based on any statistical information in his possession, but I should like it confirmed before I accept it, because I think that a policeman's life on the whole is very healthy.
  Mr. MOLES: In some places.
  Dr. MURRAY: Of course, they retire at 55, because after that age they are not suitable for the work in which they may have to engage. For instance, a policeman at 60 would have a tough job if he had to capture a strong active man such as the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock). That is a possible contingency which illustrates the reason why policemen retire at 55. I also approve of the argument addressed to the Minister in order to eradicate the inquisitorial Clause which should not be applied at this time of day. I conclude with a note of gratitude to the Government for having brought forward this scheme. There is in it a great deal to be grateful for, but I do hope that it may be readjusted so as to bring those salaries more within a reasonable possibility of a decent living.
  Mr. C. WHITE: I am not going to speak from the technical side of this question. I am not a rich financial expert like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, but I want to appeal distinctly from the human side. Nothing can excuse the payment of these miserable pensions, about which we have heard so much tonight. I do not care whether it is the introduction of the Home Rule Bill or anything else. We have no right to say that those teachers in Ireland and other pensioners in Ireland must exist on the miserable pensions they are now receiving. I have heard a good deal about economy from the right hon. Member for the City of London, but I seldom find him in the Lobby with those who go there to protest against the extravagances of this Government. This is no party matter. I believe that, with the single

  381
  exception of the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee would be perfectly unanimous with regard to increasing the concessions that are now offered by the Government, and so I support the appeal most heartily for some greater concessions than have yet been promised. There are none who suffer so much as this class of people who are covered by this Financial Resolution, and most of them suffer in silence. We must not forget that a great many of these people have a certain amount of dignity and pride. They do not parade their poverty in the eyes of the world; they are suffering much more than those who do.
  I will just give two instance as sometimes concrete instance appeal to this House more than generalities. I know an old man who was a teacher from 1855, when he entered the teaching profession, up to 1907. He is now 78 years of age. His pension is £41 a year. He and his wife have to live on that with the exception that they get help and grants from friends, which just take them outside the amount that would entitle them to the old age pension. How can you expect, notwithstanding this talk about economy when you want a few pounds, this poor old man and woman who have moulded the character of the citizens of to-day to live on such a paltry amount such as this? Take another case. A man and wife, whom I know, are under 70 years of age. One is receiving £50 a year and the other £21-that is £71 in all. They were working for low salaries all their lives. Remember that the salaries paid to-day are not to be compared with the low salaries that were paid at the time when these people ought to have been saving money for their old age. And so with the police. In my own family I have a sister, whom this, I suppose, will help, because she is over 40, but if the right hon. Gentleman could have his way he would not allow her to have this help. Her husband died after 26 years' service. His death was hastened by service rendered during the War. He could have retired before the War. My sister has 10s. a week pension. She has an inbecile boy to keep out of it. By the Financial Resolution she will be increased to 15s. a week.
  10.0 P.M.
  Will the right hon. Baronet tell me that she is not entitled to this? Is that economy? We were told by him last week that it was economy to purchase scarlet be-
  382
  cause it might increase the Army. There is much more true economy in what I am putting before the Committee. With regard to the police, let me say that I know them very well. Both in regard to pay and pensions what they are receiving now is not comparable with what they received some years ago. Here arises an important question. Who is to determine the income of these people? Have the same inquisitorial methods to be adopted that are adopted now with regard to Old Age Pensions? If so, heaven help some of these people when they come to have their incomes assessed. I have been chairman of an Old Age Pensions Committee since 1908, and in practically every case that has come before that Committee one or other member of the Committee has had to make investigations. Here is another concrete case. It is the case of a woman living not far from where I live. She is receiving 8s. a week parish relief, and has nothing else to live on except a little bit of bread or something sent by her two sons and daughter, who are working people in the same village. She applied at the age of 70 for an old age pension. The pension officer came along. He said, "How much is your income?" and she replied, "Eight shillings a week from the parish." That used to drop, I know, before the new Pensions Act became operative. The officer said, "Is that all you have?" and her answer was, "My daughter sends me up a little food sometimes and my son a shilling now and then. "said, "Oh, that will be 2s. 6d. a week, and that added to 8s. makes 10s. 6d. a week, which is 5d. outside the amount which will entitle you to a full pension of 10s. a week." And so he recommended her for a pension of 8s. a week. I say that if such methods are adopted with regard to these people, heaven help them when it is necessary to determine what their incomes are.
  I have lived amongst the poor all my life, and I am almost as poor as anyone now, for I have to live on my salary without a subsidy, and to keep two homes going, one in London and one in Derbyshire. I know many scores of poor people and I know the suffering they are undergoing. I think we might, at any rate, ask that those who are not receiving pensions exceeding £50 a year shall have some further consideration given to their case, notwithstanding anything that they may have coming in besides. I

  383
  know that the Minister in charge of this Bill is intensely human; I know his great organising ability; I know what he has done in the past, and I appeal to him earnestly to reconsider, or to recommend the Government to reconsider, these cases especially with regard to those whose pensions are on the low scale.
  Captain BOWYER: Although I have no hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Resolution will listen to me, I am very glad of the opportunity of dissociating myself from every word uttered by the right hon. Baronet who represents the City of London. I do not say that to him without great respect. The hon. Baronet is always listened to with respect on questions of finance, but this is not necessarily a question of finance. The right hon. Baronet spoke against this proposal because he said the country could not afford it, but surely one can draw some sort of analogy between the State and its duty towards its citizens and the head of a family and his duty towards his family. I would put forward the plea that if the father of a family had to effect economy he would not economise with his parents or young children, but would do so with those who were earning a living wage and who were of an age to look after themselves. He would not deprive old people of the comforts of life any more than he would deprive the young children of the nurture necessary to make them good citizens. To me it is utterly false economy to deprive men and women who have served the State for 30 or 40 years of that which is necessary for the enjoyment of life. If we are going to have economy the true economy is to nurture young citizens and to look after those who have served the State well and to give them the sort of life which is even given by the hunting man to the hunter which has served him faithfully and well.
  I am not appealing to-night for generosity or for charity. I look upon the question of pensions as a question of deferred pay and a payment which is due for services rendered. I regret very much that the Government can only deal with the hard cases. There is a case which I have been bringing before the proper Department for the last nine months of a man 82 years of age, who served his country as a teacher and has now retired
  384
  after 54 years' service. Six months ago he had a pension of £30 per year, and he has now got an extra £10. How can that man support life? The strength of a chain is in its weakest link, and I submit that you should estimate the amount of money which should be paid as pension by the lowest minimum of money with which the man or woman who receives the pension can afford to sustain and buy the necessaries of life. Nobody to-day can support the view that that can be done upon £30 or £40 a year. The minimum to which this Resolution should bring up pensions should surely be at least £75 per year. The man to whom I have referred cannot possibly under this Resolution get more than £60 per year. Every other form of wage or device for getting money bears some relation to the cost of living, but it is not so with pre-War pensions. It is on that ground I welcome this money Resolution for what it is worth.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is very desirable that we should get this Resolution to-night, because I am very anxious that the Bill should be brought in at the earliest possible moment, that the necessary steps may be taken to assess the increases of pension which the Bill will grant, and to bring them into payment as early as possible. It is quite true that they will date back to the 1st April, but to have a right to something as from the 1st April does not help much to pay weekly bills, and it is highly desirable, therefore, that the Bill should get through at the earliest possible moment. That must be my excuse to my hon. Friends who still wish to speak if I intervene at this moment. I really have not a very easy task this evening, and I have got to appeal to hon. Members to support me. They have expressed, one and all of them, an extremely natural desire either that the scale should be increased or that new beneficiaries should be brought in, and time after time the argument has been enforced by reference to some specially hard case. We have all of us got constituents who let us know about the hard cases, and it is perfectly true that the circumstances of the time are extrmely oppressive on those with small incomes, whether those small incomes be derived from pensions, or from past savings, or even from present earnings. We have got to be careful here

  385
  that when we are trying to benefit one class, the small pensioner, we do not at the same time inflict a grievous wrong on another class no richer than the pensioner and no more able to bear the burden.
  Let me first deal with the argument that these pensions are deferred pay, a right which ought to be recognised. I agree with the general principle that a pension is in fact deferred pay, that it is taken into account in the service, that those who enter the service know that part of the remuneration they are to receive is the salary or wage which is paid weekly, monthly, or yearly, and that, in addition, there is something else, called a pension, which is in fact deferred pay, paid for by themselves in receiving a lower rate of pay than they would otherwise receive, but do not let the Committee forget that every pensioner entitled to a pension is at this moment receiving exactly the amount of pension to which he was entitled by the terms of his service, and which he reckoned on when he entered into the service. What is being suggested now is that that pension should be increased. That is not a right; that is a grant. It may be justified—I think it is justified—but it must not be forgotten that it is not a right, it is not that which he expected to get at the time when he entered into his employment.
  Major WATTS MORGAN: No one expected the War.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the reason why I stand here to-night, but let us judge the thing on its merits, and let us not have a false argument about it. It has been suggested that this is a right, but it is not a right; it is something more than a right. The right is already existing, and it is not being taken away, but what the Government is proposing is that in the lowest rate of pensions these rights shall be bigger by 50 per cent., that in the middle rate they shall be increased by 40 per cent., and that in the higher rate they shall be increased by 30 per cent. Then it was said that the inquiry that was to be made into the means of the pensioner was an inquisitorial inquiry. Why is the increase being given at all? It is being given to meet cases of real hardship. How are you to ascertain whether there is real hardship, until you find out first what
  386
  the other means of the pensioner are, beyond the pension itself? In some cases in the Civil Service, after short service, a civil servant might retire with a relatively small pension—a pension which would come within this scale—and yet his private income, or other means of livelihood, might be on a very considerable scale, running into hundreds, or even thousands of pounds a year, and there might be no necessity whatever to increase the small pension which he had earned by a very short service. Unless we are going to throw our money away—and we have no right to do that—we must make an inquiry to see whether there is a broad case of necessity, and, consequently, the limits have been inserted in this Resolution, so that we may see that those who really require the increase shall in fact get it in proportion to their requirements.
  I am going to deal quite shortly with the various proposals which have been made. One hon. Member proposed that a pensioner who had been disabled since his requirement should be considered, although not 60 years of age, to be on the same footing as a pensioner who retired owing to his infirmity. That would be clearly wrong. There are a considerable number of pensioners who retired after short service, much under the age of 60. Is it said that a man who retires after short service, say, at 40, and who meets with an accident, which has nothing whatever to do with his Government service, ten years afterwards, should, because we are trying to meet the really necessitous cases, be able to make a claim for an increase of his small pension? And, mind you, when you are dealing with a very large number of cases—there are going to be 110,000 persons who will benefit by the Bill founded on this Resolution—unless you are going to have an enormous staff to investigate the merits of each individual case, you are bound to lay down fairly broad lines of classification, so as to sort out the claims that will come before the Department administratively.
  Then it is suggested that there should be a lower age limit. The hon. baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), who has taken a very great interest in pre-War pensions, and who has raised the matter over and over again in this House, has suggested that, as regards the police, at any rate, the age limit should be reduced to 55. I am not pre-

  387
  pared to make exceptions in favour of one rather than another. If the police are to be entitled to it at 55, what answer have I got to the soldier or the sailor or the civil servant? It is quite true that there are differences with regard to the police in some circumstances which, as a great advocate for the police, my hon. Friend put very clearly before us, but, at the same time, it would be equally easy to bring arguments to bear to alter the age of almost every other participant in this scheme. The additional charge which would be created is such that I really cannot accept the proposal, and, even if my hon. Friend were to move an Amendment to the Resolution in order that, as he indicated just now, the age of 55 might apply to the police, I should have to ask the Committee to refuse the Amendment, because otherwise I should be perfectly powerless, in the face of all the other Members, who, knowing the hard cases in otheir own constituencies, felt obliged to move Amendments in respect of those cases also. Unless the Committee, therefore, is prepared to support this Resolution as it is, I warn them that they jeopardise the whole scheme of increases of pre-War pensions.
  Other suggestions have been made—one that there should be special relief in necessitous cases. We are following out that principle. There is the larger increase of 50 per cent. in the more necessitous case, 40 per cent. in the middle case, and 30 per cent. in the higher pension case. It has been suggested that the income from other sources should be omitted altogether. It was said that that would be penalising thrift. In one sense, whenever you take the income into account you may say that it penalises future thrift. It does not penalise thrift in the case of these particular pensioners, because their days of thrift are over. Whatever they do in the future will not affect their pensions to-day. What are we going to do? To deal with cases of necessity, or to make this a universal increase? If we are going to make it in relation to necessitous cases, then we are bound to inquire as to whether they are, in fact, necessitous—in other words, whether they have got a sufficient living income outside the pension. In connection with that, a question was asked as to the operation of the sliding scale. It was suggested
  388
  that the pensioner with £51 would be penalised as against a pensioner of £49. If the hon. Member who suggested that will read the Resolution, he will find that there are a specific three or four lines which deal with that particular matter.
  A strong appeal was made for the Irish teachers in particular. I sympathise very much with those who are advocating the claims of the Irish teachers. They have had a very low rate—an absurd rate of pension in the past. So far, however, as this Resolution and this Bill are concerned, we are treating all pensions alike; all are being increased in their relative proportions. It may be—now is not the time to discuss it—that the Irish teachers' pensions are on the wrong basis. Indeed, my hon. Friend suggested so. It is quite possible they are. It may well be that any alteration in the basis of teachers' pensions in Ireland may be made retrospective, but now is not the time to do it. I am bound to deal with this matter of existing pensions, and treat them all in the same proportion. It is never pleasant to refuse to deal with hard cases, but if I were to accept all the suggestions that have been made to-night, the Bill, with these increases, would be something between £6,000,000 and £8,000,000 a year. If 1 tried to choose between one and the other, I do not think it will be possible fairly to accept one and reject another. I can assure the Committee that this matter was investigated by a Cabinet Committee, and the officers of every single Department were examined. Typical cases and groups of typical cases were taken into account, and the members of that Committee gave hours to the investigation of the various classes of cases which came up for increase under this Bill. With every desire to apportion the sum available in the fairest way, we came to the conclusion that the method of this Resolution was the fairest method that could be adopted.
  The principle is that those who need it most are getting the most, and they are getting the largest increase. It would be quite simple if one were to be able to say, "We will raise everything up to the living wage of to-day," but remember what different classes of pensions we are dealing with. Some of them are intended to be subsistence pensions, that is to say, they are only given after,

  389
  perhaps, 40 years of service to men who retire after their earning capacity is practically exhausted, or, at any rate, after it is too late to begin to learn any occupation or trade. Other pensions are given for relatively short service to men who have retired in the full use of their faculties between 40 and 50 years of age. Those pensions never were intended to be full subsistence pensions. They were intended to be a reward for service, but they were always intended to be supplemented by the earnings of the people holding those pensions. You cannot deal with these two classes on exactly the same footing. It would be reasonable to say to the first class, it was intended that you should have, after your 40 or 50 years of service, enough to retire upon. It would be easy to say that to that class, but you could not say that with justice to the taxpayer who will have to pay the money to the second class, and between those two classes hon. Members will find that there are numerous other classes which merge either into the one or the other, and it is absolutely impossible to lay down a line of demarcation upon that basis. Those who are getting the least pensions are getting the highest increase.
  Major MORGAN: The highest percentage?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, they are getting the highest percentage of increase, and if hon. Members work it out, they will see that by the sliding scale it is also actually the highest increase. That has been the basis adopted, because it is believed to be the fairest. This scheme costs £1,750,000 a year. Not a single suggestion has been made in this discussion except to add to that cost.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, I made a suggestion.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, and I wish to give him his due. I say that, with one notable exception, not a single suggestion has been made which would reduce the cost. If the suggestions which have been made were accepted, they would bring the total of the Bill to something between £6,000,000 and £8,000,000 a year. I can only say that the Government cannot accept Amendments which will increase the cost. This is not the time for extra
  390
  expenditure on the part of the Government.
  Mr. C. Palmer: How about Mesopotamia?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I shall only be too delighted, and the Government will only be too delighted, if hon. Members will help them to cut down expenditure elsewhere, but that is not what I am dealing with to-night. It is much easier to stand at this box and say, "That is a good suggestion, and I will accept it." There has been hardly a suggestion made this evening that I would not like to accept. But it means money, and the money that is proposed in this Resolution is all the money that the Government considers ought to be spent on this matter. Therefore, I ask the Committee to give me the Resolution.
  Major GRAY: Are purchase annuities included in this arrangement?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand that they will be subject to the increase, but I will inform my hon. Friend more accurately before the Bill is introduced, so that he can deal with the question on the Committee stage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether super-annuities granted by local authorities are covered by the Resolution?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My right hon. Friend knows that as regards the police there is a grant-in-aid from the central funds to local funds, and the probable cost of that grant-in-aid from the central to the local funds is included in the calculations on the White Paper. That represents 50 per cent., and there will be extra expenditure by the local authorities. The White Paper deals only with the expenditure of the Government. I have been asked about tramwaymen. The Government makes no grant-in-aid in respect of expenditure by local authorities in regard to tramwaymen, and, consequently, if the local authority increases the pension of tramwaymen or others who are not in a service for which a grant-in-aid is made, the Government does not contribute at all to that increased pension, and it is not included in the White Paper or covered by the Resolution. Some hon. Members have expressed gratitude for this proposal being brought forward. I am sure all will wish the Resolu-

  391
  tion to be passed, and I make a very earnest appeal to them not to bring forward Amendments, however strongly they may feel, to add this, that or the other to the cost. I can assure them, in advance, that it is absolutely impossible for me to accept any Amendment to this Resolution which will add to the charges.
  Captain W. BENN: I should like to remark that we are entitled to spend money on this if we choose, if we think a complete case has been made out for it. But that does not interfere with my desire to curtail expenditure in other directions. What I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is this. If he gets his vote to-night, and he has it in his hands to do so, for he can invite the Chairman to assent to a Motion for the Closure—will he consent that the Report stage of the Resolution shall not be put down after 11 o'clock? That, to my mind, is a very reasonable suggestion. I would like to remind the Committee of what we have done this week in the way of voting money out of public funds. We started a week ago suspending the practice which prevented these Resolutions being put down in the middle of the night, in order to pass the Money Resolution on the Irish Government Bill. The next day we voted £25,000,00 for operations in Mesopotamia, and on the following day we voted another sum—
  Sir F. BANBURY: We did not suspend the Rule. An attempt was made to suspend it, but it was not carried.
  Captain BENN: On Tuesday last week we suspended the practice with regard to Money Resolutions in order to take one in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill. I have seen it in the Votes and Proceedings; I have refreshed my memory. On Wednesday we had the Army Vote and expended large sums. The next day we had the Transport Vote.
  Major MORGAN: That is a Vote for railways, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is interested in railways.
  Captain BENN: I am trying to make a suggestion to support it by argument. On the Friday we passed no less than three Money Resolutions authorising expenditure not arranged for in supply. On Monday we passed the Report of those three Resolutions. To-day we have extended to the Government an export
  392
  credit of £26,000,000, and we are voting a sum of £800,000 for pensions, which involves another large sum for service pensions. After all, this House is the custodian of the public purse. Is it unreasonable therefore to ask that the Report stage of this Resolution should be taken at a time when it is possible for hon. Gentlemen to express their opinion upon it and to bring what influence they can upon the Minister. I can, of course, only speak for a very small number, but some of us would not then put the right hon. Gentleman to the necessity of asking for the closure. If he will not, then he will probably have to closure the Resolution, and it will put him in the invidious position of closuring the House of Commons at the very time that it is discussing the expenditure of a large sum of money.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman finished his otherwise not unreasonable request with a threat that, unless I agree to do something which he knows I cannot agree to do, I shall be forced to ask for the closure if I want this Resolution to-night. I am glad to think that he speaks for a relatively small number of hon. Members, and I only hope that the rest of the Committee will not support those hon. Gentlemen if they take the course that he threatens. After all, we are here asking for a Resolution which, I believe, every Member of the Committee desires, and, because the hon. and gallant Member thinks that the report of that Resolution which has been discussed for between three and four hours should not be taken after 11 o'clock he threatens to so prolong the Debate —
  Captain BENN: I did nothing of the kind.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman did, because he said that if I wanted the Resolution I should have to ask for the closure. I never need ask for the closure unless he prolongs the Debate beyond 11 o'clock or up till 11 o'clock. Therefore, in fact, he threatens that unless I agree to take the Report Stage before 11 o'clock—
  Captain BENN: Why not?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Resolution will be talked out by himself and his friends.
  Captain BENN: No.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There was no other meaning to his statement. I am in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee choose to support that course, well, then I cannot get the Resolution.
  Captain BENN: What about the Report stage?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have told my hon. Friend that I can give no such undertaking.
  Captain BENN: Do you mean to take it after 11 o'clock?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not say that I meant to take it after 11 o'clock?.
  Captain BENN: But you do.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend must allow me to frame my reply in my own way, and he must try to contain himself. All that I said was that I can give no such undertaking, as my hon. and gallant Friend very well knows. I am not the Leader of the House, and the business of the House is in the hands of the Leader of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend has had a quite long enough experience of this House to know that no Minister except the Leader of the House can give the undertaking that he desires. If the House desires to get this Resolution, I hope they will accede to the request I make, which, after all, I think is a reasonable one. If, on the other hand, they do not want it, the hon. and gallant Member and his friends have it in their power to talk it out, if they so desire.
  Colonel GRETTON: I desire to support the Resolution, but I should like a little more information with regard to it. The State has given an undertaking, and there is, undoubtedly, an obligation to increase these pensions. I want to know, however, how the Government propose to finance this Resolution, which we are going to pass. I have sat here for some time, and no one has asked how this is going to be paid for. Are these sums of money provided in the Estimates for the year, or is the matter an afterthought? We are dealing with a Financial Resolution, but there is no one on the Front Bench to answer a question of that kind. When we come to the real business of finance, the financial authorities of the Government are absent. If these pen-
  394
  sions are not provided for in the Estimates for the year, how does the Government propose to provide for them? Must the House of Commons take matters into its own hands and make reductions in other directions in order to provide the money for this Resolution? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to answer a question of that kind, but that is the way in which the business of the country is carried on. It is proposed to provide £1,750,000 for a purpose with which everyone agrees, and yet the House cannot be told how that sum is going to be provided.
  Mr. PALMER: I do think it is the duty of some of us to express our sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the position in which he finds himself. Whenever a humane policy is brought forward in this House, and a niggardly sum is put forward to support it, we have the right hon. Gentleman protesting that the Government cannot find another farthing. Only the other day we had the case of the blind. With another £250,000 we could have acted with justice and humanity towards a great and deserving and pitiable class, with whom everyone sympathises. My right hon. Friend tonight, with perfect sincerity, tells us that he would do all he could if only the money were forthcoming. Where is it coming from? I will tell him where it will come from. It will come from savings on the ridiculous Transport Ministry; it will come from savings on the enormous expenditure which we are pouring out in Mesopotamia; it will come from savings on a new War in Turkey.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have had that same argument many times when the hon. Member has not been here.
  Mr. PALMER: I beg your pardon if I have indulged in what is called tedious repetition, but I enter my protest against the constant attempts of the Government to whittle down expenditure on what I honestly believe is a genuinely human policy in regard to these matters while we are squandering it elsewhere, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take back this Financial Resolution and consider it in the light of possible saving that might be made elsewhere and bring it up in a more generous spirit.
  Colonel Sir A. SPROT: I was not present when the right hon. Gentleman

  395
  made his statement, and it is not clear to me why the case of soldiers is omitted from all mention in this Paper. I understand he told the House that they would be dealt with under the Army Estimates, as they come under the Royal Warrant, and I shall be very much obliged if he will confirm that to me now.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is further repetition. That has already been stated on a previous occasion.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I rise to call attention to a matter that is not quite clear. I agree that the Resolution is more than necessary, but the scale is based on the principle of those who have most getting more than those who have least. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the Resolution? It is, after all, to aid those who have some difficulty in getting a bare existence. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was talking about people saving out of 15s., 16s., and 17s. a week. It has been my unfortunate lot to work for 15s. a week at various times, but I failed to save anything. I have known some people who have attempted to save on 17s. or 18s. a week, with the dire result that their family has cost more than if they had spent the whole 17s. or 18s. It is a criminal thing for any man to save for the future while his children are wanting it. I trust the Minister will give this further consideration. I support the Resolution with all my heart. I want to see it through. It may have been all right when they entered the service, but they did not anticipate the great increase in the cost of living; and after all that must be met.
  Mr. WIGNALL: There is one question I want to ask. Is Wales left out of this? The Memorandum refers to England, Scotland, and Ireland, but Wales is not mentioned, and that is an injustice to Wales. Although I have recently left Wales, I am surprised that all Welsh Members have not discovered it, and it was an Englishman who pointed it out to me. However, it is a serious matter, and I want to know whether it is an act of omission or forgetfulness, or whether it is included? Anyhow, Wales ought to be mentioned.
  Mr. PALMER: Wales is swallowed up by England.
  Mr. WIGNALL: You may think so, but they do not think so in Wales.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Wales is all right. I can assure the hon. Member that it is included with England in English Acts. It is not an injustice to Wales.
  Mr. WIGNALL: That is a greater injustice still, because I believe Wales is a nation, and if that is worth anything at all it is worth mentioning in this connection. I welcome this Bill, although it is not as perfect as I would like it to be, and does not contain as much as I desire. I was struck by the sincerity of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I know he has spoken the last word so far as increasing the amount is concerned. I accept this as a long-deserved measure of justice and fair play to a struggling mass of humanity who have passed through great trouble in the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said, "Let us pause." Yes, let us pause and consider how he and others may desire to economise when the suffering and poverty of the people is at the bottom of it. If we have to economise we must not economise by extending suffering and poverty. I sometimes wonder if there is need for economy in the sense that it will relieve certain people of taxation. When we see the impudent and vulgar display of wealth during Ascot week, and at other times, when people go about in their ninety-guinea hats, we cannot forget that there are people who are concerned in this Resolution who have scarcely a sixpenny hat to cover their head. I am out to economise in the right way, but not by adding pain and suffering to the poverty of these people. We heard a great deal to-night about the miserable wages and pensions. I wonder how many of the people who have been on Education Committees, County Councils and Borough Councils, and other spending authorities have voted for increasing the wages and salaries, and how many have voted against. It is a standing disgrace to many of the County and Borough and Rural Councils that the wages are such as they have been and the pensions such as they are. I welcome this as a measure of justice to a long-suffering and patient section of the community. We could multiply by the

  397
  hundred the cases that have been mentioned to-night. Every hon. Member must have scores of them. We do not want to bring individual cases to prove the principle involved in this measure. We will give the Government the Resolution to-night, and we hope the Bill will soon be introduced, because people cannot pay their debts on expectation. It is no good to try to build a home on retrospective payment until it comes.
  Sir J. REMNANT: I did not move the Amendment in order that there might be a general Debate on the whole Resolution. I understand now that if we prolong the Debate the whole Resolution is in danger of being lost. It puts me in an awkward position, in that I feel as strongly as ever that the two Amendments of which I gave notice should be moved. The right hon. Gentleman, in his sympathetic speech, was not, I think, quite fair, in so far as he did not give the reason I had already given the douse for reducing, in the case of a special body of men, the age limit. But I do not wish in any way to jeopardise this Resolution, which, as far as it goes, is desired by everybody, and I do not propose to move my Amendment.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  Mr. MOLES: On a point of Order. May I ask whether other Members who have risen five times in the hope of catching your eye are entitled to be called?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANrose to put the Question.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot continue, as he had resumed his seat.
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. When the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moles) rose on a point of Order my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) made way for him on the point of Order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to correct the Chair.
  Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an ordinary Member—
  Mr. MOLES: Why ordinary?
  Mr. HOGGE: To rise and complain that he cannot be allowed to speak—
  Mr. MOLES: That is not my complaint.
  Mr. HOGGE: Because he cannot catch your eye when he did not rise, and when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) offers to give way to him does that deprive my hon. and gallant Friend of his right to speak?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the hon. Member's version, but he is not sitting here or seeing all that took place.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  INVERGORDON HARBOUR (TRANSFER) BILL.
  (Re-committed.)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Crown Rights.)
  Nothing in this Act or in the agreement shall affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown, and in particular nothing herein or in the agreement contained shall authorise the Admiralty to take, use, or in any manner interfere with any portion of the shore or bed of the sea or of any river, channel, creek, bay, or estuary, or any land, heritages, subjects, or rights of whatsoever description belonging to His Majesty in right of His Crown and under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or of the Board of Trade respectively without the consent in writing of the Commissioners of Woods or the Board of Trade, as the case may be, on behalf of His Majesty first had and obtained for that purpose (which consent the said Commissioners and Board are hereby respectively authorised to give.—[Sir J. Craig.]
  Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill, as amended on re-committal, considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  DEPARTMENTAL ANSWERS (POSTAGE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]
  Mr. HOGGE: At Question Time to-day I repeated a question to the Leader of the House with regard to a matter which interests practically every Member of the House. Practically every one in the country has received some consideration as a result of the War. Members of this House have had cast upon them, as a result of the War, an ever-growing correspondence—a correspondence which, in my humble opinion, has helped the Departments materially to clear up grievances and to put their own cases in order. I asked a very simple thing. I suggested that Members, when they raise questions with the Departments affecting their constituents, should, when the final reply came from the Department, receive a franked envelope in which to carry that reply to the correspondent who had addressed them. That has been refused by the Leader of the House. This afternoon I gave notice to the Leader of the House that I would raise this question to-night. The Leader of the House is not here. The Postmaster-General is here, and I suppose he may give us some reasons, from the Post Office point of view, with regard to the carriage of mails, as to why we should not have this concession. I am not really interested in what the Postmaster-General has got to say. This is not a question for him at all, it is a question of policy which ought to be decided by the Leader of the House, and it is not fair of my right hon. Friend not to be here when Members of the House wish to discuss a question of policy. I know a great many Members wish to speak on this subject. When I discussed this question personally with the Leader of the House, he said that he was perfectly certain if this were raised the average Member would not be in favour of my view. My opinion is exactly contrary, and every Member of the House to whom I have spoken is absolutely in favour of this commonsense proposal. I desire to deal with one argument which the Leader of the House made against this He pointed out that if Members of the House wished to save the cost of postage they could ask the Departments to send the reply to the correspondent. I went through my own correspondence at
  400
  random to-day and I picked out a letter which came to me by the 5 o'clock post this afternoon. I said at Question Time that no Member could really trust any Department to deal with his correspondence. This is a case which went to the Ministry of Pensions through the hon. Member, who really does take great pains in dealing with all these matters, and he writes to me:
  "With regard to this, I am glad to say that payment of arrears has now been arranged, and I am sorry for the delay. Mr. —'s letter returned herewith."
  Mr.—'s letter says:
  "I have been waiting three months for my money."
  If I or some other Member did not take up this and similar cases, these men would not get their money. If a Department cannot pay the money in three months, how long will it take them to send a reply? They are going to take the rest of their natural lives, that is the experience of every Member. The case is quite simple. Every Member of the Government can frank his letters. We are doing Government work as Members of this House. We are not asking for free postage for our own purposes, but we are asking for the same privileges, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite. While we are drawing one-tenth of the salaries they are drawing, we are making a much greater contribution than they are. This is a matter which concerns our constituents, and it seems ridiculous that in the case of correspondence, in the last process the expenditure of money is involved on the Member concerned. I therefore suggest that the Government should reconsider their decision in this matter, and do an act of simple justice.
  Mr. STURROCK: I rise with great pleasure to suport my hon. Friend on this question. I was astonished to hear the reply which the Leader of the House gave, in which he said that if Members of the House wished, the Departments would reply direct to the constituents of Members. If a constituent addresses us, we must in due course reply to him, and we cannot possibly, without seriously abrogating our duty to our constituents, allow any Government Department to deal with what is really our correspondence. There have been serious delays in dealing with correspondence from Departments, and a Member

  401
  receiving a communication or a complaint and addressing it to a Government Department could never feel satisfied in his mind that the matter was having any consideration whatever, and I cannot see why the Government should oppose the very reasonable suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh {Mr. Hogge). It will cost the country nothing, and it is only common justice and fair play, and it appears to me that it is only because of the entire reasonableness of the idea that it has been rejected. Parliaments throughout the Empire have been substantially increasing the stipends which their Members enjoy, and have been giving every sort of concession to Members, and here, when we come forward with a very moderate proposal indeed, it is turned down in a very offensive fashion. I plead with the Government to consider the position of Members who have a very serious burden to face. If the present attitude is maintained, the House of Commons will no longer be a possible place for men of moderate means. It will become the haunt either of multimillionaires or of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, who are handsomely treated by the organisations which they represent.
  Mr. PALMER: I should like to make a practical suggestion. In many of the letters which we receive from Departments in answer to the complaints, which we forward from constituents, and in which we are therefore facilitating the work of the Government, very often we get a duplicate, which we are asked to forward to our constituents. That costs us 2d., and I say it is putting upon the ordinary, common-place, middle class Member of moderate means a tax which the Government have no right to expect him to pay, and I would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, who, I am sure, will meet this view in the most sympathetic way. This is really not a Post Office matter at all, but a matter of the internal policy of this House. I have received to-day some twenty letters from the various Departments of the Government, and particularly from the Pensions Department, something to this effect: "Dear Mr. Palmer,—Thank you for your letter of such and such a date, but your constituent has not sent sufficient particulars. If you will write to him again, and let us have full
  402
  particulars as to his regimental number, etc." Now, that is almost formal, as my hon. Friend says. The reply could be sent to us with a franked envelope, typed with the address of the person to whom we are sending it. The suggestion that any unfair use is going to be made of this was unworthy of the Lord Privy Seal.
  Dr. MURRAY: With regard to the argument addressed to the House by the Leader of the House, namely, that the Department concerned should send the reply direct to the constituent, that is fraught with some danger, especially in connection with the Ministry of Pensions, because sometimes the Ministry of Pensions have got a reply which, if sent to the constituent, would cause unnecessary pain. I know of one or two cases in which I got a reply which I could not send to my constituents, because the Ministry of Pensions were bound to tell the bare truth. If I sent that letter to the relatives it would cause a great deal of unnecessary and life-long pain. That sort of thing could be saved.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think the House is indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, but I do not think the matter is quite so simple as he believes. I understand his suggestion is that the Department answering a Member with regard to some point raised by a constituent should send a franked envelope, so that the Member could reply to his constituent in that envelope without incurring the expense of postage. That would open the door to illimitable abuses. I understand that, when one posts a letter of that kind in a franked envelope, it is not enough to have the envelope marked "On His Majesty's Service" and addressed to some private individual, but it is necessary to have, in addition, the name of an individual in some Department. In order that that should be franked through the Post Office, it is necessary that it should be posted in some recognised way in the Department and by the Department, before it can be passed through the Post Office. Otherwise, any individual in the country could simply get a number of these envelopes and print on them "On His Majesty's Service" and the name of some Department, and post them, and they could go through the Post Office without check. [HON. MEMBERS: "Post them in the House."] That would not work through

  403
  the vacation, and, so far as this suggestion of posting is concerned, I think that the Government have met it in the only possible way in which this particular difficulty can be met, namely, that these should be posted through the Government Departments. I do not think that that will meet the requirements of Members. Personally, I would not be content to be a mere receiving officer, or a mere post office handing on letters from my constituents to the Department, and taking no further interest in them. I should certainly want to see the reply, to exercise a discretion in regard to it, as to whether I forwarded it to my constituents with or without comment, or whether I pursued the matter further. This is really part of a larger subject. If the Government grant this concession to the limited extent to which they are prepared to grant it, and which is the only extent to which they can grant it—in regard to the Post Office, how much more should they grant it in respect to the railway? The increase in Members' expenses in regard to Post Office matters is only a tithe of the increase of Members' expenses in regard to railway fares. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, my railway fare—as, I think, the railway fares of other Members of Northern constituencies—has increased by more than £5 every time I visit my constituents.
  Mr. HOGGE: Stick to stamps.
  Mr. SCOTT: No, I will not. I say that this is merely part of a far larger subject This concession is a camouflaged increase of salaries. If it be going to be done, it is far better that you should do it by an honest, straightforward increase of the salaries of Members.
  Mr. PALMER: Give the Minister a chance.
  Mr. SCOTT: I will give him all the time that I think he will require. There is one other way in which it can be done. At present the salary to Members is nominally £400 a year. Out of that, £100 is considered to be not salary, but allowance for expenses, and is not subject to Income Tax. That allowance is certainly not adequate just now. One way to meet this charge would be to increase the proportion of salary that is allowed free of Income Tax. That is not a matter, I
  404
  know, that is subject to the Postmaster-General. It is really a matter for the Government, and I regret, for that purpose, that the head of the Government is not present now.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that he was not disposed to trust the Departments to reply to his letters. That is hardly a sound argument.
  Mr. HOGGE: Mine is a sad experience.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Those who have had experience of the trouble of finding out the details of all these things know that it must take a considerable time, as it frequently does. Inquiries have to be made all over the country, various files have to be consulted, and also people at a distance. The hon. Gentleman also said—though, I am sure, he was under a misapprehension, or he would not have said it—that Ministers sent their replies to their constituents franked. The hon. Member is quite mistaken. The rule and custom is that a Minister replying to one of his constituents can only send a franked reply in connection with matters attaching to his Department.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is all that we ask.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Member said a Minister could send any reply to any constituent, but he cannot, and if he does, he should not. All the letters I send in reply to my constituents have a postage stamp, except those which apply to my own Departmental matters. The hon. Member said a Minister could post a reply on any question affecting any Department. He cannot do so.
  Mr. HOGGE rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made his speech. Surely he might listen to the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The experience of the Post Office is that when these official-paid envelopes are allowed to be dealt with by Departments they have been very much abused, even by people one would not expect to do so. I know a case of a mayor who had the means of getting hold of these envelopes, posting them from his own private business correspondence. In that case, and in others I have known,

  405
  franked invitations sent out for dances and all sorts of things, and that was only discovered on account of the carelessness of the people in not gumming down the envelopes and the contents being seen by the Post Office officials. We have to face the possibility of having a large number of envelopes in various Departments. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCullum Scot) that probably what is suggested would result in getting a very great deal more correspondence to Members. I think the offer which has been made is a very generous one. If any hon. Member does not wish to pay the postage, he has only to send to the Department and to ask that that reply shall be sent from the Department. I think that that meets the point entirely. Hon. Members who have spoken have simply wanted to save the expense of postage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, that has been mentioned in several speeches. They want to save the expense of the postage and our offer will enable him to do so.
  406
  I think I have fairly met the hon. Member on the point of postage. What is aimed at is a reduction of expenditure. The Government offer will enable that reduction to be made, but to do as the hon. Member suggests would only be to encourage expenditure which hon. Members would otherwise avoid. I do not think the Government should be pressed any more. The question has been very carefully considered not only by myself and by my Department, but also by the Government as a whole. I have stated the decision we have come to. I think it is a quite reasonable one, and one which should satisfy the requirements of the hon. Member.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Orders.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  MOTHERS' PENSIONS.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CANAL DEPOT SOQUENCE, HAVRE (EVACUATION).
  CANAL DEPOT SOQUENCE, HAVRE (EVACUATION).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (SICKNESS BENEFIT).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (SICKNESS BENEFIT).
  DEMOBILISATION.
  DEMOBILISATION.
  MUNITIONS (RECORDS).
  MUNITIONS (RECORDS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND (RENTS).
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND (RENTS).
  POST OFFICE, HALIFAX (RESIGNATIONS).
  POST OFFICE, HALIFAX (RESIGNATIONS).
  RESETTLEMENT GRANT (ARREARS AND APPEALS).
  RESETTLEMENT GRANT (ARREARS AND APPEALS).
HOUSING.
  CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.
  CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.
  UNEMPLOYED INSURANCE FUND.
  UNEMPLOYED INSURANCE FUND.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE).
  PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE).
  LINCOLN FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' DISPENSARIES.
  LINCOLN FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' DISPENSARIES.
  GENERAL ELECTION (EXPENSES).
  GENERAL ELECTION (EXPENSES).
RUSSIA.
  GENERAL WRANGEL'S OFFENSIVE.
  GENERAL WRANGEL'S OFFENSIVE.
  BRITISH TROOPS, BATUM (WITHDRAWAL).
  BRITISH TROOPS, BATUM (WITHDRAWAL).
PEACE TREATIES.
  GERMANY (SILVER EXPORTS).
  GERMANY (SILVER EXPORTS).
GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
  DIRECTORATE OF LANDS (MR. FORRESTER ADDIE).
  DIRECTORATE OF LANDS (MR. FORRESTER ADDIE).
  INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERS (CLERKS).
  INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERS (CLERKS).
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY WORKERS' WAGES (PRIVILEGES).
  RAILWAY WORKERS' WAGES (PRIVILEGES).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL).
IRELAND.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  ATTACK ON MILITARY, ENNIS.
  ATTACK ON MILITARY, ENNIS.
  NAVIGATION (ATTACKS ON SIGNAL STATIONS).
  NAVIGATION (ATTACKS ON SIGNAL STATIONS).
  RAIDS FOR ARMS.
  RAIDS FOR ARMS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MEAT DE-CONTROL (SLAUGHTER-HOUSES).
  MEAT DE-CONTROL (SLAUGHTER-HOUSES).
  NATIONAL FOOD JOURNAL.
  NATIONAL FOOD JOURNAL.
  AMERICAN BACON.
  AMERICAN BACON.
  FORESTRY.
  FORESTRY.
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  HANLEY SECONDARY SCHOOL (APPOINTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY MASTER).
  HANLEY SECONDARY SCHOOL (APPOINTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY MASTER).
POST OFFICE
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (SHORTAGE OF MATERIALS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (SHORTAGE OF MATERIALS).
  PRIMROSE LEAGUE FêTE, MAER.
  PRIMROSE LEAGUE FêTE, MAER.
  WELSH CHURCH ACT (GLEBE LANDS).
  WELSH CHURCH ACT (GLEBE LANDS).
  PRINTING AND STATIONERY (GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE).
  PRINTING AND STATIONERY (GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE).
  TRUSTS AND COMBINES (LEGISLATION).
  TRUSTS AND COMBINES (LEGISLATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past, four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
  LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PORT OF PORTSMOUTH FLOATING BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order giving validity to marriages celebrated in the parish church of St. Margaret, Halstead. The original church, built in 1854, was pulled down in 1880–1 and a new church was built. Through omission no order for substitution was made at the time, and the new church never, therefore, became a place where marriages could lawfully be celebrated. This omission was only recently discovered, when to remedy it an order of substitution was made on November 13, 1919. At the request of the various parties interested the Home Secretary made the Provisional Order referred to in order to remove the doubt as to the validity of the marriages solemnised between 1881 and November, 1919. No objections have been received, and the Order is in the usual form and similar to numerous others made in previous years.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENTCHARCE (RATES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, this is a temporary Bill introduced by the Government to give partial relief to incumbents and ecclesiastical corporations from the rates now payable on their tithe rentcharge. It will be remembered that in the year 1918 a Tithe Act was passed which fixed the value of tithe rentcharge at the figure at which it then stood—namely, £109 and a few odd shillings—until the end of the year 1925, and that Act prevents tithe rentcharge rising, as it otherwise certainly would have risen in consequence of the prevailing high price of wheat, barley and oats at the present time. It would probably have risen, for example, in the present year to something in the neighbourhood of £140. There is no question, therefore, that the Act of 1918 involved considerable sacrifice on the part of the Church, with corresponding benefit to agriculturists and landowners, and at the time was accepted by the great majority of incumbents chiefly on patriotic grounds It is true also that the Act in question contained a provision as to ascertaining tithe rentcharge after 1925 on a 15 years' average instead of a 7 years' average, and this will eventually give the Church some advantage from the present current, prices. But in spite of this I think it is generally acknowledged by landowners and occupiers of agricultural land that they obtained a very valuable concession from the Church with respect to that Act.
Since then circumstances which no one had foreseen at the time have arisen, and the position has changed very materially and very seriously as against the interest of the incumbents by the rapid and enormous rise in rates throughout the country, which has every appearance of becoming even more serious and also has been aggravated by the great increase in the cost of living. If the Act had not been passed and if the tithe rentcharge had been allowed to rise in a natural way, the increase of the income of the incumbents would have been available to meet this increase in the rates, but that is now stopped by the Act of 1918. Therefore a very strong case has been made out for some relief whilst this artificial restriction
974
On the amount, of tithe rentcharge continues—that is, to the end of the year 1925. The Bill, which only professes to afford temporary and partial relief, proposes, that during this limited period of restriction up to the end of 1925 the rates on ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge shall be levied at the same rate as in 1918–that is, at the time when the restriction on the amount was imposed—and that the provision shall operate as regards any rate which has been made on or since April 1 this year.
The proposals of the Government in the original Bill have been extended in another place by an Amendment giving entire exemption from rates on tithe rentcharge to incumbents with incomes not exceeding £300 a year, and half exemption to incumbents with incomes within the limits of £300 and £500. This will be quite consistent. with the principle of the Bill, which was to maintain the status quo in 1918. In view of the undoubted and extreme poverty of many of the clergy at the present time it is hoped that the modification in the original proposal will commend itself to your Lordships' House. I am aware that in this connection many anomalies may arise in the case of incomes which are very close to the limits that are suggested, but that is always the case in exceptions of this kind, and I am afraid cannot, be avoided.
This Bill has been criticised on the ground that it does not go far enough, but it will at any rate give relief to incumbents to the extent of something in the neighbourhood of £150,000 this year, and will give an even greater relief in future years. The relief to ecclesiastical corporations will also. be substantial. It is obvious that payment of the rates from which relief is given must fall upon other ratepayers, but the total amount will be quite insignificant, averaging well under some small fraction of a penny. No opposition has been seriously voiced to the proposal upon those grounds, for it is obvious that by the restrictions imposed in the Act of 1918 very great benefits were conferred upon landowners and others at the expense of the poor clergy; indeed, the only serious objection that has been so far advanced against this Bill in another place has been as to its temporary and partial character.
I am aware also that in your Lordships' House earlier in the session there was a discussion upon a Motion dealing with the

975
broader question of rating of tithe rent-charge, but I think there is nothing in this Bill which is inconsistent with the Resolution, which was then discussed by your Lordships, and which I believe was not pressed to a conclusion. On behalf of the Government, may I say that we feel every sympathy with the grievance of the clergy with respect to this broader question as to whether tithe rentcharge should be rated at all or not. It is certainly a very anomalous thing that the clergy should be selected from among all other classes of the community and rated on their professional incomes. I believe the position is unique, and the Government has every sympathy with the protest which has been expressed very forcibly by those who are authorised to speak for the Church in these matters. But the view of the Government is that it would be quite impossible to deal with this grievance, great though it is, as a detached matter, apart from the whole question of legislation for the general reform of local taxation. This broader question undoubtedly calls for the attention of Parliament and perhaps is much overdue, but owing to the great pressure of public business, and also to the great complexity of the question, it has not hitherto been possible to find Parliamentary time for the purpose.
I wish to emphasise that the acceptance of this partial and temporary measure by your Lordships and by the Church will in no sense prejudice the claims of the Church to have this broader question dealt with hereafter in a fair manner. Though the relief which is proposed to give incumbents under the Bill is not all that may be their due, the relief to them is at any rate a substantial one, and I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading and favourable consideration in its subsequent stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am grateful first for the very clear exposition which has been given of a somewhat technical and even unattractive subject by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government; and second, and still more so, for the exceedingly cordial and sympathetic way in which he has recognised what I believe to be a real, long-standing, and remediable grievance. It is not a
976
small thing that we should have recognition now publicly given to certain large principles and facts that are often forgotten or ignored.
We have a combination of things at this moment which accentuates whatever difficulty this Bill is intended to meet. We have, first, the rising of rates in many parts of the country pressing upon everybody in its degree, but not upon everybody alike, because it presses most upon some particular classes. Then we have the fact that the clergy are really quite disproportionately rated. They are the only men whose earned income is subject to rates, and their position in this matter is unique. As the noble Lord has said very clearly, it would have been perfectly fair and in consonance with our general legislalation in these matters had the Bill gone much further than it does, and had it been possible to obliterate altogether the rating of people on their actual earned income.
There is a third fact beyond the rise of rates and the disproportionate rating of the clergy. The third fact is that the clergy belong to a class which at this moment is far more than any other being hit by the post-war cost of living in all its aspects. As in the case of other men with fixed incomes—not salaries which can be raised half as much again, or trebled sometimes—the cost of living presses upon them far more than it does upon those who are able to go to some paymaster, be it the country, or a corporation, or an individual, and say "It is impossible for me to live upon this; my salary must be raised in proportion to the present cost of living." They belong to the class which is, therefore, hit quite out of proportion to other people by the present costs. And the sense of that is made far more acute to them by the fact, to which the noble Lord alluded and explained so clearly, that the clergy are, by the Act of two years ago, barred from what would have been the natural increase of their income by the automatic rise of tithe. I do not say for a moment that at the time that Bill was passed it was wrong to pass it in the form which it took; on the contrary, I supported it, believing that it was the only mode in which we could meet the then difficulties. The clergy generally acquiesced with loyal patriotism. Your Lordships will all understand how the acuteness of the difficulty is accentuated for men who, had there not been that legislation, would at this moment have been receiving, not £109, but £140, which in some sense

977
may be said, according to precedent, to be legally theirs.
Put all these facts together, and the result is that the position is an exceedingly grave one for the clergy, and the outlook for them is a very dark one. The Bishops day by day have to go into these matters and try t o deal in such way as they possibly can with the terrible problem of the poverty of clerical homes. The clergy are in this position, that they can neither go on living at the present cost with any possibility of educating their children properly or of doing that which is ordinarily expected of them, nor can they resign and take up other work. The resignation would, in itself, involve a great payment on dilapidations of houses that are much too large, which they have inherited, and, besides that, they are barred to other professions and other means of making a livelihood which are open to their brethren in other fields.
In these circumstances I am simply amazed day by day by the quiet courage, the persistent, brave acquiescence in extreme difficulty, and the plucky way in which men are trying to live. It is evident all over the country, and I am quite sure that it is entitled to recognition on the part of all those who observe and understand the situation. I will give an example of what I mean—some of your Lordships may probably have means of knowing it at first hand. I have had conversation lately with some of the directors of the insurance office in which the clergy insure their lives, and I hear pitiable stories of men coming to appeal for leave to charge their policies with £5 or £6, because, without that, they simply cannot go on. When they are reduced to the condition that they have to go to the insurance office to raise a £5 note we see the straits to which gentleman in that position, with families to educate, have been reduced. That is a single example of the kind of things which come daily before us, showing the way in which brave men are struggling with extraordinary difficulties. We come on their behalf to ask that such relief as this measure can give should, at least, be given to them. There never was a time when the need was greater, there never was a time when the pressure was so hard upon these men, and I cannot help hoping that, even yet, it may be possible to extend somewhat the benefits which this temporary Bill will give. That, however, is a question which, I suppose,
978
would arise on the Committee stage. But we welcome this relief, even such as it is, and reserve any criticisms or questions as to whether it may not go further until that later stage.
It was to me a source of real satisfaction to hear the noble Lord say that the fact of this temporary relief being given will not, if the Government can help it, be used hereafter as an argument against some other form of relief should the occasion arise for bringing that about. It would be very hard if you said, "You accepted this arrangement as a satisfactory solution of your difficulties; therefore we do not listen to your appeal for something wider." The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that this is a temporary relief, but that the granting of it will not bé regarded as prejudicing future action, should Parliament decide to take future action, on a larger and more generous scale. Meanwhile, I desire, on behalf of those for whom I have the right to speak, to thank the Government and the noble Lord for what they have so far done in this matter, and to say that the relief given by this Bill is sorely needed, and will be greatly prized, and we should be grateful if it were possible to extend it further.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that this Bill must be regarded partly as a temporary Bill, but at the same time one cannot put out of sight the general principles which underlie the whole of this rating question, so far as tithe rentcharge is concerned. As regards these temporary matters it stands in this way. The Act of 1918 has operated very hardly on the owners of tithe rentcharge used for spiritual purposes. It has already been pointed out that the effect of that Act is to reduce by from 27 to 28 per cent. the income which clergymen would now be receiving if the Act had not been passed. In other words, they are receiving £109 now instead of £140. I understand that when the Act of 1918 was passed it was' in contemplation that there would be a considerable redemption of tithe rentcharge. I admit I was rather sceptical at the time as regards that effect, and I expressed that view, but that was the underlying motive with which the Act was passed. I do not know—I was not here during the whole of the noble Lord's speech—if the noble Lord gave any information to the House as to whether redemption has proceeded

979
to any large extent under that Act, because, if it has not, it stands in its naked reality as a very large deduction from the income of a hard-worked and hard-pressed class. So that, looked at as a temporary measure and in reference to the Act of 1918, the proposal in this Bill would, I think, hardly give fair justice, and it does not go far enough. Because I am quite sure that the reduction in rates will not be equivalent to the reduction of 28 per cent. under the 1918 Act. In other words, it is only a partial remedy for the evils then created as regards the spiritual income chiefly of the incumbents of this country.
I think it is generally acknowledged that the rating of tithe rentcharge in any form is an anomaly; because we know that under the Common Law "spiritualities" (as they were called) were not subject to rating at all. Whether that is owing to the terms of Magna Charta, as I think Lord Cope suggested, or from any other cause does not matter; but so far as Common Law is concerned they were not regarded as rateable property but as an income paid for spiritual purposes. No doubt as long ago as the Statute of Elizabeth words were introduced under which, by Statute, it was held that the tithe rentcharge was rateable; but, as a matter of fact, although that was said to be the law in some cases, it was not very generally operative. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill has cognisance of the fact that, although under the terms of that Act the tithe was rateable, in a very large number of parishes and under a large number of what were called modices no rates were in fact exacted.
Then we come to the Tithe Rentcharge Act of 1834. What passed after that? The question was raised whether a parson, being rated on his tithe rentcharge, was not in effect rated on his income. In other words, whether, so far as he was concerned, the rate was not in the form of a local Income Tax. A very learned and well-known Judge, Mr. Justice Bailey, held it was so; and the result was that, according to his dictum, either the rates imposed on the clergy would have to be foregone, or you must rate profits generally; you must have that which we have often sought to introduce but without suceess—namely, an Income Tax for local rate purposes. I am not saying anything as regards the benefit of an Income Tax at that time, but in fact
980
it has never been introduced. Yet the effect of that decision was that in 1840 an Act was passed by which persons were not rated. In other words, the principle of rating income was put on one side because it was considered to be difficult and unfair, and according to the principle after 1840, there ought not to have been rating of the tithe rentcharge at all. The same principle that applied to other profits ought to have been applied to the tithe rentcharge. I dare say your Lordships are aware that the provisions of the Act of 1840 are only kept in force from year to year; the Act is renewed from year to year in the Acts extended under the General Act dealing with the necessary renewal of Acts of Parliament. That is so, because we have had constant discussions as to how rates ought to be applied and levied as between land and business undertakings.
That being the state of things, in 1899 a Report was made by the Royal Commission on Local and Imperial Taxation. I had the honour to be on that Royal Commission, which sat for four or five years under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The effect of the recommendation of that Royal Commission was this, that the rates payable on tithe rentcharge were halved. There was some difference, which is not always appreciated, between the terms of the concessions for agricultural land and the concessions for the payment of rates on the tithe rentcharge. I think my recollection is right in stating that the average rate of the gross tithe rentcharge at that time was about 2s. 6d. in the £. So that the result was to reduce the charge from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. As a matter of fact, I think I am also right in stating that for a large number of years, I think even up to 1917, that Act operated in this way, and the half rates which were left payable by the parson on his tithe rentcharge amounted in the average—though it was different in varying cases—to about 1s. 3d.
I want now to ask the noble Lord a question. At the present time the actual amount that a parson is paying on the average of his tithe rentcharge is about 3s. 9d. Taking that figure for the moment, if I may, I want to know what is the actual effect of the proposal contained in this Bill? If I understand it, it is this. The poundage rate is to be the same as in 1918–not to be enhanced. Therefore, so far as the poundage rate is concerned, you will have no higher rate per £ than in 1918. Is the

981
result of that this, that assuming in 1918 the poundage was, we will say, 3s., does it mean that 3s. in the £ is to be the highest poundage rate apart from special circumstances, and that one-half of that will be remitted under the Act of 1899? In other words, that under those conditions a parson rated would pay 1s. 6d. in the £. I desire, to know whether that is the operation of the Act generally. I find some difficulty, although I have had a great deal of experience in rating questions, to know what the exact operation is; and perhaps the noble Lord in reply to my question will tell me whether I am right or not.
This brings me to another question which is a very important one. For my own part I do not desire this Bill to be placed on what I call eleemosynary grounds; I want to discuss it as a pure act of justice and rather as a bare act of justice. So that, in addition to what I have already said with regard to poundage—which was the only provision in the Bill when it was first introduced into the House of Commons—there is a further provision as regards parsons whose total income (as it is called) does not exceed £300 or £500, as the case may be. I cannot understand any principle involved in this at all. I think it ought to be that, where the total income from tithe rentcharge in any individual case is not above £300, you ought to make a special allowance, in fact no rate should be payable at all. That, I think, would be perfectly in accordance with principle. You are really dealing with a source of income which is not rated in any other way, and it is perfectly right that a man who receives from a source of income of that kind so low a sum as £300 a year should not be charged as a ratepayer at all. That is one of the things indicated in the Report of the Royal Commission in 1899 by some of the members who signed a separate memorandum. Also I can understand that if the tithe rentcharge income is not above £500 you should have the reduction of one-half. That is logical and right. But how can the rest of the man's income be introduced? If you introduce the rest of his income in order to decide whether he is rateable or not, in substance and in truth you rate income directly. In the case of a man who has (we will say) £100 from other than tithe sources, so that his total income is £400, what you really do in this provision is to rate him on that £100. How can you justify a provision of that kind? If you are going to have a new principle of general
982
Income Tax for the purposes of rating, of course I can understand it.
I have dwelt at some little length on this point because I hope that in Committee the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider an Amendment which will be put down in order to limit the effect of this £300 and £500 actually to tithe rentcharge itself. If you are going to introduce the principle that the rate a man pays on particular classes of property is to be adjusted because of his private means from other sources, you introduce what appears to me to be a very dangerous and wrong principle. That is what is done here, and I am sure I shall have the assent of the noble Lord so far. It is beyond my comprehension how a provision of that kind can be justified in that form. I quite agree that it was not in the Bill in the first instance; it was introduced, I think, by a Standing Committee in the House of Commons.
I protest against it for two reasons. First of all, I think it is unfair; secondly, it is quite wrong to introduce a special rating provision of this kind. It is inconsistent with the fundamental basis on which our rating is carried out. I am not one of those who object to the idea of Income Tax for rating purposes, if it can possibly be carried out. I dare say the noble Lord knows, and Lord Balfour will know, that the great opponents of it were some Scottish Judges who found, when they took holiday somewhere in Scotland, that they were rated on the income they were paid as Judges of His Majesty's Court in Scotland, and being Scotsmen they naturally objected to that very strongly and very properly. Yet you are introducing that same principle here as regards poor men. I hope that a principle of that kind will not be adopted.
There are one or two other matters, more or less of detail, which I would ask the noble Lord to consider. Would it not be fairer to take the year 1917 rather than the year 1918? I do not want to press that point too much. I dare say the noble Lord has had to consider it. It really arises from this point of view, that, so far as you make a calculation for tithe rent-charge purposes, you make it for the future. It is to my mind a question of less importance than some others which are upon the face of the Bill, but still it has some importance. These are the particular matters to which I want to call attention. I am extremely anxious that this Bill shall not

983
be passed in a form which cannot be supported on general principles, because if it is, I am sure the time will come when what will be said to be an exceptional privilege in favour of parsons—though I do not think that is so at all—will be used as a ground for interfering with our Church endowments and for introducing against parsons matters to their exceptional disadvantage. I think the Bill gives bare justice for temporary purposes, and for permanent purposes it might be a step in the right direction.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, the legal knowledge and historical equipment of the noble Lord who has just spoken show how strong is the case upon which this Bill might have been made even more comprehensive than it is; but, temporary or permanent, complete or incomplete, this Bill is a welcome instalment of that which is no more than justice, and this justice is meted out to a class who deserve our sympathy beyond all words to describe. For, in truth, the Act of 1918 deprived the clergy of the automatic operation of an economic influence which, had the law been left alone, would have brought them just the increase in income that would have given them relief against the rise in the cost of living; so that really the old law, so far as it was an academic se of injustice—which it really was not—became something of the most acute and concrete kind.
I am glad to think that the Government have had the courage to introduce and pilot through another place a measure which, in other and certainly no better days, would have encountered opposition of an old-fashioned and now, I am happy to be able to say, perhaps an out-worn kind, for the day has gone by when you can put off or defeat a measure of this kind by putting to any House of Parliament what may be called dialectical dilemmas about whether or not the clergy are indeed or in fact State officers. The fact is that while you are wasting time in finding an answer to those dialectical traps you are allowing a most deserving class to go on suffering a most undeserved injustice; and that, I am happy to find, was the sentiment which permitted the other House of the Legislature to send up this measure of relief to this House.
There is one point I could wish that this Bill had dealt with more courageously. The fundamental principle of the Bill is
984
that you must not levy rates, and never do levy rates, upon the income which a man receives as a consideration for his intellectual or manual labour, and the parson's tithe is not the only property of which that can be said. That is not the only form of property the enjoyment of which is tightly tied to the obligation to discharge certain definite legal duties. In the same way as the parson's tithe is tied up with the performance of spiritual duties connected with the cure of souls in his parish, so is the property in tithe held by ecclesiastical corporations, such as the capitular bodies who have the management of our cathedrals, the conduct of their services and the maintenance of their fabrics, tied up with these duties only less important than those of the parochial clergy. This Bill, I am glad to say, recognises that there is a close analogy between the two cases, because it gives to the ecclesiastical corporations—that is to say, the capitular bodies, the Deans and Chapters—when owners of tithes, the same relief against the increased poundage rate which has, unhappily, become an incident of the payment of rates since the Act of 1918. It gives them the same relief in that respect as it gives to the parochial clergy.
But it would have been possible for this Bill to go further than that, because this Bill does not stop at giving the parochial clergy relief against the increase in the poundage rate owing to the increased expenditure of local authorities. The Bill does entirely re-open in another direction what some people might have called the settlement made in 1899, for it gives, on the ground of poverty, the right to a clergyman to escape not merely the half-rates from which that Act exempted him, but also to go further and claim exemption from the whole rate. Therefore, if it should be found later that an Amendment is put down to enable the Deans and Chapters, the capitular bodies, who are finding the maintenance of their fabrics and the conduct of their services a matter of extreme difficulty under modern economic conditions, to have the same relief from the half rates which the Act of 1899 gave to the parochial clergy, I hope it will not be said that this would be a reopening of the controversy about the Act of 1899, which is undesirable and might imperil this Bill.
I have already shown that the settlement, so far as it is a settlement, is open in

985
a far more important direction already by the terms and proposals of the Bill itself. There is no mere sentimental connection between this kind of property and this kind of duty. It is a firm, legal nexus of the most positive and recognisable kind. There is no sort of doubt that this property is held by the clergy, the discharge of whose duties is a condition of enjoying that property. It is held on conditions upon which it is quite certain, if those duties were not rendered and discharged, the connection between the duties and the enjoyment of the property would cease. It would not stop at spiritual censures. I have very little doubt that deprivation and the mundane process known under the name of mandamus, and compulsion in other forms, would be the result.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I see that there is such general support for this Bill that what I say will be more in the way of criticism than with any intention to divide the House. This Bill is supported on two entirely different grounds. The noble Lord who has just spoken laid it down that you must not levy rates on salaries for labour. If that is so, you ought to exempt glebes from rating. If the endowment of the Church is a salary for labour—which is, of course, taking the extreme State-official view of the clergy—and you must not rate salaries for labour, then I would point out that there are counties in England where the clergy are very largely endowed by glebe and not by tithes. The county of Northampton, for instance. In the great period of agricultural distress in the eighties and' nineties, I remember how the clergy of Northampton were especially hard hit because their great glebes, consisting of hundreds of acres, were thrown on their hands, and they had not the capital to farm them and suffered very much in consequence. If you take the line that the income of the clergy derived from tithes is a salary for labour and ought not to be rated, you ought to exempt the land held by the clergy.
But the moment you take up the line that you are going to exempt a person from a tax on income because that income is coupled with duties and ought to be enjoyed free of tax, other considerations come in. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, will accept the argument of a salary or wages for labour.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
LORD SHEFFIELD: The noble Lord will not accept it. He took the other line that the rating of tithes was really an anomaly in the history of our law, and he went back to the Middle Ages to prove it. But I think he is right to admit that in what is really antiquity for us, the time of Elizabeth, tithes had been rated, and have been rated again by numerous Acts since then. I should like to point out—I ask the noble and learned Lord to correct me if I am wrong, because he is more familiar with these things than I am—that when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed those Commissioners who assessed the commutation were ordered to take into consideration, and did take into consideration, the fact that tithe was subject to rates.
LORD PARMOOR: I assent, if I may say this—that the rates then levied were infinitesimal as compared with the new rates which have been put on since.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Rates fluctuate, and I am not concerned with that. They might have gone down but, as a matter of fact, they have gone up. The point is that this is property which was rateable in law before, and was determined to be rated in future, and when the Commissioners were ordered to take into consideration that liability to be rated in determining what should be the commutation value of the tithe, the parochial clergy and others got the benefit of a more liberal commutation because they were to be liable to pay rates That being so, you cannot say it is an outrage that they should pay rates on account of the special type of property they hold when, in fixing the rate of commutation, the fact that they pay rates upon that property was taken into account. I think the noble and learned Lord also brought into question the modus, which is just a little antique, although I think that every tithe payer would be only too thankful if he could have a modus. The modus existed in the Middle Ages but in the course of time has, in many cases, gone by the board.
The point I want to press is that if tithe is a particular kind of property which ought not to be rated, then, as in the former Act, which let off the parochial clergy one-half of the tithe, you have not now to deal with the tithe on account of its particularity as property, but on account of the character of those who own it. You did

987
not exempt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners then; you did not exempt Deans and Chapters then; and you do not now exempt them. The only thing you say is that they shall not be rated on a higher poundage than before. But you do not deal with the lay tithe owner. It is quite clear that you are not dealing with this particular type of property; you are dealing with it, as the noble Lord indicated, from the character of the men who enjoy from three-fourths to four-fifths—I do not know exactly what the proportion is—of the tithes of this country, which are held by the parochial clergy. You are dealing with a section of tithe-owners and not with the principle of tithe. Nobody disputes that clergymen, especially those with a small living, are very hard hit. But the clergyman is not the only man who is hard hit. Is not the dissenting minister hard hit? Is not the small annuitant, with money in the funds, hard hit Is not everybody with a fixed income of less than £1,000 a year—and in some cases even those with income of over £1,000 a year—hard hit? Are not the hospitals hard hit? They have large duties but they have to pay their full rates. Everybody is hard hit in these days.
I can sympathise with every straightforward man who is hard hit, but if you select this particular type of person and subsidise him—I will not use controversial words and say because he is a State official, for many of them say they are not State officials but ate in enjoyment of ancient statutory property earlier than the statute —you are subsidising him because you say he is in fact performing a service for the State. Therefore, this Bill is simply reaffirming the principle of Church Establishment. You are giving to these people because they perform State services a subsidy out of the rates, which the noble Lord who brought in the Bill said would be £150,000 this year on the top of the Act of 1899, which gave hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to relieve the pressure on people who are State servants. I object to the State subsidising any particular form of religion, and I object also to this inconsistent and entirely different argument. One man says "Do not rate the tithe because it is an ancient possession which only by recent Acts, passed in the time of Elizabeth and onwards, was made subject to rates," and the other says, "Do not tax the clergymen, because you ought not to tax any man on an earned
988
income"; but I say you are doing it because you wish to perpetuate the principle of an Established Church.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I wish to say how grateful I am to the Government for introducing this Bill, and how much I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. Perhaps it would not be improper for me to interpose at this stage for a few minutes. First of all I come from the great county of Norfolk, which is rich in its churches and rich in the ability and goodness of its clergy, but singularly poor in its endowments; and in the second place, when the subject was under discussion about two years ago in your Lordships' House I used these words—
"Whenever we speak to the clergy on the subject of tithe, the first question that comes forward is the question of rates. The clergy say they are the only class in the community who pay rates—they should say half rates—on their income."
At the time of which I am speaking nothing could be done, although of course I received a moat courteous reply from the Government, but I am very glad indeed to find that although the Government on that occasion said that the question of these rates could not be discussed apart from the question of rates in general, now they have come forward in a most gracious manner to help the poor clergy.
The clergy are indeed curiously unfortunate just now. The noble Lord who has just sat down said something about the history of the rates and their original incidence, but I think he has failed to observe that the clergy were originally liable only to pay rates like other inhabitants of the parish. It is an intricate subject, and I ought not to waste your Lordships' time. in going more fully into it; but, if I am not under a misapprehension, in the year 1885 so great a Judge as Lord Lindley, the last of the Serjeants, who I am afraid is never able now to take his place in your Lordships' House, although I have the personal pleasure of seeing him from time to time, made it clear that through the course of the centuries these rates which the clergyman was originally liable to pay, as other inhabitants, became mixed up with the other rates with regard to which the noble Lord who has just sat down has made his recent remarks. These rates may be distinguished from the rates paid upon

989
actual glebe, because the rates there would be paid by the clergyman in his capacity as a landowner, and that, I think, makes a very considerable difference.
But a difficulty in which the clergymen are is that they are in a very awkward position for gaining any real justice as to their rates. May I read a few words from what I said two or three years ago—
"I consider it very unfortunate that at the present time assessment committees are far more inclined to raise the rates on tithe than on land. No doubt in part this comes about because tithe goes up and the assessment committees are aware of it, and can easily re-assess it. In the case of land it is naturally much more difficult to deal with the issue,"
The result is that the rates which the clergy pay rise out of proportion to the rates which their neighbours pay. There is in the nature of the ease no reason why reassessment of the rates payable by the clergy should not come hand in hand with the rates which others pay, but it is in fact easier to reassess the clergy, and I imagine that the assessment officers, holding unpopular offices, delay making reassessment all round and content themselves with making a reassessment of the clergy. I have no doubt whatever that that is what takes place in a great many instances.
The rates, as we all know, are rising by leaps and bounds at the present moment, and I would like to give one or two figures. In one parish the rates in 1899 were 1s. 10 d., and in 1919–20 8s. 8d. In another parish they have risen from 3s. 6d. to 9s. 2d; in a third from 2s. 8d. to 9s.; and in another from 6s. 10 d. in 1918 to 15 s. 8d. now. We who are bishops can indeed sympathise with the clergy in their troubles, and we know from the inside something of what all this means to them. We all have to pay rates on vast mediæval houses, and we know something of the difficulty of meeting the demands that the rates make upon ourselves. I am glad to say this not only for the information of your Lordships' House but because I think it is important that the clergy should recognise that the Bishops take a personal, true, and sympathetic interest in their troubles at the present time.
The noble Lord who has just spoken to us seemed to forget that the Tithe Bill was passed two years ago, and that that introduced to our consideration a special claim by the clergy at this time. No one was able to prophesy how prices would go.
990
I have here a paper which shows that taking the index figure of food at 100, in May last the price stood at 329; and in the case of materials, taking the index figure at 100, the price was 317. The clergy suffer both in regard to food and materials, because, as the most rev. Primate has pointed out, they have to meet serious dilapidations of their all too big houses. If we had left the. clergy alone two years ago they would have had no complaint to make, because they would merely have been in the position of others to whom the noble Lord referred who simply are feeling the high prices of these difficult days. No one would approve the Act now, but it was impossible, two years ago to prophesy. I thought at the time the recent Act was passed that it was a wise and reasonable compromise between the rival interests, and one cannot blame oneself for taking the facts as they then stood, and not being able to foresee that prices would go on rising after peace had been signed.
The whole question seems to me to have been put into a nutshell in a recent article in The Times, which pointed out that the clergy stand apart from the rest of the community in that an artificial check has been put upon their stipends during the time When high prices have been at least as difficult for them to sustain as for other persons. All this leads me to welcome the Bill, but I would like to echo a word which I think was used by the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, when he spoke of the Bill as an instalment. I cannot believe that the situation will ever be dealt with quite satisfactorily without reference to the Tithe Act of two years ago, and I would venture to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill whether he will be kind enough to say that his sympathy would extend so far as to contemplate something that would go further than the mere reduction of the rates to be paid by the clergy. To repeal the Tithe Act would be going too far, and it would be impossible at the present time to re-introduce the septennial averages scheme, but by an alteration of one figure in that Act I believe we could reach a situation that would at once be satisfactory and fair to all the interests concerned. The Act contemplates that there should be a fifteen years' average after 1926, and this would mean the clergy would climb up bit by bit towards the position that they will hold in 1926. I regard with some little alarm the situation that will occur in 1926 when suddenly the leap is made up to

991
the highest average, and I believe it would be a wise policy to introduce a gradual slope up to the highest point that will ultimately be reached. That, however, is not the question before the House at this moment.
I believe this Bill is thoroughly in accordance with public opinion. The public have regretted to see the clergy singled out for special treatment by the imposition of a check upon the natural rise in their income. It may be that the clergy are not men of business, or that they are too unselfish to bring their needs before the public. Hitherto they have not disclosed the straits under which they have been living, but now that has come out, and the most rev. Primate referred to their terrible afflictions, especially in their complete incapacity to do anything for the education of their children. We shall never get the best work out of a man who is daily anxious as to whether he can make ends meet. No one who follows the gracious and heavenly work that our clergy actually do but must approve of this Bill. The spiritual forces are the greatest forces in the world, and the clergy stand for those. It is their work that brings the touch of the eternal into the things of this life. I am very glad, therefore, to have an opportunity of supporting this Bill.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, it is only with your Lordships' leave that I can reply to the questions which were addressed to me by noble Lords who have spoken, but I think it would only be courteous if I replied briefly to the specific points which would not properly arise on the Committee stage. A good many of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Parmoor will be dealt with in Amendments that will come up naturally on the Committee stage, and I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. But he asked two specific questions. The first was whether the redemption of tithe rentcharge has proceeded very far. I could not without notice give him the actual figures, but I know as a matter of fact that as many applications for redemption have come in, in a single week recently, as were received in a whole year before the Act of 1918, and undoubtedly the redemption is proceeding very fast.
He asked also with regard to the poundage. The position is quite clear. We propose in the Bill, as a matter of justice following on the Act of 1918, that as we
992
have stopped for a period of seven years the rise in the value of tithes so for the same period we should stereotype the rates at the poundage at which they stood in 1918. In the case of tithe rentcharge which is attached to a benefice or to a cathedral chapter, the poundage shall be the same as in the year 1918. Take the figure of 1s, 6d. If it was 1s, 6d. in 1918 it will be 1s, 6d. in 1920.
The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich asked a question with regard to the 15-year period. I am sure he will recognise that this would be entirely outside the scope of the present Bill, and could only be dealt with by withdrawing this Bill and introducing a new one. That, I am sure, would not be your Lordships' wish. I can only say that if the Government should receive any representations indicating a general desire to modify the terms of the Act in the direction indicated by the most rev. Prelate, we shall be very glad to give as much consideration as possible to those representations, but it will require fresh legislation, and I cannot hold out any prospect of any legislation on these lines, at any rate at the present time. Other points to which attention have been called will doubtless arise on the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOR LITIGANTS EXPENSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the Preamble of this Bill states very clearly the reasons on account of which it has been introduced. According to an old Scottish custom poor litigants have certain privileges. Those privileges date back to the time of King James I, and if your Lordships care to see a specimen of the Scottish language of the day you will find it printed in tile Schedule to the Bill. It is now a custom which has lasted nearly 500 years, and it seems to me one which ought to be preserved. The Preamble of the Bill recites the facts, but by the Act of King James, confirmed and extended by sundry subsequent Acts of Sederunt of the Supreme Court of Scotland poor litigants have certain privileges, and are awarded costs if they win their case. But a practice has grown

993
up by which, by the rules of your Lordships' House, these costs have been refused. It seems to me just and equitable that appellants to the House of Lords, suing in forma pauperis, should have the right granted to them in accordance with the Scottish custom, and the object of this Bill is to restore the Scottish system in those cases.
As a fact, the Bill has been passed by another place absolutely without opposition, and on that representation I undertook to bring it before your Lordships. Since the Bill was printed my attention has been called to an Order under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, which gives the Appellate Court power to make proper rules for matters which come before them. It occurs to me it is quite possible that this Bill, passed by another place, may not technically be the right way to remedy what is a real grievance. If that is so, I shall be told by noble Lords learned in the law who know much more about the matter than I do. But I do put before your Lordships that there is a grievance, and I know, as a fact, that certain very hard cases have happened under these Rules during the last few years. I could very easily quote two of them, but I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time with details of that kind unless it is absolutely necessary.
I think it is a hardship that those who sue in forma pauperis should be prevented from getting costs, if they win their case, and there is this safeguard against that power being abused, that there is a Court in Scotland which looks after the probable cost of litigation, if any one wishes to sue in forma pauperis, and there is no power to bring the case under those ciremnstances before the Scottish Courts unless that tribunal has certified that there is a probable chance of success. If this grievance is continued it is likely to give rise to real social discontent. I cannot imagine anything more harmful to order, or good feeling, or to social agreement titan that the idea should get abroad that, because an individual is poor, he is therefore handicapped in his right to appeal to the law. It is simply to give those who are poor the same privileges as those who can afford to pay for them that this Bill is introduced.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): This matter is extremely technical, but, although technical, I think I can explain its substance reasonably shortly. The Bill owes its existence, I imagine, to a decision of the House of Lords in a case known as McAlinden v. Nimmo & Co., where this House refused expenses to a successful appellant suing in forma pauperis. In so deciding the House was following its rule made in 1892 under the powers conferred by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, section 11. That section is in these terms—
"After the commencement of this Act error shall not lie to the House of Lords, and an appeal shall not lie from any of the courts from which an appeal to the House of Lords is given by this Act, except in manner provided by this Act, and subject to such conditions as to the value of the subject-matter in dispute, and as to giving security for costs, and as to the time within which the appeal shall be brought, and generally, as to all matters of practice and procedure, or otherwise, as may be imposed by Orders of the House of Lords."
Standing Order X, made pursuant of these powers, concludes with these words—
"When the payment of costs is so ordered to a successful appellant in an appeal in forma pauperis, the taxing officers shall not on taxation allow the fees of the House, nor the fees of counsel, but shall allow to the solicitor his costs out of pocket, with a reasonable allowance (such allowance to be taken as three-eighths of the solicitors' charges in 'Dives' appeals other than out of pocket costs to cover office expenses including clerks, etc."
The position, therefore, is that the matter has been dealt with by your Lordships. It has been dealt with under statutory powers, by those members of this House to whom these matters by long practice are committed. I do not think it is desirable at this moment to discuss the merits of this proposal, but I will point this out. It is obvious from what I have said that what is involved is fees to counsel and five-eighths of the solicitors' fees. That may be a good proposal or a bad one, but what is abundantly plain is that the method of this Bill is wholly wrong. What it means is that the House of Commons is to send up to your Lordships a proposal which, in form as well as in substance, repeals a Standing Order of the House of Lords. I could never be a party to such a thing.
As to the merits of it, I am well content that they should be considered when a proper application is made by your Lordships, sitting in the capacity which is committed to them, and it appears to me on

995
the merits that there is something—perhaps a good deal—to be said for the Scottish contention. In the Quarter Sessions of Scotland a pauper litigant is entitled to obtain a decree for expenses, if successful. He then states the counsel's fees (which, of course, are not found de facto), his own fees, which are in the same position, and also Court fees, which equally are not actually found. These Court fees, when recovered, have to be paid to the ordinary Court official. If the pauper litigant is unsuccessful, a decree may be pronounced against him, and this decree would be available if the pauper succeeded to funds within the prescribed period, which is forty years. A decree for money against a pauper is not, I believe, usually looked upon in Scotland as a popular investment, and it is certainly not often asked for, but it is the right of the adversary of the successful litigant to get it.
I have always taken the view very strongly that the House of Lords is to be looked upon in Scottish cases as the Supreme Scottish Court, and therefore I approach the proposal of the Bill with the prima facie impression—without committing myself to a final conclusion —that, being the Supreme Scottish Court of Appeal, where habit and inveterate custom have developed a certain rule and practice, it is very convenient that this House should give expression to such a rule. I reserve any final opinion, but upon one point I speak with the utmost explicitness—it would be impossible to give the slightest encouragement to a Bill proceeding from the House of Commons to prescribe to your Lordships the methods and rules by which it should conduct the business of this House.
VISCOUNT FINLAY (who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, I was glad to hear the remarks of the Lord Chancellor with regard to this Bill. If the matter is to be dealt with, I think it will be obvious to every one that evils may be created by dealing with it rashly or crudely. The Bill proposes in the first clause that any one suing in forma pauperis in the House of Lords on appeal shall have the same right to a judgment for costs as if he were not suing in forma pauperis. These are costs which, in fact, have not been paid; and the proposal in the Bill is to my mind a very striking one. Then it is said, on the other hand, that if he fails in his suit there is to be judgment given against him for costs. Of what use is it to obtain such a judgment against a
996
Pauper? That provision could not be of the slightest service except in the rarest cases. Upon the whole, I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said as to the propriety of this matter being dealt with by your Lordships' House. There is power to deal with it, but in dealing with it great caution is certainly needed. It will be necessary in providing for anything similar in this House to the Scottish practice that it should be done in such a way as to prevent the House being flooded with a good deal of heavy work which otherwise would not come, but which might be brought with the prospect of getting costs if the case succeeded. The whole matter requires very temperate and cautious handling. The framework of the Bill seems to me to be extraordinarily crude. For the reasons I have given, I hope the noble Lord will not press your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with the statement of the Lord Chancellor I find myself in entire agreement. It appears to me to be quite inappropriate to ask your Lordships by this process to revise and change the standing procedure of your Lordships' House. But having said that, I should like to add that the statement made by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, and also the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, lead me to think that there is outstanding a matter which requires immediate attention. I do not think that the urgent warnings from the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down, as to the necessity for proceeding with grave caution in this matter, need deter your Lordships from considering what those questions are. As I understand the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, a pauper litigant in this House is bound to pay the fees of this House. If that is the case I think it ought to be altered at once; because the whole basis of proceedings in forma pauperis depend upon this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned friend's premise is faulty. I did not say that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord. As long as it is plain that there are no fees payable in connection with the litigation, part of the objection of the noble Lord

997
who introduced this Bill is met. For the rest, I think this needs consideration. If I understood the practice aright, counsel is assigned to a pauper litigant upon condition that he neither asks, nor has any right to ask, for fees. If those be the conditions, no harm is done when an order is made which prevents his recovering those fees from the other side. Indeed, in such a case the literal language of the ancient Statute is obeyed to the uttermost; because all that this Statute provides is that the pauper is to be held seathless against expense— and so he would be. If those be the circumstances, it may be that the provision is not as necessary as I thought it was. But the noble Lord who introduced the Bill evidently has in his mind certain cases of hardship, and if those cases, on examination, depend upon matters that are remediable, I sincerely hope he will take further steps to bring them up in the proper quarter. To my mind there is nothing more distasteful than the thought that a man is barred from access to the Courts of Justice by inability to provide the necessary costs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the leave of your Lordships I desire to say this, and I ought to have made it clear when I spoke before. It is my purpose to bring this matter up for consideration at an early date before those of your Lordships who are specially concerned. Perhaps that may satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The pledge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is, of course, entirely satisfactory; and after what has been said I will not press for the Bill to be read a second time now. if some noble Lord will move the adjournment of the debate no date need be fixed; and I shall have served my purpose by drawing attention to the position. I am satisfied, by what has been said by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Buckmaster, that this matter will not be lost sight of, and I will not go into the particular cases that have been brought to lily notice. I do not think there was any demand made for fees, but it was impossible to find any one in London to take up the poor litigant's case without some guarantee as to costs, and a very real injury to the persons who won their case would have been incurred if it had not been for the philanthropic conduct of a Scotsman in London, and of a Scottish counsel who pleaded the case and won it
998
before the House without, of course, any hope of getting fees. Perhaps some noble Lord would now move the adjournment of the debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will not think that is the most convenient cours to adopt. This is a proposal coming from the House of Commons, but I do not think that your Lordships would in any circumstances give effect by legislation in a Bill of this kind to a rule made by those of your Lordships who attend to legal business in this House. The purpose of the noble Lord has been fully obtained, and I will discuss the whole point with my colleagues.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I came down to the House with the intention of moving the rejection of this Bill. I am not going to make a speech, because I cannot compete with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or with the other noble and learned Lords who have spoken; but I think it would be convenient to the House and carry out the purpose of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if I move that the Bill be read this day three months.
Amendment moved—
Leave ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am reminded that the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this measure must give notice.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Of course, if the Bill is rejected there is an end to it, and I simply ask permission to withdraw my Motion. I think that would probably be the better course. It would, I suppose, leave it technically possible to renew the Motion on another occasion, but, after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I should not think of taking that course.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve i self into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Registrar and other officers.
5.—(1) The registrar, clerks, and other officers of the Mayor's Court and of the City of London Court, shall hold and exercise their several offices in the Court:
Provided that—

(a) the Common Council may combine or amalgamate any two or more offices in one office;

(b) the Common Council may abolish the office of any such officer whose office as held before the commencement of this Act they deem unnecessary, subject to the payment of such compensation as may be mutually agreed or, in default of agreement, as the Lord Chancellor or any person nominated by him may determine.

All compensation so payable and any costs incurred in determining the amount thereof as aforesaid shall be paid by the Common Council out of the Mayor's Court Fund.
(2) If the Registrar of the City of London Court at the time of the commencement of this Act resigns within six months after the commencement of this Act, the Common Council shall accept his resignation, and he shall be entitled to compensation in all respects as if his office had been abolished by the Common Council under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), after "the Mayor's," to insert "and City of London." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is necessitated by an oversight.
Amendment moved—.
Clause 5, page 3, line 16, after ("Mayor's") insert ("and City of London").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Court moneys and treasurer.
7. All moneys payable under the Acts relating to the Mayor's Court and the City of London Court or under this Act or under rules, regulations, or orders made under any of those Acts, and all moneys standing to the credit of the Mayor's Court Suitors' Fund or the General Fund of the City of London Court respectively shall be paid into one fund to be called "the Mayor's and City of London Court Fund," and all the remuneration of any assistant or additional
1000
judges of the Court and all outgoings and expenses of or connected with the Court shall be paid out of the said fund; and the Chamberlain of the City of London shall be the treasurer of the fund, and shall deal with the fund and account for the same to the Common Council in manner directed by the London (City) Small Debts Extension Act, 1852:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in the Acts relating to the Mayor's Court or the City of London Court, any deficiency arising in the said Mayor's Court Fund in any one financial year shall be chargeable to and made good from the general rate of the City of London made in the financial year following that in which such deficiency arose, and any surplus arising in the said fund shall be applied in aid of such rate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso, after "the said Mayor's," to insert "and City of London." The noble and learned Lord said: The observation I made on my first Amendment applies also to this one.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 3, after ("Mayor's") insert ("and City of London").—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8
Procedure in causes within jurisdiction of High Court.
8. For the purposes of all causes and proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court and not within the jurisdiction of a county court, so much of the procedure of the High Court shall be adopted and be in force in lieu of the procedure which at the date of the commencement of this Act was in use in the Mayor's Court as shall by rules, regulations, or orders to be made from time to time under section forty-five of the Mayor's Court of London Procedure Act, 1857, be determined to be applicable to the Mayor's Court.
Provided that the scales of fees and costs now in use in the Mayor's Court shall continue to be in force for all such causes and proceedings as aforesaid, subject to any rules, regulations, or orders to be hereafter made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit Clause 8 down to but not including the proviso, and to insert—
"All causes and proceedings in the Court shall be commenced by plaint, but in the case of any cause or proceeding which could not, previously to the commencement of this Act, have been brought in the City of London Court, but which could have been brought in the Mayor's Court, any party to such cause or proceeding may in manner prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court apply by summons for directions as to the subsequent procedure to be adopted and in regard to any such cause or proceeding, the procedure of the Supreme Court shall be adopted and be in

1001
force in lien of the procedure which at the date of the commencement of this Act was in use in the Mayor's Court."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment about which it is not necessary that I should say much. When the Second Reading of the Bill was before the House my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster made some criticisms of a very friendly nature and some suggestions, and I promised that I would attempt to give effect to almost the whole of his suggestions, which seemed valuable in this connection. I have been at some pains since to see if I could give effect to that assurance. and I am not without hope that the Amendment I have put on the Paper carries out in the main the purpose of my noble and learned friend. I have no doubt he has read the Amendment, and it would perhaps be convenient that he should tell me whether, in his opinion, it carries out his purpose.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, leave out lines 9 to 17 inclusive, and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will not think me intentionally tiresome if I ask him to give a little further consideration to this Amendment. I am afraid the matter deals with legal, technicalities which can never be made pleasant, but I think that in a few sentences I can make them plain. At the present moment the procedure in the County Court is instituted by a plaint, upon which the plaintiff endorses his claim for relief, and no further procedure of any kind is wanted before the hearing, excepting in cases where special technical defences are going to be raised. The result is that the case comes before the Court with the Court entirely unembarrassed by pleadings and the real issue can readily be determined by the Judge and decided. In the High Court, on the other hand, of course, you proceed by your writ, then by a statement of claim and then by a defence, and when your dispute has been formulated in these documents it comes on for hearing before the Court.
This Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposes that all the proceedings in this amalgamated Court, which will exercise both the jurisdiction of the County Court and the far more extensive jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court, shall be com-
1002
menced by plaints. So far so good; but, in any case where the subject matter of the suit is one that would be outside the jurisdiction of the County Court, the Amendment proposes that either party may apply to the Court for directions as to pleadings and that in such a ease the Court shall direct that pleadings shall be issued. It is that to which I object. I want the noble and learned Lord to consider if he cannot extend it by providing that when application is made the Court may in its discretion direct that pleadings shall be delivered, and not that they must be delivered.
After all, it is not always the question of amount that determines the question of complications. You might very readily, have an amount outside the jurisdiction of the County Court that really does not need pleadings at all, and it is a pity in those circumstances that the Court should be bound to direct that pleadings should be issued, remembering, at the same time, that when that it done you have put into the hands of any litigating party who desires to obstruct and impede the course of justice an opportunity of prolonging the hearing of the case. Times have to be fixed and if the pleadings are not delivered within that time another application for an extended time can be made, and everyone knows that if you have a reluctant litigant there is nothing that enables him so effectively to prolong the period between the issue of the writ and the hearing of the case as what are known as interlocutory proceedings associated with this class of matter. I am most anxious wherever that can be avoided that it should be avoided.
At the present moment I thoroughly believe that there is no system of justice where the preliminary steps are so plain and unambiguous as our own. I feel that very strongly. At the, same time, I feel that there is an innumerable number of cases where even those proceedings might be materially shortened with great advantage to the litigant and increased facility in the administration of justice. I trust the noble and learned Lord will not think me too persistent and that the House will not think I am wearisome in attempting to explain why it is I want the Amendment given further consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Discussions of these highly technical matters in an assembly of laymen must always, as I

1003
think my noble and learned friend will agree, be somewhat unedifying. In fact, I do not read my Amendment as involving pleadings at all. In my judgment, you can go, and without any pleadings at all in such a case, for the direction of the Court. It is in the complete discretion of the Court. I am not sure that it has not escaped the recollection of my noble and learned friend that in the High Court at present, if the direction is given pursuant to relevant orders, you can proceed with litigation without any pleadings at all I have little doubt that I can satisfy my noble and learned friend in a few moments of conversation that this view is well-founded, but I do not want to discuss this across the Table. Our object is fundamentally the same, and between now and Report, if he will discuss it with me, I am sure that if there is any leak in my present proposal we can stop it between us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEM PORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I desire to ask the noble Lord in charge of this Bill a question on Clause 1. At the bottom of page 1 it says—
"… the charges to be made by the undertakers shall be authorised which is more than sufficient, so far as can be estimated, to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss."
I should like to ask what is the meaning of the words "without loss." I suggest—I will not press it if the noble Lord has a doubt about it—that there should be added, after the word "loss," the words "and to maintain its financial stability." I suggest that for this reason, that so far
1004
as the authority stands, it does not seem to me to enable the Minister to increase dues sufficiently to enable a dock authority to carry forward a balance large enough to meet short-dated loans; nor would the words cover sufficient revenue to maintain an adequate margin for payments to reserve funds. I believe these questions were raised in another place, but the proceedings of the Committee were not reported, and therefore there is no record of what the opinion of the Minister of Transport is in regard to them. My attention was called to these questions only this afternoon, or I would have given the noble Lord notice beforehand. If it suits him, I am quite prepared to wait till the Report stage of the Bill for an answer I leave it entirely to him.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I should be obliged if my noble friend would pursue that course. The point is new to me, and I am not sufficiently instructed to answer it. But between now and the Report, stage of the Bill I will make the necessary inquiries and let him know.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
As to applications for an order.
4. An application to the Minister of Transport for the purposes of this Act shall be accompanied by such information, certified in such manner as the Minister may require, with respect to the financial position of the undertaking in question; and before making an order the Minister shall require the undertakers to give public notice of the application for an order under this Act, and as to the manner in which, and the time within which, representations to the Minister may be made, and the Minister shall consider any representations which may be duly made.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON moved, at the beginning of the clause, after "An application," to insert "by the undertakers." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, and the words I propose to insert are required in order to make the meaning of the clause clear.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 26, after ("application") insert ("by the undertakers").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

PALESTINE.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government (1) By what means, under the mandate which has been accepted for the government of Palestine, it is proposed to safeguard the rights of the immense, non-Jewish majority of the population, while setting up a "National Home" for the Jewish race; (2) Whether the term "National Home" implies the exercise of governmental authority over the whole or part of the population of Palestine; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, every one of us must thoroughly sympathise with those Jews who wish to make their home in Palestine. Although their rights are based upon a particularly ruthless conquest we respect, and wish to take into full account, their strong sentiment inherited from the five hundred years during which they were a ruling people. We cannot, however, go back three thousand years, and we must consider the equal rights of the present inhabitants of Palestine.
In November, 1917, Mr. Balfour expressed the sympathy of the Government with the aspirations of the Zionists, but he stated that it must be "clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." It is because it seems that this just and necessary reservation has been forgotten that I venture to raise this Question in your Lordships' House to-day. For reasons which can easily be understood it is only in your Lordships' House that a strong plea can be raised for justice to the immense non-Jewish majority of the population of Palestine.
We went into the country to end the Turko-German menace against the Suez Canal and Egypt, and to rescue the people from the centuries of oppression by the Turks. After General Allenby's brilliant campaign we were regarded by the people as their saviours, and the British prestige—using the word in its best sense—never stood so high among Syrian Moslems as it did then. Numbers of those Moslems served in our Armies, while others deserted from the Turkish cause and joined us. We then had a clean slate on which we could write, and I have no hesitation in saying that the problem of Palestine was, perhaps, the easiest of solution of those which had been left to us as the aftermath of the war. But now the situation has completely
1006
changed. Moslems, Christians, and many of the old Jewish 'inhabitants distrust and dislike us, and would welcome almost any other Mandatory Power to rake our place. The Moslems say openly that they would prefer to return to Turkish rule, which was at least roughly impartial, and under which the various elements lived in general harmony.
I hope, my Lords, to be able to explain the cause of this great change. But I want first to draw attention to the conditions of Palestine at the time of the Armistice. The population consisted, roughly speaking, of 515,000 Moslems, 62,500 Christians, 65,300 Jews, and 5,050 others. But the percentage of each of the communities employed in agriculture was— Moslems, 69; Christians, 46; and Jews, 19. Thus, the Jews in Palestine about the end of the war were playing an infinitesimal part in what is the only industry of that country. The recent Jewish colonies are prospering in viticulture and in citrons fruits, but some are not yet on an economic basis because they are supported by outside capitalists. No one could object to the setting up of more of such colonies. The Jews, as a rule, do not cultivate cereals, and many of them are employers of Arab labour or the labour of a particularly depressed class of Jews who come from the Yemen. Then there are a large number of Jews in Palestine who do no useful work but live on mendicancy or on remittances from their wealthy co-religionists.
Palestine has an area only twice that of Cyprus. It is not a naturally fertile country, as Mesopotamia is, but it could support a larger population if irrigation were resorted to, and if trained labour were available in sufficient quantities. The socalled Arab population contains strains of many races which have conquered and ruled in that country, and among those strains doubtless there is that of the followers of the Crusades. They are a fine people, far ahead in many way of their co-religionists to the East and to the South. They are a people who, I believe, would be very easily ruled by anybody who could win and hold their confidence. Jerusalem ranks next after Mecca amongst the holy places of Islam, and the agitation which has been engineered in India over the Khalifate question gives one an idea of the greater agitation which could be raised if it could be represented that the holy places of Islam were to pass under Jewish control. I need say nothing of the many places in Palestine

1007
which the whole Christian world holds in devout reverence.
Under such conditions as I have attempted to describe our first proceedings in Palestine required most careful handling. Now, what has happened in Palestine? A self-constituted Zionist Commission settled down in Jerusalem under the shadow of our military protection and quite close to our barracks. It began at once to interfere with the administration and showed an arrogance extraordinarily impolitic from the point of view of public interest. In March last I drew attention to a most significant performance on the part of that Commission. The Administration had arranged with the Anglo-Egyptian Bank to make sorely needed loans to cultivators at the rate of 6½ per cent.; of course, Jewish cultivators being included. The Zionist. Commission objected to the arrangement, and orders were sent from London to hold up what was really a great boon to some very poor people. Then Dr. Weissman proceeded to Palestine, and found this was going a little bit too far, and so he graciously withdrew the embargo and the loans were permitted to be made, after considerable delay.
But the most ominous part of this story was the answer to me with which the noble Earl, the Chancellor of the Duchy, was supplied. He said there was no evidence that the Anglo-Palestine Bank (a Jewish Institution which lends at double this rate) was concerned. Naturally there was no evidence. It was only necessary for someone to go from the bank to talk with the Zionist Commission over the way. He also said—
"This question was the key to the future and especially the Zionist future of the country, and the Zionist organisation maintained that it should not have been settled without previous consultation with them."
It is a little difficult to believe that this temporary loan was really the key to the future of Palestine, but this answer seems to mean that the Government of Palestine, which was bound at this time, at least, to follow Turkish customs, had no right to act without consulting a self-constituted body, largely composed of aliens. Nothing could have been better calculated to create alarm among Moslems and Christians than this, and some of the other statements which the noble Earl made.
Several things followed this assertion of authority by the Zionist Commission. The
1008
military administrator at the time, a most able and experienced man, found that his position had become impossible, and then a most capable Indian Civil Servant, appointed by the War Office as financial adviser, and specially commended for good work, was suddenly dismissed. His sole aim had been to be impartial, as his Indian training had taught him to be, and no attempt was ever made to show that he had been otherwise than impartial. He was condemned unheard, because it was stated that he had adopted "an attitude inconsistent with the Zionist policy of the Government." As a subordinate he was only carrying out the orders and policy dictated by his superiors. Much more has happened since that, and I should particularly like to draw your Lordships' attention to the speech made by the Bishop at Jerusalem at a meeting at the Church House, and reported in the Guardian and Church Times. The Bishop said plainly that the present troubles were "largely due to the actions and behaviour of the Zionists" who settled in Palestine since the war. He then pointed out that—
"The Zionist Commission had been a very strong body; but it was not strong enough to control all its members, many of whom were extremists … They had behaved and spoken as if the country had already been given to them and was theirs to dispose of as they would. in ordinary conversation among Zionists at Jerusalem it had been asked. 'What shall be done with the Church of time Holy Sepulchre? Shall it be burned or razed to the ground?' It did not occur to them that Christians and Mohammedans had as much right to Palestine as they had. … The idea seemed to be to equalise the population and then demand full control of the Government. The emigrants so far brought in did not include many respectable English Jews; but they did include a great number of Russians, Poles, and Rumaniana, many of them thoroughly Bolshevistic in their attitude to the Government."
The Bishop added—
"The attempt to intimidate the inhabitants had led to a deplorable state of things. … All this had been brought about by the injudicious attitude of Zionism, by the ill-advised behaviour of its members, by the definitely Bolshevist and in many cases anti-British attitude of some of them, and by the intolerance of many of its followers."
This important speech throws a painful light upon the present position in Palestine, and gives us a serious warning. The Rev. G. Napier Wittingham, who has lately returned from Palestine, tells me that the Zionists demand rights of pre-emption on all sales of land in Palestine, and possession of all uncultivated lands, even if there are

1009
customary rights over those lands, which we always recognise in India. A number of Australian soldiers wished to settle in Palestine but have been prevented from doing so by the protest of the Zionist Commission. Lately the Government, at the instigation of the Commission, offered £150 for some land adjoining the Sacred Mosque of Omar. This is Wakf land, which anyone who has served in India understands. The proposal, of course, caused the bitterest resentment among the Moslems in the country, and Mr. Wittingham writes—
"All the various sects of Christians, all the Moslems are at one. A Society has been formed called the Moslem and Christian League, and I had a long talk with its President, his Excellency Aref Pasha. Be did not mince matters but said quite plainly that he and his friends had been deceived. They fought on the side of the British against the Turk because they believed in British justice, bat they would never have fought, their co-religionists had they imagined for a moment that a British victory meant Jewish domination."
The Moslem Christian League is surely a most remarkable development in the land of the Crusades, and the unanimity of all Christian Churches in Palestine seems a portent when one remembers the antecedents of the Crimean War. The League has branches all over Palestine, and the President of the Jaffa Branch has sent me a copy of this appeal, in which these words occur. It is addressed to "the Loyal Members of the British Parliament, to the ardent members of the House of Lords, to the British Liberal-Labour Party, to the Anglo-Saxon Churches, to the Professors and students of British Universities and Colleges, to the noble and just British Nation," and it says this—
"Since Mr. Balfour's announcement to make our country, Palestine, national home for the Zionists, the Zionists began treading upon our National Rights, monopolizing influences, appropriating every thing to themselves and insulting all that is sacred to us. Though their number hardly equal one-tenth of the population and the land they own hardly amounts to one in four hundred parts, yet they have nearly monopolised commerce and industry, tightened the clutch upon the natives causing miseries and discontent amongst Moslems and Christians, the original inhabitants of the land; and all this thanks to the money poring on them from outside and the privileges given to them. What will be the result if the Zionists influx of immigration, permitted by the British Government, continues? Now they are coming by hundred and thousands, but what will be the result later on? Will it not be the destruction of Moslems and Christians together? Who is to blame for this fearful result? Surely we are in a dangerous situation menaced by vanishment; that is why we appeal
1010
for a helping hand to protect us from this horrible end. To allow Palestine to be a Jewish national home would be to condemn us to death."
This language may be Oriental in tone, but the main facts are real, beyond dispute, and the League has not funds enough to make its cause known in this country. The zionissts are demanding a monopoly of the railway concessions, and of port, developments and public works generally, and are insisting that Jewish labour and presumably capital should be employed in those services. They are also trying to substitute Hebrew for Arabic, and it is not surprising that many inhabitants are already trying to leave the country.
We have had a plain warning of what is before us. There have been two great demonstrations in Jerusalem. Then followed the Easter riots, of which we have heard very little. The Zionists have not hesitated to say that the riots were either encouraged or not disapproved of by the Government. It is an unworthy suggestion, but, I think what happened was that the Military Governor did not take sufficient precautions to prevent rioting. On Good Friday there was a Moslem procession from Jerusalem to the Tomb of Moses. It was played out by a British military band, and the processionists while the band was playing were shouting in Arabic, "To Hell with the Jews, down with the Mandate, down with the British." That does show a dangerous feeling which has arisen in a country where we were received a short time ago with open arms.
We have no official information regarding the riots at Jerusalem, but it is clear they might have been most serious. It appears that the Moslems came without firearms, which seems to show that they did not intend any harm to the Jewish population. On the other hand, the Jews had firearms, which were provided for them by Lieut. Jabotinsky. As they fired rather wildly from the roofs of the houses, I believe they killed or wounded some of their own people. Lieut. Jabotinsky was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. That was immediately reduced to one year, and I believe they are now demanding his immediate release. There were many Moslems also sentenced at the same time, but I do not know if anyone has demanded their release.
If I have succeeded in conveying any impression of the prevailing excitement among the inhabitants of Palestine, your Lordships will imagine the utter consterna-

1011
tion which prevailed when the announcement of the appointment of a Zionist Governor for the country was made. Nothing could have been more unfortunate at this moment. I am perfectly certain that Sir Herbert Samuel will do his utmost to be completely impartial, though the forces which will be brought to bear upon him might be too much for a stronger man. But is it reasonable to suppose that the Moslems and Christians of Palestine will ever believe that we can be impartial, and must it not be thought that this appointment was designed to pave the way for a complete Zionist Government of the country? I cannot think that His Majesty's Government had full and accurate information of the conditions in Palestine when this appointment was made.
Whatever happens, our responsibility to the people whom we have not consulted must remain. Who will regulate the influx of Zionists, which Dr. Max Nordau says will reach 8,000,000 or 10,000,000, or much more than twice the number that this little country will ever support? He also says that half-a-million Zionists are to be settled in the next few years. I wonder what the people of Scotland would say to such a prospect as that? The Zionists of Jerusalem say that 600,000 Russians are waiting to be admitted. Will the character and the antecedents of those people be thoroughly investigated before they become citizens of the land, and before we become responsible for them and for their actions?
The Arabs of Palestine are a prolific people, and under a just Government, and when they get the help of our doctors to beat malaria they will multiply very fast. Are their children to be barred out of the land of their fathers by Russian Bolsheviks? The military administration of Palestine was a very cheap one, and paid its way, but not of course the expenses of the troops. The immediate result of the advent of a Civil Governor with a large staff must be to increase largely the expenses which will fall upon the cultivators or upon the British Exchequer. The worst is that we shall have to maintain a large force permanently in that country where a small force with a well-organised native gendarmerie might have sufficed. Many of the Moslems and Christians of Palestine will give their lives rather than see their country overrun by a motley mob of Zionists. We shall then have to
1012
use British troops against people who will have the right to believe that they are defending their national home.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem said this to Mr. Whittingham—
"Your country has such a reputation for taking the side of justice that I still believe it will not allow us to suffer. I trust that once England really knows the facts of the case, how the Moslems and Christians alike are bitterly opposed to the whole idea of Zionism, she will act fairly towards us."
That is the question at issue, and it seems to me that there can be only one answer consistent with our national honour. In the second chapter of the First Book of Esdras there is a description of a situation which is curiously like that at the present moment. Jerusalem was then, just as it is now, a centre of intrigue. From that chapter your Lordships will gain an insight into the possible workings of Zionism in Palestine, and you will note the ruling of Artaxerxes which contains a lesson that we may have to learn.
There is one more grave matter on which I will say a few words. I believe that throughout the world Christianity is at stake at the present moment. In Russia, where it has been stated that 90 per cent. of the Commissaries are Jews, there has been a determined attempt to root Christianity out of the land. The Eastern Church has suffered persecution Unparalled since the days of Nero. Bishops and priests have been murdered and tortured. Churches have been defiled, and a generation of children is growing up in utter atheism and immorality. It is the soul of Russia that Lenin and Trotsky have done their best to destroy. India is not a Christian country, but the administration of India has been inspired since we went there by a good Christian spirit. That is all to be changed. We shall now have in place of it a reactionary Brahmanism, and the Christian missions which have been doing fine work in the past will find their activities most seriously curtailed. But here at home, and in other countries, there are socialist bodies at work endeavouring to destroy the Christian religion. Some time ago I drew attention in this House to the Socialist Sunday schools which had been at work in the country for about forty years. What they have accomplished we do not know, but I think we can see some fruits of their vile teaching. Some of the wisest of our English Jews do not tolerate and do not approve the attitude of the political projects

1013
of the Zionists, and unless the Government now cry a halt there will be a rush of Bolsheviks from Russia and Central Europe which might drive Christianity out of the land of its birth. In any case, Palestine is to be governed under Mandate, and that Mandate will lay it open to the greatest possibilities of intrigue in all countries where a paid propaganda is a power.
I hope that the noble Earl will clearly indicate the policy of the Government If it is to facilitate the settlement of suitable and carefully-selected Jewish colonists, then I feel sure no one will object to it. I thought that was what was meant when Mr. Balfour's original pronouncement was made. But if it is to permit irresponsible Zionists to manipulate the Government and ultimately to control the country, then it will certainly lead to very grave disaster. The permanent military charges will be very heavy. There will be continuous troubles throughout the country, checking its progress and reacting dangerously throughout the whole of the Middle East. I think that the most rev. Primate, who has had the advantage of seeing the Bishop of Jerusalem, as I have not, will support me in the earnest plea that the Holy Land which has come under our protection shall not be allowed to fall into alien and anti-Christian hands. I beg to move for the Report of Sir Herbert Samuel on the conditions of Palestine after his visit there, and also for the Report of General Lord Allenby on the Easter riots at Jerusalem. I think that both these documents ought to be in the possession of Parliament.
Moved, That there be laid before the House the Report of Sir Herbert Samuel on the conditions of Palestine after his visit there, and the Report of General Lord Allenby on the Easter riots at Jerusalem.—(Lord Sydenham.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on having asked this Question. This is a subject that I have wished for a long time to bring to the attention of the House, but at the request of the noble Earl it has been put off because it was inconvenient or because a critical time of the settlement of affairs was upon us. I was therefore prevented from putting a Question. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I must not be taken to be anti-Jewish in feeling. A short time after Mr. Balfour's famous declaration there was a great Zionist meeting held in
1014
the London Opera House which I attended, and I had the honour of addressing an overflowing meeting on that occasion. Therefore I am not naturally antipathetic to the idea of Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish home in Jerusalem.
But since that time I have been in Palestine and Syria, and I have learnt how extraordinarily intricate is this problem of the future Government of those parts. I was also not then aware how repeatedly we have given pledges to the Arabs that they should enjoy their independence in that part of the world. The other day when the question of Mesopotamia was under discussion I mentioned this fact, and the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, then said there were certain reservations—and I quite admit there were —reservations with regard to Baghdad, Basra, and, I think, Jerusalem, which should be under international control. I think those were the main reservations, certainly Palestine as a country was not included.
Under the stress of the war we entered into various undertakings which undoubtedly clashed with one another. There was the Sykes-Picot Treaty as regards Syria, there was this declaration of Arab independence, and, finally, the undertaking given to the Jews to establish a national home in Jerusalem. The result, at the present time, is that we are accused of having broken faith with the Arabs, and on the face of it I cannot see that the accusation is an unjust one. I may quote the words of Bishop McInnes in a speech made about a fortnight ago. He said he was grieved to find how the Arbas and the Moslems are learning to disbelieve our British word, and how entirely convinced they are that, while the Government may be in name British, it will in fact be mainly entrusted to Jews. That is the present feeling that has been created in Palestine.
I should like to show how we as a country have absolutely no interest in Palestine, nor indeed in Syria. We have no commercial interest there, except Thomas Cook & Son's tourist agency, I do not believe there is a British trader to be found in either of those countries. Of course, we sell our goods through the ordinary channels of trade, but that is all. I mentioned the other day—though the noble Earl did not give me any answer on the subject—a scheme to make a great port at Haifa, which would be the terminus of a railway across to Damascus, and then across the

1015
Desert to Basra or Baghdad— I do not know where, but at all events, the scheme was adumbrated in that direction. I protest most strongly against any such idea. Such a scheme should not be even thought of. As we ought to work in harmony with the French, I am fully convinced that by the utilisation of the Baghdad Railway, which is almost completed, you would have the necessary railway communication to establish a connection between the shores of the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. With the exception of that possible scheme I do not believe that we have any commercial interest whatever in Palestine and Syria. Therefore it is not to our interest to go there. Some Zionists advance the argument that our being in Palestine is essential to the security of the Suez Canal and Egypt. I cannot mention my authority — the highest military authority—but I am told there is no value in such an argument, and that Palestine is not essential from a strategic point of view.
Thus, we have in the first place these declarations to the Arabs, secondly, there has been a general statement, reiterated again and again, that we have made this war partly to secure the self-determination of small communities, and, as was pointed out in a letter to The Times the other day, it is, I believe, entirely contrary to so-called international law that we should at the present time be making any serious departure in the government of Palestine. Article 354 of the Laws and Usages of War lays down that in occupied enemy territory (which, of course, it is, because we have not made peace with the Turk) it is not permissible to alter the existing form of administration, to upset the constitutional and domestic laws, or to ignore the rights of the inhabitants. That is what we are doing now. Therefore, we have violated. the very principle with which we entered the war, we have violated the pledges given to the Arabs, and we have violated technically the laws and usages of war.
We have done this undoubtedly to support the Jews. Some time ago there appeared an article in The Times saying that the arrangements made at the Peace Conference in Paris were really the work of the Jews. In this country some of our chief offices of State are now held by the Jews, and we are undoubtedly under a great debt to those of the Jewish persuasion for carrying on the usages, customs, and government of civilisation. Therefore
1016
we cannot disregard them, or treat them in the way that other countries have done. I should be very sorry to see us do it. Still, we are now undertaking a distinct burden of government on behalf of the Jews, and not on behalf of British interests. That must be remembered, and the country should realise it, whenever there is any declaration of our policy in Palestine.
The position in Palestine has not been made any easier by the claims of the extreme Zionists, which have already been alluded to by Lord Sydenham. I do not think he mentioned one fact, that one of their leaders has said that all the present good land under cultivation, or land that could be cultivated without some extensive scheme of irrigation, is already held by owners, and, inasmuch as they are not making the best possible use of that land, three-fourths of it should be taken away from them and handed over to Jewish settlers, and only one quarter left to the present holders, who are not tilling the land properly. Lord Sydenham has also told us that they claim all uncultivated land. And if I may quote again Bishop McInne's speech, they go further and claim all Crown land and, in addition, say that all the German lands, colonies, and buildings should be give to them—possibly at a price, but they should have the right to take them over—besides railways and monopolies. Lord Newton may be interested in that because on two occasions he has inquired on what pretext the Germans are interned in Egypt, and perhaps there may be some connection with that fact. The idea is that their lands and properties in Palestine should be acquired for the benefit of settlers—at all events that is the statement made by Bishop McInnes. If you are to make Palestine a Jewish country it is right that the Jews should claim to go east of the Jordan, not merely on the heights behind the Jordan but to have the Hedjaz railway south of Damascus down to Maan.
What would be the effect of that upon the poor Syrian kingdom it is proposed to set up? To describe it briefly, the place is like a long, bare backbone from Aleppo in the North to Mecca in the South, without any vitality in it; and if this Zionist demand is acceded to that would be cut with regard. to the portion of the railway from Damascus to the Maan. The Syrian kingdom would have no vitality whatever,

1017
which would be in contravention of the declarations which, I must repeat, have been made again and again. The noble Earl the Leader of the House was not responsible for the various negotiations that took place during the war; he is, I think, rather the victim of circumstances, and he must find himself faced with a problem which to my mind is insoluble on peaceful lines.
There are two comparatively minor points in regard to which I think the Government have lately made a great mistake. The first is that pressure was brought to bear on the Emir Feisul to return to Europe and discuss the position. The Emir Feisul was recently crowned king in Damascus, I think in March last, with the approval of the notables to be found in that city. The conception of the idea of bringing a responsible ruler over here at a time when his country is in a disturbed state shows how entirely out of touch the Government arc with the real conditions. The Emir Feisul was here twice last year, and it would be fatal to his rule in Syria if he had to come here again now. If you lose the Emir Feisul you lose the one man who can give peace and security to the country. He is the one man in whom we can have confidence to carry out any agreement we might make with him. The other point in regard to which I think His Majesty's Government have shown themselves out of touch with the feeling in the Near East is in connection with the appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel. I freely echo all that is said to Sir Herbert Samuel's personal credit; indeed, I think it is a most self-denying ordinance on his part to go out to Palestine at such a moment as this. But, at the same time, I think his appointment was most injudicious. I believe that the Arabs will regard it as a distinct challenge to them that you should send a Jew to Palestine at the present time. In my opinion it was a most unfortunate selection. The best solution—I do not say it is an adequate one —is that you should give some confidence to the Arabs by saying that the administration of the country will be carried on in some degree by Arabs, Jews, and Christians as far as possible in proportion to the number of those different creeds in that country, and that the administration will be conducted under the suzerainty of the Emir Feisul. That is the only possible chance of peace there. If you do not do that I should look with dismay on what may happen to Palestine in the future. If
1018
you do it, you will be redeeming the pledges you have made time after time.
I know the Emir Feisul. I have had frequent conversations with him and his, representatives, and I am confident that they will faithfully discharge any agreement you enter into with the Jews and others as to their special rights and prerogatives; but it is impossible to conceive that you will have peace in Palestine so long as there is the idea prevalent that the whole of that country is going to be under Jewish control. If you do not mean that, what do you mean? A "Jewish home" is too narrow a term to convey any other meaning, I believe it to be the views of eminent Zionists that they should obtain practical control of Palestine. Ever since I went out to Syria I have regarded with dismay the idea that we should become responsible for the Government of that country, or of Palestine. To think that we are going to establish British control in Palestine seems to controvert the very principle on which our Empire has been built up. Our Empire has been built up by the individual enterprise of the British; but here we go to a country where we have no interests to establish a rule which I cannot see will have any practical benefit to us, and which will be in defiance of almost every instance in which we have extended our rule over the world. The Government have had to follow the enterprise of our trailers and others, and have had, reluctantly, to give them protection. This will not be the case in Palestine. We shall go there on a strictly artificial basis Hence I regard with alarm our ticking any course which will lead to disaster in that country and, at the same time, bring us no good as an Empire.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of asking my noble friend when he replies whether he will deal with the question I have twice brought before the House without receiving any information whatsoever. I am alluding to the presence of 400 or 500 men, women, and children, of German origin, who were formerly colonists in Palestine and who, have now been interned in Egypt, incredible as it may sound, for something like two years. On the last occasion when I questioned the Government upon this point my noble friend Lord Peel agreed that I was justified in raising the question, and he added that in his opinion it was most emphatically necessary that an early

1019
decision should be given and early action should be taken with regard to it.
Hitherto I have not been able to ascertain from any one in this country why these people were ever deported from Palestine, why they are interned in Egypt, and why they are forbidden to go back to Palestine. No one here seems to know anything whatever about it. I have applied to the principal Departments concerned, and each of them rather gave me to understand it was the business of the other, with the result that I am no wiser now than I was in the beginning. No one has ever alleged anything against these people, but it has been suggested to me in a somewhat vague manner that they are confined for military reasons. If it has really been necessary to confine them for military reasons for something like two years it is to me rather an astonishing fact that a large proportion of them, if I am correctly informed, consist of old men, women and children. I cannot help pointing out that these particular people must be in a singularly unfortunate position, because, as they do not want to go back to Germany (Germany being the last place to which they desire to return), the German Government, I presume, takes no interest in them whatever. Therefore, so far as I know, nobody is looking after their interests.
I am quite aware that in many quarters it is extremely bad form to take any interest in former enemy aliens. In many quarters the opinion is entertained that these people ought to be considered as vermin and treated as vermin. That is a theory to which I have never been able to subscribe, and I do not mind confessing that with my experience of the war and of prisoners in general, I have a profound sympathy for any civilians, whether they be of British or German or any other nationality, who have to undergo two years' internment for no ostensible reason that I am able to ascertain. I should like to add this. So far as my experience goes, in connection with prisoners and interned civilians—although I did not always agree with that Department—the attitude of the War Office, which is the Department I believe to be directly concerned, was always, in the main, not only reasonable but humane, and it seems to me singularly unfortunate that a case of this kind should have attracted the attention of a neutral body such as the Committee of the Red Cross at Geneva which brought the facts originally to my notice.
1020
My noble friend opposite, Lord Lamington, suggested that there was a somewhat sinister explanation of this apparently inexplicable circumstance. He suggested that in the opinion of certain people these Palestinian Germans are being detained by the desire of the Zionists in order that their property in Palestine may be acquired. I should be very sorry to think that that was true, and I should be ashamed to believe—I cannot believe—it possible that His Majesty's Government would countenance any action of the kind. I prefer to believe that it is a blunder of some stupid subordinate and that it will be put right. My noble friend Lord Peel, when he last made a statement on the subject, gave me a promise that the matter would be brought to the attention of the new Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, and I trust that my noble friend will be able to assure me that Sir Herbert has been given express directions to deal with this question without further delay.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to make two brief observations. I think the debate to-day—especially the speeches of my noble friend Lord Sydenham and my noble friend Lord Lamington—has shown the very serious situation in which we find ourselves in Palestine. The situation is one that may have issues of the utmost gravity, and may result in great dangers to our interests, both locally there and throughout the East. I think it is another illustration, and a very conspicuous one, of how far afield we have gone from our Parliamentary system of Government. We are told to-day that this system, for better or for worse, is now established; that a Zionist system of government is there; that it is unwelcome to large sections of the population; and that we have undertaken very serious responsibility in connection with that system. And this, I think, is almost the first debate that has taken place in this House with regard to it since it has been done. We are rapidly allowing ourselves to abrogate our Parliamentary position in matters that are of the most vital concern to every man, woman and child in this country and to our whole position in the East.
We have undertaken in this scheme to ensure internal order and external security. That means that we have to employ a force to meet those possible, and one almost fears probable, contingencies that may

1021
arise in that part of the world. We are always being urged to gird ourselves to these great enterprises in the East, because, we are told, it is our destiny and our duty as a great world-power to undertake them. If I may I would like for one moment to make an observation on that point. Is it the British Empire that is undertaking these responsibilities, and therefore placing itself in the position of having to bear the possible subsequent burden? Is it the British Empire that is undertaking, as it did during the war, and co-operating both in regard to the decisions upon and the discharge of, these responsibilities which we have assumed through the Middle East? I say emphatically it is not.
It is Great Britain by herself who assumes these responsibilities. Our Dominions have no participation in any of these undertakings, and I would venture to say that if they were asked they would not feel very disposed to co-operate in any way in them. It is Great Britain who, at the bidding of an international tribunal and not on the authority of Parliament, is undertaking these responsibilities, whether in Palestine or especially in Mesopotamia which we discussed last week. Great Britain has to bear the financial burden and every day brings evidence of how almost impossible Great Britain finds it to bear. How is it that Great Britain alone—and I would ask your Lordships' earnest consideration of this point—can cope with this increasingly heavy military obligation imposed by these commitments in the East? We are doing our best to supply troops for this purpose in these different areas, but it is only to a partial extent that those troops can be supplied from these shores. If I am credibly informed, there is increasing difficulty in regard to this matter as the obligations become more numerous.
Where are the rest of the troops coming from that are undertaking the garrisoning of these centres in the Middle East? They are all coming from India. They do not come from our Dominions. India supplies the bulk of the troops to-day in the independent State of Persia, the protection of which, apparently, we are undertaking. India supplies the great bulk of the troops in Mesopotamia. India supplies a large number of the troops in Egypt, in Palestine, and around Constantinople. During the war India came forward, like the rest of the Empire, and gave magnificent support to the extent of over 1,000,000 men to fight
1022
the battles against our enemies, but I would ask this— How long in time of peace will the present policy be pursued which entails a demand upon India for a supply of troops to garrison our territorial commitments lying far outside India throughout the East? These troops in many instances, as your Lordships are well aware, are posted in countries and in many places quite unsuited to the characteristics and the traditions of Indians. This is conspicuously so in Palestine, and I venture to say, in the interests both of the Indian troops and also of India, that those troops should be withdrawn from Palestine at the earliest possible date.
But it is on the broader aspect that I venture to ask the noble Earl if he would give us some enlightenment in regard to the question of the disposal of these troops and their employment; how long and to what extent His Majesty's Government propose to employ the Armies of India, to garrison countries far outside their Own borders. This is a quite new policy, anyway to the immense extent that it has now developed. It is, in my judgment, a most dangerous policy. It is a wrong policy, both in regard to the Middle East and its future, and in regard to India; and it is one that I fail to see can be reversed as long as the present policy is pursued by His Majesty's Government in these countries.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, following the cherished and traditional practice of your Lordships' House, the noble Lords who have so far addressed you have claimed for themselves no small measure of licence in the range of the questions which they have asked. Indeed, some of the questions that have been put to me have only the remotest connection, if indeed they have any connection at all, with the Question that is in print upon the Paper. I am, however, much too old a hand now to protest against this form of traditional digression. I meekly bow my head, and will do my best on this, as on all occasions, to give such information as I can.
First let me take the noble Lord who has just sat down. I hope, even after the dictum which I have just pronounced he will excuse me from going into the exceedingly important, but also the exceedingly complex, question of the methods which we are likely to adopt, or which

1023
we ought to adopt, for the future garrisoning of those great territories in the Middle East for which we have assumed, for the time being at any rate, some measure of responsibility. Nobody knows better than he how grave are the issues involved in the discussion, and, much more, in the decision of such a question; and if at some other time he likes to raise that question upon its merits, it is a matter upon which, of course, I should conceive it my duty to consult the views of my colleagues and to give such information to the House as I can. Clearly, it cannot be tagged on to a Question relating, at any rate so far as the words on the Paper are concerned, exclusively to the civil administration of Palestine at the present time.
I pass to my noble friend Lord Newton, whose incurable suspicion about anything concerned with enemy aliens it is, I am afraid, quite impossible for me or anyone to allay. However, on the present occasion I am, perhaps, in a position to give him a little more satisfaction than he appears to have derived from my noble friend the Under-Secretary for War on a previous occasion. Let me answer quite simply and directly the questions which I understood him to put. He asked, in the first place, "Why were these Germans and Austrian originally in Palestine interned?" They were interned for the ordinary reason for which, while a war is going on, you exclude, as far as you possibly can, from the area where your forces are operating—which is necessary under military law—persons who, either by birth or otherwise, are connected with the enemy. They were accordingly removed from Palestine to Egypt. Very well. Then they were offered the choice whether they would prefer, at the close of hostilities, to go to Germany or to go back to Palestine. Some of them chose Germany, and they were sent there. As soon as they arrived we received indignant protests from Germany that these gentlemen— and, as I understand it, ladies also—were not wanted because they were unsuitable or destitute persons. Others of them chose to go back to Palestine, and to Palestine it is our firmest intention to repatriate them. Noble Lords must remember that even now Palestine is technically a military country, and it is only with the arrival of Sir Herbert Samuel this week that we are in process of setting up a form of Civil Administration. Even as regards the Mission of Sir Herbert Samuel, my noble
1024
friend Lord Newton could not abate his ineradicable suspicion, because, as recently as June 8, he said in this House, "I do not imagine that there is the remotest prospect of his starting for a month or so."
LORD NEWTON: Well, it is a month ago.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Three weeks have not elapsed, and Sir Herbert Samuel as to whom there was "not the remotest prospect of his starting for more than a month," has not only started but is so far on his way that he will land in Palestine to-morrow or the next day.
LORD NEWTON: I was only a week too long.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The Instructions which are given to him provide for the repatriation of these persons who want to return to Palestine as soon as it can conveniently be done. The only other thing that remains for me to say upon that point is that for the particular suggestion, or imputation, contained in one of the speeches preceding mine—I forget whether it was Lord Lamington's or not—namely, that they were being kept away in order that their houses or property might be acquired by the Jews or by others—there is not a shred of foundation.
I pass on to the speech of my noble friend Lord Lamington. I think that he is imperfectly acquainted with what has happened in respect of the Emir Feisul. With what he said about that potentate, about his loyalty and his good faith, I am in close agreement. I know the Emir Feisul, as does my noble friend, and I have always found him animated not merely by friendly sentiment towards this country but by a high sense of personal honour. And when my noble friend suggests that we have been unwisely and unduly pressing the Emir to come to this country, he is really speaking in ignorance of the facts. As far back as March 28, the Emir of his own accord announced his willingness to. come to Europe—this was after his nomination or election to the Throne of Syria—as soon as he received recognition of his independence. It was mindful of that expression on his part that, when we met with our Allies at San Remo, we agreed there— and I think I was largely responsible for that agreement—to recognise Syria as an independent State. Having done this,

1025
we again tendered officially to the Emir Feisul the invitation to come to Europe, conceiving that, having satisfied his own condition, he would carry out his undertaking.
A NOBLE LORD: As an independent ruler?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: As head of an independent State. Twice since then the Emir, in correspondence with us, has discussed the question of his coming, and he has by no means given it the negative which my noble friend seems to suppose. As recently as June 4 he was in correspondence with us about the matter, and on that occasion, so far from saying that in no circumstances could he come here, the words he used were that he had to delay his departure because of the conditions in his country, which my noble friend has correctly described as those of a good deal of disquietude. It may be that for the time being his services are more important there than they would be here, but I should be loth myself altogether to dismiss the hope that we may see the Emir in Europe, and for this reason, that it surely is to the interest of all of us, the Allied Powers as much as ourselves, to regularise his position. My noble friend spoke of him as having been elected to the Kingship of Syria. That is quite true, but it was a very irregular election, and nobody is more anxious than ouselves, if he is to continue there, as it seems very likely he will, as the country was conquered by his forces in conjunction with our own, and as it is going to be taken away from Turkey by the Allies by a Treaty made by the Allied Powers, that his position should have the sanction of the Allied Powers behind it. Therefore it is that I hope that at some time not too distant we may see the Emir in Europe.
There is one other portion of the noble Lord's remarks to which I cannot help devoting a few passing words. He recapitulated more than once, with great emphasis, that in his view Palestine is no British interest. It is true that he rather narrowed down his own definition by saying that we had no commercial or industrial interest in the country. My Lords, our interest in Palestine never has been, and I venture to say never ought to be, measured in terms of £ s. d. It certainly has not been the view from which English-
1026
men have ever looked at Palestine, from Cœur de Lion to the present day. Our interest is historic, traditional, religious, and perhaps to some extent sentimental, but when we went there in the early stages of the war we went there for another reason, for distinct military and strategic objects—namely, to protect the flank of Egypt, which was threatened by the direct menace of the Turkish arms. Anybody who was familiar with the views of Lord Kitchener will know how serious was the importance, and, as it appeared to some of us, exaggerated importance, which he attached to that danger, and it was on military grounds that we found ourselves advancing into the Holy Land.
And, my Lords, when the noble Lord rather dogmatically laid down that Palestine has no strategic value for Egypt now, I doubt very much, if he went to the War Office and put the proposition in this form, "Would you, the authorities at the War Office, be willing to see another Power, and possibly a hostile Power, in the future in possession of Palestine? Would you consider your position in Egypt safe in these circumstances,"— I doubt if he would get an affirmative reply. However that may be, we were drawn in for military reasons, and conquered Turkey, and there then remained the question—what was to be done? Broadly speaking, the question which, we had to put to ourselves was, Should we go? I do not know whether it is a tribute to our sincerity or to our powers, but nobody wanted us to go. Everybody insisted upon our remaining. Lord Islington asked what voice the Dominions had in this, and whether they are going to provide troops to hold Palestine in the future? No. I should not dream of asking them. But no body of men was more insistent that the duty remained upon us than were the Dominion representatives who came to this country. That view was almost universally shared, and it was as the result of the practically unanimous request of all parties that we, by no means eagerly or joyously but very reluctantly, accepted a mandate for Palestine which we could not refuse. It was thought by almost common consent that we were the nation best calculated to hold the sacred places in trust and to act as guardians of that which is regarded as holy ground by so many millions of people throughout the world. So much for the circumstances in which we went to Palestine.

1027
Now I come to the speech of my noble friend Lord Sydenham, who introduced this matter this afternoon. He drew what was a very gloomy picture of the present position of affairs in that country. I cannot help thinking that it was a somewhat one-sided picture. I would not accuse a man of such natural impartiality as my noble friend of taking a prejudiced view in any racial or religious matter. Still I do think that in the whole of his speech there was evidence of a strong anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist feeling—I will not say bias, but feeling. It is true that in that country passions have been aroused. There is a great deal of explosive material lying about. Many foolish things have been said, and some of them have been quoted here tonight. Many unwise things have been done. The Holy Land seems to have the peculiar faculty—it has had it at all periods of history—of arousing passions which provide scope for the wildest enmities and bitterest feuds, and it is only too true that under the new conditions Palestine has not settled down to perfect harmony and unity. And indeed there seems a tendency to resume some of the unfortunate habits and traditions of the past. I would add this, that the mistakes, which I admit, are not mistakes exclusively confined to one side. The noble Lord himself quoted things said and done against the Jews quite as violent as any which he cited as having been done or said by them. Ought we not to try ourselves to place the whole matter in a rather wider perspective and form some idea of the best way in which, having undertaking the mandate, we now ought to discharge it in the best interests of all parties concerned?
My Lords, what are the essential facts of the case? Palestine was conquered by one of the most brilliant campaigns of which we have any knowledge in our annals. I need say no more about that. What did we find when we had absorbed the whole country up to and beyond the Syrian border on the North? We found a country which, owing to the long and pestilential blight of Turkish administration, had become depopulated, impoverished, and relatively poor. Many of your Lordships have travelled in Palestine, and I believe that you will, broadly speaking, accept my account of the situation. Whatever your views about the potential resources of the country, there cannot be any doubt that Palestine is a country where there is scope for more people, for more scientific cultiva-
1028
tion, for the construction of more railways, for better sanitation, for afforestation on a more scientific scale, and for development of all the resources of the country, whether great or small. Where is that development to come from? The Turks were quite incapable of doing it. The Arabs are equally incapable. There is no friend of the Arabs who will claim that they have the resources, wealth, or energy to do it on the scale at which, at any rate, we should like to see it done. It was in these circumstances that an opportunity was afforded to the Jews to undertake this task in their old home.
It seems to have been assumed this afternoon that the Jews or Zionists, if they are to be so called, are in necessary and increasing antagonism to the Arab population of the country. I wonder if that is altogether the case. The Jewish colonies were mentioned, many of them well-to-do and flourishing communities, who, I believe, have long lived in perfect amity with their neighbours; and indeed, by reason of the wealth they brought into the country and the means of developing it that they have provided, they have been extremely popular. I have known of cases in which Arab sheikhs—and important Arab sheikhs—have been on terms of the closest friendship, and are still so, with the heads of the Jewish colonies. There was nothing, therefore, inherent in the circumstances of the case—the juxtaposition of Jews on the one side and Arabs on the other—to lead one to think that they were incapable of getting on in the future. Indeed, are not the two races really essential to the salvation of the country? The one, the great majority of the people, the Arabs, between 500,000 and 600,000 strong—are they not by virtue of their indigenous character, their local interests, their patriotism, essential as one factor in the problem? On the other hand, do you not want the enterprise, the wealth, the resources, the tremendously fervid spirit of the Jews or Zionists to help the country along? I ask your Lordships not to regard the situation as one involving any natural or necessary antagonism between the two. I would far rather regard them as two facets of one and the same problem.
As regards the arrangements that have been made, the famous Declaration of Mr. Balfour of November, 1917, has been quoted. That Declaration was then accepted successively by all the other Great Powers, and when we came to San

1029
Remo, in April last I think it was, it was embodied verbatim, in the terms of the Turkish Treaty. This was what we put in the Treaty, not yet of course signed, still less ratified, about Palestine—
"The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the principal Allied Powers, to a mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights mid political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
With reference to the particular point about religious communities, we went on as follows—
"The mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religions communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations."
In the Mandate, which is in course of being drawn up for submission to the Council of the League of Nations, we are taking seeps to ensure that this Commission shall secure that the holy places, religious building or sites regarded with special veneration by the adherents of one particular religion, are entrusted to the permanent possession and control of suitable bodies representing the adherents of the religion concerned. The selection of the holy places, religious buildings, or sites to be so transferred is to be made by the Commission subject to the approval of the mandatory.
As regards the actual Questions put upon the Paper, my noble friend Lord Sydenham only asked them by implication, and did not put to me the specific points which are here in print, but he will, perhaps, expect me to give a direct reply to the Questions in the form in which he put them. His first Question is as follows—
By what means, under the mandate which has been accepted for the government of Palestine, is it proposed to safeguard the rights of the immense non-Jewish majority of the population, while setting up a "national home" for the Jewish rats.
My answer to that is quite simple. We hope to do it by the institution of civil government, and by the provisions which
1030
that civil government will make for the internal security and development of the country. His second question is—
Whether the term "national home" implies the exercise of governmental authority over the whole or part of the population of Palestine.
1 would say, "Yes," if the exercise of governmental authority refers to governmental authority by the mandatory—that is to say, the British. I would say "No" if my noble friend means authority to be exercised by the Jewish minority over the non-Jewish majority. The actual conditions under which these provisions will be secured will, of course, be contained in the Mandate which has to he submitted to the League of Nations, but I may say that Sir Herbert Samuel, who arrives in Palestine in the course of the next day or two, will, immediately upon taking over the civil administration, make a statement regarding several points connected with that civil administration which he has been authorised by His Majesty's Government to lay down, and as that will occur within a day or two it would, I think, be unfair on my part if I were to anticipate this evening anything he may say.
There is, however, one remaining point about which I think the House is entitled to something a little more precise, and that is the point which was raised by certainly two of the preceding speakers—namely, about immigration. I would ask the House not to be unduly frightened by the colossal and really extravagant figures that are bandied about. My noble friend Lord Sydenham quoted front sonic document about hundreds of thousands of persons already pouring into the country.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I thought be said hundreds and thousands.
LORD SYDENBAM: Yes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I gladly acquit my noble friend if it was the more modest figure that he used, but in another part of his speech he spoke of some authority who anticipated an immigration in a few years of eight millions or ten millions of persons.
LORD SYDENIIAM: That was on the authority of Dr. Max Nordau.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: For my own part I am content with much more

1031
modest estimates. As regards our general policy, which is what the House is much more concerned with than with speculative conjectures as to the future, I should like to say this. Our general policy is that no man or woman shall be admitted whom the country is incapable of supporting, and that indiscriminate mass immigration, whether of Jews or non-Jews, whether of Jews from Russia or from other parts of the world, will most certainly not be permitted.
There was another point about which I was asked. Non-Jewish landowners will. not be expropriated or compelled to give up their property for the benefit of Jews. The Administration will reserve to itself the right to develop the natural resources of the country on such terms and conditions as it may think best. It will be left to Jewish enterprise to secure in the open market and on equal terms with non-Jewish purchasers such areas as are undeveloped but are capable of development. For the development of those areas it will be left to the purchasers to secure their own labour, and it is only if His Majesty's Government has reason to suppose that any organised effort is being made to prevent the establishment of the Jewish national home that it may be found necessary to take special steps to secure this object. I ought to add also that I agree with my noble friends in thinking that we must be very careful about introducing into the country the right class of immigrant and, as I have before remarked, about not introducing too many at a time. I think it is very likely that among the Zionist Commission, to which reference has been made, there may be hot-heads who have said, and perhaps clone foolish things.
You have now got at the head of the Administration a judicially-minded and sensible and experienced man. Although it is true that no remarks have been made this evening disparaging to Sir Herbert Samuel himself, very grave doubts have been expressed as to the wisdom of sending a Jewish Administrator to the country at this moment. That is a perfectly tenable view. It is a perfectly tenable view to say that—an Arab, of course, not being available, and the Zionists, as representing the minority, being disqualified—you ought to have sent somebody else. That was not the view taken by the Government, and in their search for someone who would loyally
1032
carry out the policy to which Mr. Balfour had committed us, with the consent of our Allies, it was thought that no more competent person could be found than Sir Herbert Samuel. I had the honour of serving as a colleague with him in Mr. Asquith's Administration for a year and a-half, and, though I do not think any of his then Liberal colleagues are now in the House, I am sure all will agree with me in saying that lie takes to the discharge of his duties there a mind of singular impartiality and fairness. I have had many opportunities of discussing the matter with him, and, while it may be true that when he goes there he will for a time find himself in I somewhat difficult circumstances with the Arabs, a great authority on the country told me the other day that six months later lie was quite certain he would be equally unpopular with the Jews. That was a testimony to the character of Sir Herbert Samuel which, I expect, is not unlikely to be borne out by the facts.
As regards the future, there is no part of the world at the present moment where it is more necessary, I admit, to go slowly than in Palestine. I do not think going quick is ever a wise policy in the East—pretty soon you get tripped up, and you very likely have a bad fall. But if there is a part of the world where your pace should be extremely staid I would name Palestine. The fact is that, owing to the conditions which I have described, resulting from all those centuries of Turkish misrule, there is a terrible lot of back way to be made up. You want a policy of steady progress in building, in irrigation, in the scientific combating of malaria—everybody knows that the Jordan Valley is an absolute pesthole in which European peoples, at any rate, cannot live or work—you want a cadastral survey of the country, you want facilities of banking, in fact, you want all the machinery of administration. I think we must trust Sir Herbert Samuel to carry out the broad principles of policy which I have laid down,, and which I believe, the mandate having been accepted and the national home having been taken as one of the principles of our action, will be broadly endorsed by both sides of your Lordships' House.
The only other point which I must allude to is the Motion, with which my noble friend concluded, for Papers. I had no idea to what Papers he was going to refer until he spoke, and then lie told us

1033
that the two Papers he wanted were Sir Herbert Samuel's Report and Lord Allenby's Report on the circumstances at Jerusalem. As regards Sir Herbert Samuel's Report I had no idea until this moment—in fact, I have not now—that it had any official character at all. Sir Herbert Samuel went out really in a private capacity to Palestine, at the suggestion of Lord Allenby. He went round the country and wrote a Report, which he afterwards allowed me to see, but I do not think it was written for publication. There was nothing in it in the least unsuitable for publication, but I certainly could not undertake to lay it as a Parliamentary Paper without his consent, and I would far rather wait for the results of his administration, after he has been there three or four months, than rely upon the results of his journey three or four months before he took up the post. The other Paper, Lord Allenby's Report, on the unfortunate events at Jerusalem, it is impossible to lay, for this reason. The matter is sqb judice at the moment. A Court of inquiry was appointed to go into the circumstances of the case. Whether its investigations have been completed I do not know, but the report, at any rate, has not reached us. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to persist in this Motion for Papers, and I hope he will allow that I have done, my best to answer the greater part, at any rate, of the questions which he addressed. to your Lordships' House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord who opened the debate referred to me as likely to contribute something to the discussion this evening. I admit this is a matter in which I take the very keenest interest, not only owing to some personal knowledge of the localities and successive visits there over a prolonged period,. but also because I have been during the past year in very close touch with very many of those who know the facts on the spot—not ecclesiastical friends only, though I have those belonging to different sections of the Christian Church, but civil friends as well. I therefore came here to-night with a very anxious hope for the elucidation of the subject, which I admit, to me and to most other people, was exceedingly perplexing.
The terms which have been used—the term "Zionism" itself, or the term "A Jewish Home"—are equally elusive, and
1034
it is extraordinarily difficult to find out what those who use those terms really mean by them, either when they emanate from government authority or from the critics of that authority. To some extent we have had enlightenment on that subject to-night. The noble Earl has given us perhaps as much as we had any right to expect of detailed information as to what is at this moment happening. I will not conceal from your Lordships that I have had exceedingly anxious forebodings as to what are going to be the results of the present movements in Palestine, and those are based not on conjecture but on a great deal of detailed information which has come into my hands. There were certain points on which I should have desired to make critical observations, but it seems to me, after what the noble Earl has told us, that it would do nothing but harm for us at this moment to indulge in further criticism or discussion of the details, which are to some extent going to be revealed to us when Sir Herbert Samuel speaks a few days hence. It is too late now merely to criticise, as I think some of the speeches did overmueh, what has been done, because those criticisms, unless they are really necessary for something that is going to happen, seem to me to tend rather to embitter than to smooth things. And therefore I should not at all desire to criticise things, even if they seem to me to have been said, which are already fails accomplis.
On the other hand, if we are going to learn in a few days' time—what must have already been settled, if it is going to be announced by Sir Herbert Samuel himself—about his work, surely we should wait until then, before we can usefully criticise the things he is likely to say and to have planned. I am prepared to expect a great deal. My own knowledge of Sir Herbert Samuel, which is limited as compared with that of some of your Lordships', has been, in two or three different fields of interest and of common work, such as to make me feel the greatest confidence in his judgment, his common sense, and his largeness of view in matters of this kind, and what I have heard as to what has passed between him and some of those who have been his critics, now that he is appointed to go to the East, has reassure me on some of the very points on which I have felt anxious I have no desire whatever to criticise in

1035
advance that which we are likely to hear, but I shall feel that we are all at liberty to open this question again, because it is an anxious and important one, when we are better informed, when we have read what we are told Sir Herbert Samuel is about to say.
The interest of this matter in the minds of the British people was not in the least exaggerated by my noble friend who spoke for the Government. Lord Lamington said that we had no really British interests in Palestine, but I entirely agree with what was said by Lord Curzon that there is no subject in which—using the word "interest" in another sense—interest is so wide in this country. For one person who cares about what is happening this moment in Asia Minor there are at least 10,000 who care immensely to know and to understand as far as they can what is happening in Palestine. That is due to other grounds altogether than those of present political interests. But the interest is keen and will need to be satisfied; and I have great hopes that before long we shall be able to understand better than we do now what is planned, and to feel more complete satisfaction in its prospects than some of us have been able to feel as yet.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I feel that a great deal of mischief was done by using ambiguous words at the start such as "National Home." "National Home" might be interpreted in a harmless way, but it has also been interpreted as giving priority to a small minority of Jews over the mass of people in Palestine. It is idle to propose that preference should be given to one-tenth who have gone to the country only lately over the nine-tenths who have been there, from father to son, for generations.
The noble Earl is, perhaps, too busy to read a publication which I have been reading for two years and which throws a light on the view of Zionists. I refer to their official organ called Palestine. That publication is not written by Bolshevists; it is written in England for English people and, therefore, intended to be as moderate as possible. All I can say is that if some subordinate of the noble Earl in the Foreign Office makes it his business to see that organ he will perceive the very wide claims that have been systematically put forward for two years on behalf of the Zionists, claims which are entirely incon-
1036
sistent with a mere "place in the sun"—claims for priority and preference. If Jews go back in reasonable numbers and show by their ability, industry and character that they can take the lead, they will take the lead and no one will object; but it is the duty of the Government to hold an absolutely fair balance and not to consider that there should be a balance of equality between one-tenth and nine-tenths. Claims have been put forward by the Jews that the Jewish language should be put on an equality with the national language of the country. I have seen claims put forward also by them that the Sabbath should be observed as a day of obligation, whereas it is only such a day for a small section of the people. I remember what happened when it was proposel to send a number of workmen from Malta to make a pier at Haifa. The claim put forward was that any immigration to Palestine must be pre-erupted and demanded for the Jews.
The Government are under suspicion by many people of trying to smooth the way so that when things ripen the Jews can step in and take possession of their "Promised Land." That would be a thoroughly vicious principle. The Government should administer Palestine under the mandate for the benefit of all the people there. The Jews comprise only one-tenth of the inhabitants. They are not an important part of the people. They have raked up an ancient name with which the present-day Jews have nothing whatever to do. The noble Earl said they would not allow Palestine to be the dumping ground for all the rowdies of Europe. Respectable Jews should come in as other people, but there should be no attempt to prevent others from coming in. There ought to be perfectly fair play. No doubt Sir Herbert Samuel will try to be perfectly fair, but there is no doubt that the people of the country, when you select a man of the religion and race of only one-tenth of the inhabitants and send him to rule the whole country, must feel suspicious. I hope that Sir Herbert Samuel will disappoint the hopes of his co-nationalists and co-religionists. When the noble Earl talked of Jewish energy and enterprise coming, he seemed to thing, to develop this country part passu on equality with the Arabs and the other people there, I thought he, wanted to give too much of a push to the Zionist movement. I trust that the Government will take care that nothing will be done against the wishes of the mass of the people of that

1037
country to pamper the expectations of people spread all over the world who are being pushed forward to intrude themselves where they are not wanted.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think that the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House will reassure many people who have felt anxiety in this matter. He has told us plainly that there is to be no Zionist Government in Palestine, that the antecedents of immigrants will be scrutinised, and that no rush of unruly people into the country will be allowed. The noble Earl has also said that there will be no preferential treatment with regard to the purchase of land. All those things will do
1038
away with a great deal of the alarm which is being felt in that country. I beg to with draw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to give notice that to-morrow my noble friend Lord Curzon will move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered with a view to its being suspended in respect of the Rents Restriction Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ROCHESTER, CHATHAM AND GILLINGHAM GAS BILL.
  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS COMPANY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords, agreed to.

SHEKLETON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Ordered that the Petition of Richard Auchmuty Shekeleton (presented on the 21st instant) be further considered on Thursday next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Gas).

Tramways Provisional Orders.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Southampton Extension).

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Hastings Tramways.

Lowestoft Corporation.

Life Association of Scotland [H.L.].

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919 (DRAFT RULES).
Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 15th and 16th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
LEIGH CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that Lord Muskerry be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Kimberley; read, and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEW WINDSOR EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTERFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (LANDS) BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
BELFAST WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LLANELLY CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
SUTTON COLDFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  NORWICH CORPORATION BILL.
  Committees to meet on Tuesday next.