Sitting of 4 May 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill [Lords].
Bootle 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:
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a Second time To-morrow.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Sheffield Corporation Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Halifax Corporation Bill,
Portsmouth Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Rugby Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Redcar Urban District Council Gas Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Leeds, Torquay, Wallasey, and the Saint Austell Joint Hospital District," presented by Dr. ADDISON; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Chiswick, Dartford, Denton, Orsett (Rural), Rochdale, Rotherham (Rural), Southport, the Thurrock Grays and Tilbury Joint Sewerage District, and the County Palatine of Lancaster," presented by Dr. ADDISON; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL,>
"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Walling-ford," presented by Dr. ADDISON; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  TREBITSCH LINCOLN.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he knows the present whereabouts of Herr Trebitsch Lincoln; why the German Government has not arrested him; and whether representations have been made to the German Government pointing out the danger of this man being at large?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have no information as to where this man is now, although I understand from unofficial reports that he acted as Chief Censor for the Kapp Government during the recent revolutionary outbreak in Berlin. I cannot undertake to answer questions as to the reasons for the action of the German Government in a purely domestic matter, neither would it be proper for His Majesty's Government to make representations to them in matters of this kind.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we not made representations to the German Government with regard to German workers who were in revolt, and does not the hon. Gentleman know that this man is reported to be at large in the principal hotels in Berlin, and is nothing possible diplomatically to remove the danger which is thus caused?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: If this man is a danger I would rather have him in Berlin than anywhere else. It is better to leave it to the German Government to settle.
  Mr. PALMER: Is it not a fact that this man has just been sentenced to ten years' imprisonment?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware of that.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Home
  1862
  Department whether, on his release from Pentonville Gaol after serving a sentence of three years' penal servitude, on or about 2nd July, 1919, Herr Trebitsch Lincoln was taken to Harwich under escort for deportation; whether he was brought back and lodged in Brixton Prison and, if so, why; whether he was visited in Brixton Prison by representatives of the War Office; and whether, on or about 11th August, 1919, he was sent to Hungary?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The answers to the first and fourth paragraphs are in the affirmative. The removal of this alien from the United Kingdom was interrupted, and he was detained for a time in Brixton Prison because of information which showed that his return to his own country at the date first proposed was undesirable. So far as I am aware he was not visited in prison by representatives of the War Office.

  GUATEMALA (EX-PRESIDENT CABRERA).
  Major LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been advised that ex-President Cabrera, of Guatemala, after his surrender was accompanied by the diplomatic corps from his headquarters to his place of internment; whether it has now been decided to put him on trial and on what charge; and whether this is in violation of the terms of his surrender?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not yet received detailed information as to the course of events since the resignation of ex-President Cabrera, and am not aware whether it is proposed that he should be placed on trial.
  Major LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Don Carlos Herrera has been formally recognised as the president of the Guatemalan republic?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Don Carlos Herrera has not yet been formally recognised by His Majesty's Government as President of the republic of Guatemala.
  Major LOWTHER: Is it proposed to delay long before recognising this gentleman as president as in the case of General Carranza in Mexico?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that certain formalities must be observed, and those are now being considered.

  MEXICO.

    REVOLUTIONARY OUTBREAKS.
    Major LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now been advised as to the state of affairs in Mexico; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As indicated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 26th April, there have recently been revolutionary outbreaks in various parts of Mexico.
    So far as can be ascertained, British interests have not as yet been seriously endangered by such disturbances as have occurred.
    His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Gomez Palacio states that foreign refugees have arrived there from Tlahualilo, and that he is arranging for a special train to convey them to the United States frontier.
    The State of Lower California has declared its intention of remaining neutral in the fighting between the Government forces and the rebels.
    Major LOWTHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the state of Lower California contains scarcely any British subjects and that the Republic of Mexico as a whole contains a great many British subjects and a great many British interests, and would it not be advisable to have some more detailed information which might be of assistance to those who are in anxiety in this country?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We are watching this situation with great anxiety and receiving all the information we can get.

  EGYPT.

    MILNER COMMISSION.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to present the Report of the Milner Mission to Egypt to this House; and, if so, whether the Report will be issued in full?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am unable to add anything to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member of 23rd March.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that the majority of the Commission have asked that only extracts from the Report be presented to this House, and does not the hon. Gentleman see the desirability of presenting this House with all the facts?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware that there is any foundation for that statement.
    Captain W. BENN: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea of the date when the Report will be presented?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend knows that this is a State document of the first importance, and the House will not be disposed to hurry the members of the Commission in its preparation.

    DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the number of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Egypt who attached their signatures to the declaration in favour of independence?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: About 50 members of the Egyptian Legislative Assembly met unofficially on 9th March, and passed a resolution affirming the complete independence of Egypt. I am unaware how many members voted for or against the Motion.

    ZAGLOUL PASHA (DELEGATION)
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government consider that the Egyptian delegation under Zagloul Pasha represents the Egyptian people; whether the Report of the Milner Mission confirms this; and, if so, why has His Majesty's Government not discussed the question of the future of Egypt with the representatives of the Egyptian delegation under Zagloul Pasha?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government await the Report of Lord Milner's Mission before expressing any opinion. The last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question does not therefore arise.

    RUMANIA.
    Mr. J. GUESTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the reported revolution amongst the Rumanian soldiers and the population in Transylvania?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No information has come to hand with regard to a revolution, but reports have been received of mutinies among the Rumanian troops on the frontier at Nagyvarad and several officers are said to have been shot.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    EX-SOLDIER CLERKS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War and Air if ex-soldier clerks employed in his Department are told to declare the amount of their Army pension; and, if so, whether this is contrary to the practice in other Departments?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): With a view to reducing any hardship arising out of the discharge of ex-soldier clerks on reduction of staff, it has been the practice, other considerations being equal, to give preference in the matter of retention among men of this class to those who are wholly dependent on their earnings. It was therefore desirable to have information as to the amount of Army pension, if any, of which these clerks are in receipt, but the giving of this information is purely voluntary. The War Office is not aware what is the practice of other Departments.
    Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there is no pressure whatever put upon the clerks to divulge the pensions?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am told not.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS OFFICERS (INDIA).
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEYasked the Secretary of State for War and Air if he will state what method of selection is adopted in detailing Royal Army Medical Corps officers for duty in India; whether a roster of previous service at Home is maintained; and whether consideration is given to service in the theatres of war in detailing officers for India?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A Foreign Service Roster for officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps is kept. Officers are detailed for service in garrisons overseas in accordance with this roster, except in the case of any officer who, on account of special qualifications which he may possess, is required for special duty in the United Kingdom. When an officer who has completed a tour of service in India again becomes due for Foreign Service, every endeavour is made to post him to a Colony, but this must necessarily depend on the demands for reinforcements and the number of officers available. With regard to the last part of the question, due consideration is given to service in theatres of war other than France and Italy.

    OFFICERS' TITLES.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether a naval officer who was lent to the Air Service in which he attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel is entitled to retain that rank and to use the designation of lieutenant-colonel after reverting to his substantive rank in the Navy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR and AIR (Mr. Churchill): An officer holding a regular commission in the Navy or Army is not given permission to retain his Royal Air Force rank unless he also at the same time retires from the Navy or Army. An officer who subsequently retires from the Navy, and who wishes to retain his Royal Air Force title on retirement, should apply to the Air Ministry through the Admiralty for permission to do so.
    Captain W. BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to in this question rendered throughout the War the most gallant services to this country?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not His Majesty given permission to all officers who held temporary rank during the War to retain it if they so desire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have answered the question on the paper. If there are any other questions I shall require notice in the regular way.
    Mr. PALMER: Is it competent for officers who have been dismissed His

    1867
    Majesty's service to hold any rank in this House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must guard myself in questions of this kind, where precedents must be consulted and legal opinion must be obtained, and must ask for full notice in order that the cases may be properly investigated. I am certainly not competent to lay down, on the spur of the moment, the exact status of any officer.
    Mr. PALMER: I will ask another question on the subject.

    RE-ENLISTED MEN (BOUNTY).
    Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War and Air if he will state who is responsible for the non-payment on 31st March of the annual proportion of bounty due to men who re-enlisted for two, three, or four years; and when will the payment be made?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Paymasters have been instructed to credit the second instalment of the bounty referred to when it becomes due to soldiers' accounts, and notify Officers Commanding in order that payment may be made. If the hon. Member will let me have the names of any soldiers who have not been paid, I will have enquiries made.

    GENERAL STAFF.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War and Air how many officers were employed in the M.L. 5 section of the General Staff before the War and at the present time; and whether the increase is chiefly due to the continuance of the passport system?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Seven officers were employed before the War on the duties now performed by Section 5 of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, War Office. There are now 14 officers employed in this Section. Of these, one only is partly employed on passport work, which consists in replying to questions referred by other Government Departments concerning the military records of applicants for passports, or endorsements thereon. The answer to the last part of the question is therefore in the negative.

    PERMANENT COMMISSIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War and Air
    1868
    whether any decision has yet been reached as to the grant of permanent commissions in the Army to a number of temporary officers who distinguished themselves during the War?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil.

    TELEGRAPHISTS (MESOPOTAMIA).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Secretary of State for War and Air (1) whether he is now in a position to report how many men who are telegraphists in civil life are still being retained with the 18th Divisional Signal Company in Mesopotamia; whether these men are compelled to handle civil work, with the result that the military machinery is being used to retain them for civilian purposes; whether he will now issue instructions that the whole of these men shall be demobilised as rapidly as possible;
    (2) whether men who enlisted for the period of the War are being compulsorily retained in Mesopotamia for the transmission of ordinary commercial telegraph traffic; whether he will state the number of men so employed and the date on which they attested; and whether, in view of the Government's decision that all soldiers employed on civilian work must be paid the civilian rate of pay, he will now issue instructions that all Post Office telegraphists compulsorily retained to handle commercial traffic between London and the East shall be paid the rate of pay proper to civilian wireless operators in the employment of private companies?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As the hon. Member was informed by letter on the 17th March last, no British personnel are being retained in Mesopotamia for the transmission of commercial telegraph traffic, and with the exception of five volunteers, all the personnel of the Signal Service other than regular soldiers, had left for demobilisation.

    INSPECTION OF ARMAMENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War and Air what was the cost incurred in 1913–14 in connection with the inspection of armament; what is the estimated expenditure under this head under the control of his

    1869
    department for 1920–21; and what increase would be necessary if the work of inspection now carried out by the Ministry of Munitions, and for which a sum of £950,000 is provided for 1920–21, were discontinued, assuming that similar arrangements were made for dealing with the work to those which obtained before the war?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The cost incurred in 1913–14 in connection with the inspection of guns, carriages, ammunition, small arms and cognate stores was £156,300. No sum has been provided for this service in Army Estimates for 1920–21 as the inspection has not yet been transferred to the War Office. I am afraid I cannot answer the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question until the future organisation under the War Office is settled.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that in the ordinary course of events it would cost considerably less if this inspection were handed over, as it should be, to the War Office?

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    REVISION OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether his attention has been drawn to the case of ex-service men who were recalled to the colours during the War, but who, at the request of a board of officers, joined the Royal Air Force instead of a military unit because that force was short of drill instructors, thereby forfeiting their claim to a revision of their pension under Army Order 325; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such men shall not suffer in consequence of their having complied with a request made to them in the interests of the country?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If such men re-enlisted in the Air Force their pensions will be re-assessed as though they had re-enlisted in the Army, but re-assessment is conditional upon re-enlistment.

    BARRISTERS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that
    1870
    many barristers who served during the War find their practice considerably decreased, owing to their work having gone to others who did not so serve; and what steps, if any, the Government have taken to give preference to ex-service barristers in placing Government briefs, or in other ways, and so to help men who are at a disadvantage owing to their War service?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the second part, I believe that all who are concerned in the allocation of Government briefs give preference, whenever it is possible, to ex-service barristers. That is the method, as far as I am concerned, I have always observed, and propose to observe, both in London and upon the Circuits.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: In giving advice to members of trade unions as to their duty in this connection, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also remember the greatest of trade unions—that of the Bar?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not the fact that a very large amount of Treasury work was, during the War, given to members of the Bar who amassed fortunes by evading military service?
    Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir. I think that is not so.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether swords form part of the uniform of Air Force officers; and, if so, why they are required?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A sword forms part of the full dress uniform of Royal Air Force officers. Swords have always been worn by officers of the fighting services in this and other countries, as part of the recognised insignia of their rank.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman as a great military genius whether the sword has not become an obsolete weapon?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Even the civil officials of the Government Departments

    1871
    and Ministers on ceremonial occasions are entitled to wear swords.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Are the civilians who wear swords expected to fight?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The wearing of a sword implies no obligation to use it.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be much better to differentiate—the Air Service being a separate service—between the Air Service and the older services in which swords are needed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter was very carefully considered and it was thought that the wearing of the sword was a symbol which was desirable.

  GERMANY.

    RHINE GARRISON.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War and Air what is the total number of British troops now actually stationed on the Rhine; what is the number which it was agreed with the Allies that Great Britain should supply for service in the occupied territory; and if Germany has yet reimbursed any portion of the cost of the occupation force?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total strength of the British troops stationed on the Rhine is approximately 14,000. Since the initial occupation of German territory following on the Armistice, no agreements as to the numbers of troops to be maintained by the Allies have been made. The procedure followed has been that each of the Allies have effected such reductions in the strength of their forces as were compatible with their requirements for guarding the bridgeheads and maintaining order in occupied territory. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply on the 25th March by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Central Southwark.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether women with a few months' training as dental mechanics are being sent to the Army on the Rhine and elsewhere at a rate of pay greatly above that received by men mechanics with seven and
    1872
    eight years' training who had to do this work compulsorily during the War at 1s. 6d. per day; is he aware that there are large numbers of discharged sailor and soldier dental mechanics who would willingly do this work at trade union rates and who are at present out of work; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Special efforts have been made to recruit dental mechanics into the Royal Army Medical Corps, and every publicity has been given to the shortage which exists, but the numbers that have come forward are far short of the actual urgent requirements. In consequence, general service members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment possessing the necessary qualifications are being sent to commands overseas. Steps have been taken to train recruits who are willing and suitable for the duties of dental mechanics, and as these become trained they will be sent to replace the members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment. For the present, however, it is necessary to continue to employ women.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the protests of the women censors at Cologne, whose services were dispensed with at two days' notice while the Germans employed as clerks and interpreters received six weeks' notice; whether he is aware that in spite of assurances, given when the Queen Mary Army Auxiliary Corps were demobilised and these censors retained, that they should receive more than the civilian women clerks they actually received less, taking pay with allowances; and whether he can see his way to advising the small grant necessary to make up the difference in emoluments and so remove the sense of injustice which is felt by these women?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to. Inquiry will be made, and I will see that the hon. Member is informed of the results?

    GERMAN TELEPHONISTS, COLOGNE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War and Air, whether German telephone operators are employed at British headquarters in Cologne; whether recently a general routine order was issued warning officers that their

    1873
    conversations could be overheard by German operators and that therefore care had to be exercised; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to replace these Germans at British headquarters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of the exact duties upon which the Germans employed with the British Army are engaged, nor have I any knowledge of a General Routine Order on the subject, Further enquiries are, however, being made and I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

    BRITISH OFFICERS (TRAVEL EXPENSES).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether under the terms of the Treaty of Peace the full cost of the Army of Occupation is to be paid for by Germany, including the cost of transportation by land and sea; whether soldiers of the Army of Occupation, when on leave from the Rhine to England, must now pay their own fares for the journey; and, if so, why officers and men on leave are not carried between the Rhine and Dover free of charge to themselves and the cost of such travel included in the costs payable by Germany?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON.The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. If the hon and gallant Member's suggestion is that a restriction considered proper for the British Army everywhere else should not be applied to the Army of the Rhine, because the extra cost involved in the exception would be thrown on the German Government, I am afraid I cannot accept it.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that these officers are on active service? Why should they have to pay their fares?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If it was right that they should not pay their fares it might be right that we should add so much a week to their pay and charge it to the German Government. We must act fairly to the German Government.

    COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action His Majesty's Government propose to take for paying compensation for losses
    1874
    suffered in respect of which claims will be submitted to the Reparation Commission for payment by Germany under the Treaty of Peace?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government are engaged in preparing, for submission to the Reparation Commission, schedules of claims which they are entitled to put forward against the German Government under the various categories specified in Annex I to the Reparation Chapter of the Treaty of Peace. The Reparation Commission will in due course decide whether and to what extent the claims submitted are admissible. They are required to notify to the German Government, on or before 1st May, 1921, the amount of damage for which Germany is liable, and to draw up a schedule of payments prescribing the time and manner for securing and discharging the entire obligation within 30 years.
    The British Government may not, therefore, know for some time the amount at which their claim in respect of damage done to individuals is admitted. In any case, payment may be expected to be spread over a considerable period.
    His Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to the position of individuals in respect of whose losses reparation will be claimed by His Majesty's Government. It must be understood that the claims to be made are claims by the British Government in respect of a wrong done to the State, and not claims by individuals in respect of private wrongs, and that the Government do not act as the agents of any individual to put forward his personal claim. Any payments that may be received from Germany are therefore the property of the nation, and no individual will have any claim in law for any sum which the British Government may receive from Germany in respect of reparation.
    But His Majesty's Government recognise that in particular cases, while there can be no legal claim, a private individual may have a strong moral claim for compensation for sufferings or damage for which it will be the desire of Parliament to make provision. They propose, therefore to set aside a sum of £5,000,000 out of the first receipts on account of reparation which are allocated to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, as distinct

    1875
    from the British Empire (which cannot be till after payment has been made for the cost of the Armies of Occupation), to be used as a fund out of which payments can be made to individuals as an act of grace on the part of His Majesty's Government. They propose further that a special Commission should be appointed to examine claims upon this fund and to make awards out of it, proceeding on the basis of the strength of the case for compensation rather than on the amount at which the damage may have been assessed by the Reparation Commission, which amount will, however, fix the maximum award in any particular case.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Are any of these provisions of the Peace Treaty subject to revision at the next meeting of the Supreme Council at Spa or Margate?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do the Government, then, adhere to their pledge that a special pool out of the first payments will be formed to compensate the widows and orphans of merchant seamen torpedoed during the War?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That pledge was given by the Prime Minister. Is it still adhered to?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will refer me to the particular words of the Prime Minister.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (RECRUITING)

    STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.
    Major BIRCHALLasked the Secretary of State for War and Air, whether any arrangements have been made to confer with large employers of labour in reference to recruiting for the Territorial Force?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The War Office has been in communication with a number of central organisations of employers in different industries as regards the giving of special facilities to employees for joining the Territorial Army, and it has been suggested to these organisations that, so far as the circumstances of their particu-
    1876
    lar industries permit, they should adopt the practice of Government Departments of giving an additional week's holiday on full pay to employees who complete the full period of a fortnight's annual training in camp. It has been thought better that this matter should in the first instance be discussed by these organisations among themselves than that the War Office should negotiate with individual firms or employers. Generally speaking, the response to date has been favourable both from public bodies and from private employers. In many cases the matter is still being considered by the employers' organisations in conjunction with the local Territorial Associations, who are, of course, primarily responsible for the actual recruiting for the Territorial Army.
    In addition, two well-known Generals— Lieutenant-General Sir E. S. Bulfin and Lieutenant-General Sir W. P. Braithwaite —have been temporarily appointed to tour the country and put the case for the Territorial Army before meetings of employers. A number of meetings have already been arranged and it is hoped that during the next six months every employer in the country will have been approached, either individually or through the medium of the central or local employers' associations.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the Labour mayors in the metropolis are doing all they can to stultify the movement in favour of the Territorial Force? Will he see whether it is not possible to get these people into line and to prevent their resistance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: An amount of opposition is being undoubtedly offered in some quarters.
    Colonel GREIG: Will the hon. Gentleman furnish the names of the mayors who are opposing the scheme?
    Sir F. HALL: I shall be very pleased to give my right hon. Friend an actual case.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must point out that I said nothing about mayors.
    Mr. JOSEPH GREEN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War and Air whether his attention has been called to the statement of Lieut.-Colonel A. E. Hirst, made at a meeting

    1877
    of the West Riding County Territorial Force Association at York on 26th April, that either the Government or the War Office did not want the Territorial Force to succeed; and whether he can give the House any assurance as to the attitude of the Government and the War Office towards the reconstitution of the Territorial Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the statement in question. The suggestion that either the Government or the War Office does not want the Territorial Army to succeed has, I need hardly say, no shadow of justification. The House must be aware that the problem of raising an efficient force to take its place as a genuine second line to the Regular Army has been examined with the greatest care by His Majesty's Government and the Army Council, and every effort is being, and has been made, to reconstitute the Territorial Army on successful lines.
    It must be remembered that the exact organisation of the Regular Army has not yet been decided upon, and this fact enhanced the difficulties of working out the details of its replica in the second line— the Territorial Army. There have been very many difficulties to overcome, and the inevitable result has been that considerable time has been occupied in reaching decisions on the various points involved.
    In addressing a meeting of representatives of the Territorial Associations on 30th January last, I made it abundantly clear that it was the determination of the Government to make the Territorial Army a reality in every respect.
    With few exceptions, the appointment of headquarters staffs and of commanding officers has been completed, and the appointment of regimental permanent staff is well advanced. As a result recruits are now coming in in increasing numbers, and I have every hope that the Force will ultimately be established on a firm basis.
    I can readily give the House an emphatic assurance that the Government and the Army Council will spare no effort to make the scheme of reconstitution of the Territorial Army effective.

    JERUSALEM DISTURBANCES (MR. JABOTINSKY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War and
    1878
    Air whether he can now state whether the British military authorities received any warning of the possibility of anti-Jewish rioting in Jerusalem on the occasion of the Moslem pilgrimage on 4th April last; if so, what steps were taken to preserve order; and whether Mr. Jabotinsky will be allowed to appeal against his sentence of 15 years' penal servitude?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am still awaiting the full reports of the recent occurrences in Jerusalem, but I take this opportunity of informing the House that as well as the reduction of sentence on Mr. Jabotinsky to one year's imprisonment without hard labour, the sentences on the 19 Jews of three years' penal servitude, have been reduced to six months' imprisonment without hard labour. The sentences of 15 years' penal servitude on the two Moslems convicted of rape and on the Jew convicted of unlawful wounding have been allowed to stand.
    According to my latest information, the total numbers tried by Military Court in Jerusalem amounted to 31, composing 21 Jews, 9 Mohammedans, and I Christian, As well as the sentences already enumerated the following additional persons have been dealt with or are awaiting trial:

    1 Moslem convicted. Charge and sentence not yet known.

    6 Moslems charged with making speeches in public places calculated to arouse hostilities. One of these was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined £20. Three were acquitted and two absconded from bail. One Christian found guilty of a similar offence was awarded two years' imprisonment and fined £20.

    5 Jews are now being tried on a charge of being in possession of firearms.

    The following are also awaiting trial:

    1 Jew for attempted murder.

    2 Jews for being in possession of fire-arms.

    1 Moslem for, it is believed, unlawful wounding.

    3 Moslems for assisting the escape of absconders.

    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether Lieutenant Jabotinsky will be allowed to appeal against this reduced sentence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say, without notice.
    Major LOWTHER:Was the sentence of fifteen years' penal servitude confirmed by Lord Allenby?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The sentence has been reduced by Lord Allenby.

    POLICE SERVICE (DESBOROUGH COMMITTEE)
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say when it is intended to publish the evidence given before the Desborough Committee on the Police Service of England, Wales, and Scotland?
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope the evidence will be ready for issue in the course of this month.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISABILITY RATES (REVISED SCALE)
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Minister of Pensions what is the revised scale of pensions which is to be given to men who have been invalided from the Army with less than 21 years' service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing in detail, for both Navy and Army, the new rates of pension for men invalided in the great War and having from ten to 21 years' service. These new rates will have effect from 1st April, 1919.
    The following is the statement mentioned:
    The following are the rates of pension approved by the Government for present war cases, which term will include only:

    (a) men discharged with disability during the course of the War, and

    1880

    (b) men discharged after the War on account of disabilities recognised by the Ministry of Pensions under the War Warrant as attributable to or aggravated by service in the present War.

    1. Basic rate of pension for men discharged during the War for disabilities not attributable to service.

    Navy.

    s.

    d.

    Over 10 years

    1.

    0

    a day

    Continuous Service Men only.

    Over 14 years

    1

    6

    a day

    Continuous Service Men, Non-continuous Service Men* and Royal Marines.

    Over 16 years

    1

    9

    a day

    Over 18 years

    2

    0

    a day

    Over 20 years

    2

    6

    a day

    * This is a technical Navy term referring to certain special classes, such as officers' stewards and cooks.

    The Admiralty will add the usual additions for rank, etc., according to the new service scale.

    Army.
    The daily rates set out above will be applicable in the case of the following classes of soldiers:—

    (a) re-engaged men;

    (b) men re-enlisted to complete a term of service which, with former service, makes a total of at least 21 years; and

    (c) men who have had the above periods of continuous colour service although they may not have re-engaged.

    Only unforfeited colour service will reckon, and a minimum of 14 years' colour and reserve service (of which at least 10 shall be colour service) will be required.
    The War Office will add the usual additions for rank according to the new service scale.
    II.Scale of service allowance in addition to disablement pension in attributable or aggravated cases.
    The disability pension will be paid in full, and in addition the following service allowance will be paid to those men who come within the above-mentioned categories:

    1881

    —

    Weekly rate recommended.

    Old rates for comparison.

    Army.

    Navy.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Over 10 years

    7

    0

    —

    3

    6

    Over 14 years

    8

    0

    4

    8

    3

    6

    Over 15 years

    8

    0

    4

    11½

    4

    8

    Over 16 years

    9

    0

    5

    3

    4

    8

    Over 17 years

    9

    0

    5

    6½

    4

    8

    Over 18 years

    10

    0

    5

    10

    5

    3

    Over 19 years

    10

    0

    6

    5

    5

    3

    Over 20 years

    11

    0

    7

    0

    5

    3

    Over 21 years

    11

    0

    —

    5

    3

    (Navy only.)

    The Admiralty and War Office will make the usual additions for rank, etc., as in the new service scale.
    III. Attributable or aggravated cases where no permanent disablement pension has been awarded.

    (a) In cases of temporay disablement the service allowances set out on II. above will be paid in addition to disablement pension. When the disability is ended and the disablement pension ceases the man will revert to the rate set out in I The conditions of entitlement will be those set out above.

    (b) Men with an attributable disability of less than 20 per cent. will receive service allowance under I., together with a gratuity under the Pensions Warrant based on disablement alone.

    Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman state generally whether the revision increases the pensions or not?
    Major TRYON: The statement is a lengthy one, but I am glad to be in a position to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that a considerable improvement has been made. For instance—
    "Scale of service allowance in addition to disablement pension in attributable or aggravated cases the disability pension will be paid in full, and, in addition, the following service allowance will be made to those men who come within the above-mentioned categories."
    I will quote one example. A man will get his full disability pension, and, in addition, if he has over ten years' service he will get a weekly rate in addition of 7s., which compares with the old rate in the Army of nothing and in the Navy of 3s. 6d.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the Navy will get the
    1882
    disability pension plus the 22 years' pension?
    Major TRYON: The 22 years' case does not arise under this question which refers to cases of men under.
    Sir F. HALL: May I ask if the question of granting extra pensions to men who suffered disability which did not actually happen in the African War or in the present War?
    Major TRYON: That does not arise out of the question, but as the House has been informed more than once, the matter is being considered by a Cabinet Committee which hopes to report very shortly.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    "NATIONAL FOOD JOURNAL."
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Food if he will state what is the cost per issue of the monthly official publication, the "National Food Journal"; how much has been spent upon the 51 issues already made; what is the estimated total expenditure in the current year; and when is the publication to cease?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The net cost per issue of the "National Food Journal" is approximately £88. The net cost of the 51 numbers already published is approximately £4,500, and the estimated total expenditure in the current year is £534. The "National Food Journal" was established at the request of Local Food Control Committees, who desired to have information in a compact form as to the work of the Ministry of Food. With the disappearance of the present organisation of Local Food Control Committees on 30th June, the further publication of the journal will cease. I may add that an average of over 30,000 copies of each issue of the journal has been sold to the public, and there is ample evidence that the journal has been of great use, not only to Local Food Control Committees, but to the public in general and traders in particular.
    Mr. HURD: If so many copies have been sold, how is there is such a large expenditure?
    Mr. McCURDY: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the statement of the cost include editorial expenses?
    Mr. McCURDY: If any further details are required I must ask for notice.
    Mr. HURD: Are not the editorial expenses an essential part of the expenditure?

    MUTTON.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Food if the Meat (Wholesale Prices) Orders are still in force; if, as the result, the removal of the Retail Prices Orders has had no material effect on the prices paid by the public for imported mutton; if at the present time the imports of colonial mutton are largely in excess of the consumption; and whether it is proposed to retain the existing arrangements indefinitely?
    Mr. McCURDY: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the removal of the maximum retail prices for imported mutton, which was undertaken at the request of the Board of Trade, has only been operative since 26th April, and it would therefore appear to be too early to estimate the effect on the prices paid by the public for this meat. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, but as the matter is one with which the Board of Trade are primarily concerned, the hon. and gallant Member should address any further question to that Department.
    Sir F. HALL: If the Wholesale Prices Order is still in operation, how is it possible for consumers to obtain any reasonable reduction in the price of mutton?
    Mr. McCURDY: The distribution of imported mutton is in the hands of the Board of Trade and not in my Department, and it would be more convenient if the hon. Member addressed question on the subject to that Department.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the great difficulty that exists in having food control in two different Departments, and if the Board of Trade issue instructions to wholesalers that they must maintain a price of 9d. per lb. for mutton, how can consumers expect to obtain it at a reasonable price?

    MEAT IN COLD STORAGE.
    Mr. SWANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether large quantities of meat now in cold storage is becoming unfit for human consumption; and what steps are being taken to secure the distribution of meat to prevent waste?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE(Mr. Bridgeman): It is not the case that large quantities of meat now in cold storage are becoming unfit for human consumption. In dealing with this matter the Board of Trade have the assistance of experts familiar with the business, and all possible steps are being taken to prevent waste. The wholesale price of mutton was reduced to 9d. a lb. a few weeks ago, and the whole question is being considered by the Departments concerned.

    IRISH LABOUR STRIKE (GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Post Office and other Government officials of all grades who refused to discharge their duties on the two days of the recent Sinn Fein labour strike in Ireland have received or will receive pay for those two days?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department got round the difficulty by giving the men two days' leave when they refused to work, and entering it on the pay sheet that they were on leave by kind permission of the Postmaster-General?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. MOLES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any notice of the conduct of certain postal officials who absented themselves from duty for two days, and if so, what notice?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Postmaster-General say whether the same thing

    1885
    happened in Belfast during the local strike there?
    Mr. MOLES: No, it did not.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Yes, it did.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must have notice of those supplementary questions.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men refused to discharge their duties, and if so, why should they not be dismissed?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: We cannot dismiss the whole service at a time.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the whole service refused to work?

    PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Prime Minister what is the present position with regard to the necessitous cases of pre-War pensioners generally; is the Cabinet considering the matter; has a committee of the Cabinet been formed; is there any objection to his stating the names of those entrusted with the matter; and when is it anticipated that the result will be made known?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I regret that I am unable to give this information to-day. The final decision of the Cabinet Committee is expected in the course of the current week.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill the only Irish representatives who voted were amongst those who opposed the Bill, he will withdraw this Bill, which has no Parliamentary or other support from the country to which the Bill is to apply, and will devote the time allocated to the Committee and other stages of the Bill to passing into Law a measure dealing with agriculture in England, for which there is urgent need and widespread support in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does that mean that either England is to have no Agricultural Bill this year, or that we shall be compelled to have an Autumn Session, with
    1886
    all its grave inconveniences, especially to Government Departments, in order to pass it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in connection with the same decision, the four Ulster Unionists who were Members of the Government did not vote in support of the Government Bill, and is there any precedent for that?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: No, but it is very interesting.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question is really one which was debated on the Second Reading, and can hardly be dealt with by question and answer.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Not their abstention.

  IMPERIAL CABINET ORGANISATION.

    CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister what is the present position of the Imperial Cabinet organisation which was created during the War; and whether there are at present any means of constant consultation between the British Cabinet and the representatives of the Dominions on matters of Imperial concern?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There have been no developments of the Imperial Cabinet organisation since the decision which was announced in the Press on the 19th August, 1918, to the effect that the Prime Ministers of the Dominions should have the right to communicate on matters of Cabinet importance direct with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom whenever they see fit to do so, and, further, that each Dominion should have the right to nominate a visiting or resident Minister in London to be a member of the Imperial Cabinet at meetings other than those attended by the Prime Ministers themselves.
    The whole question will be raised at the Imperial Conference which it is proposed to hold next year to consider the re-adjustment of the constitutional relations

    1887
    of the component parts of the Empire. In accordance with the decision arrived at in the summer of 1918, communication is maintained between the Prime Minister and the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, and papers on matters of Imperial concern are forwarded weekly for the information of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions.
    Mr. HURD: May I ask whether it has not been a fact that there is no Cabinet organisation in active and continuous working for the consideration of Imperial matters of mutual concern to us and to the Dominions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a fact. The reason is that the Ministers of the Dominions have not thought suitable to have a representative.

    SIBERIAN BANK.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the negotiations for the sale of the shares in the Siberian Bank owned by the Government have been conducted by the Treasury direct or whether they have been conducted in whole or in part by the Department of Overseas Trade.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The negotiations have been mainly conducted by the Treasury, but the Department of Overseas Trade has also been closely concerned, and the two Departments mentioned have been working in close consultation in the matter.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why the Department of Overseas Trade dropped this matter as soon as it was raised in this House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the fact alleged by my hon. Friend. The Treasury and the Department of Overseas Trade have throughout been in close touch, and I take responsibility for what has been done by the Treasury, but our communications with the Department of Overseas Trade have been maintained all the time.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Treasury has any number of experts in Russian business upon whom it can rely for the purpose of carrying out this transaction to the best advantage and to secure the best value for the Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have no experts in the Treasury who are specially versed in Russian business, but we have taken advice outside the Treasury as well as inside.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    COMPANIES (NEW CAPITAL).
    Mr LINDSAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Board of Inland Revenue are demanding £l per cent. on the new capital of companies, and, if so, will he state the authority under which they are acting?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Companies which desire to anticipate payment of the increased duty which will become due as from 20th April on the passage of the Finance Bill into law are being allowed to do so; but care is taken in all such cases to make sure that the present legal position is clearly understood by the taxpayer. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a printed notice which is displayed in the Companies Registration Offices and which he will see leaves no room for doubt on this point.
    Mr. LINDSAY: May I ask whether it is not the case that 20 years ago Sir Michael Hicks-Beach endeavoured to secure a similar increase on the strength of a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means, and had to abandon the attempt?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know about a precedent of 20 years ago, but my hon. Friend is mistaken in the assumption in which he persists, in spite of the answer I have given, that we are attempting to enforce collection on a Resolution without legal authority. This Resolution was not declared by the House to have that legal authority, and where the payment is being made at the moment it is being made voluntarily. We shall collect it, if it is not made now, when the Act passes into law.

    REDUCTION OF STAFF, LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that he has decided to abolish the Land Value Duties, whether the Department dealing with them is still in existence, and if any steps have been taken to disband the

    1889
    staff or are positions to be found for them in other Departments; what is the total of such staff; what is the monthly outlay in salaries, offices, etc.; and when he expects the work of disbandment to be completed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the brevity which I felt it necessary to impose upon myself in the Budget Statement has caused a widespread misapprehension which I am anxious to remove.
    It has apparently been supposed that the Government, whilst repealing the Land Values Duties, intended to retain the whole staff which had been engaged upon their assessment and collection.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You said so.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not. If my hon. Friend will permit me to read my answer, he will ascertain the facts. The facts are that the staff of the Department, which in August, 1914, numbered 4,882, was reduced in November, 1915, to 1,983, and at the present time has been further reduced to 1,292. Of this staff only a small portion, estimated to cost £6,500 out of a total cost of £468,000, is engaged in work connected with Land Values Duties. It will be disbanded as soon as circumstances permit, the date depending largely upon the extent to which taxpayers claim repayment.
    Hon. Members will see that this is a very different state of things from the impression unfortunately left by my original statement. But I am not content to leave the matter there. Both the Board of Inland Revenue and I desire that the House should be satisfied that no staff is maintained in excess of that required for the discharge of the duties of the Office. I propose, therefore, to invite the Select Committee on National Expenditure to investigate the expenditure of the Department and if they consent full information both as to the duties of the Department and the staff employed will be laid before them.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that the information he has now given is what he stated in his Budget speech?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish my hon. Friend to understand that it is consistent
    1890
    with all that I said in my Budget speech, and is an amplification of it, and that he was incorrect in saying that my Budget statement contradicted what I was now stating.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I suppose I am not allowed to make a personal explanation, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did not say that what he was going to state would be inconsistent with what he said in his Budget speech, but what I said was that what he said in his Budget speech was not what he was now saying?
    Mr. HOGGE: I suppose nothing will be done till the tax is actually repealed by the Finance Bill?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Department will reduce the staff just as fast as it can. It will not retain any staff redundant to the duties it has to perform.
    Mr. HOGGE: What I want to know is that nothing will be done until this House has agreed to the repeal of these duties?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. In the meantime, a staff which has no duties to discharge will not be maintained in idleness until my hon. Friend has an opportunity of raising the question.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Will anything in the reduction proposed affect the valuable assistance given by that Department to the Ministry of Health in acquiring land for housing purposes at a saving of £70 per acre and a total saving of over £1,000,000, to the public?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. The hon. Member has another question on the Paper, to which he will get a full answer, I think, but nothing in my statement will affect the services which the Department is already rendering to other Government Departments or to local authorities.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what work the other members of the staff, representing the difference between £400,000 and £6,000, were engaged upon?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I have had a statement prepared, a very lengthy one. I did not think a mere statement ex cathedrâ, if I may say so, by myself would carry conviction to the minds of a critical House and a less informed public

    1891
    outside, and therefore I am going to ask the assistance of the Select Committee on National Expenditure to give an impartial verdict on the matter.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Why have they kept on a staff if they are not working?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because they have work to do, and that is what I propose to show to the National Expenditure Committee, and if they find that we have clerks for whom there is not work, and valuable work, then they will make a report to the House to that effect. I am quite ready to take their judgment.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the reduction of the duties of the Inland Revenue Valuation Department owing to the repeal of the Land Duties, 1909–10, and in view of the saving of over £1,000,000 to the public effected in the purchase of land by local authorities for housing purposes due to the assistance given to them by the Valuation Department, he can now see his way to extend this assistance to cover the purchase of land by local authorities for all public purposes?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, it is the intention of the Government that the information obtained by the Valuation Department should be available, under proper limitations, for other public authorities, but the determination of the exact extent of the assistance which the Department can render had better await the inquiry by the Select Committee on National Expenditure into the duties and staff of the Department which my right hon. Friend has to-day invited.

    SOLDIERS' ESTATES.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the estate of a soldier serving with the Egyptian Army, and dying during the War is entitled to the same exemption from death duties as the estate of any other soldier dying during the War?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the affirmative.

    PETROL TAX.
    Mr. MANVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the records or
    1892
    estimates in the possession of or available to the Treasury show that the retention of the petrol tax will involve an increase of that tax by at least 100 per cent. in order to raise the money required for roads?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. As my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, stated on 27th April, in his speech on the Budget Resolutions, it has been estimated that if the money required for roads were to be raised by a tax on petrol alone, the existing tax of 6d. per gallon would need to be raised to 1s. 21¼d. per gallon.
    Sir W. J0YNS0N-HICKS: Is that estimating the tax on the present number of motors, or the probable number next year when the tax comes into operation?
    Mr. NEAL: I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would give me notice of that question.

    SPIRITS (HOME CONSUMPTION).
    Mr. MOLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many gallons of Home-made and foreign spirits, respectively, were duty-paid for Home consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1920, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will print the figures asked for in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures referred to:
    The number of gallons of Home-made and imported spirits duty-paid for Home consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1920, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, was as follows:—

    —

    Home-made.

    Imported

    Total.

    Proof galls.

    Proof galls.

    Proof galls.

    England

    12,585,000

    4,772,000

    17,357,000

    Scotland

    3,546,000

    1,099,000

    4,645,000

    Ireland

    1,731,000

    570,000

    2,301,000

    Total

    17,862,000

    6,441,000

    24,303,000

    PRIZE FUND.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the Prize Fund to date; what deduction should be made from this sum for the purpose of the Naval Prize Fund; whether any other deductions or payments have been made from this fund, and, if so, to what amount; and how will the remainder of the fund be allocated?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proceeds of prize are carried to the Supreme Court Prize, etc., Deposit Account (which is not concerned with Colonial Prize Courts) pending their final allocation between the Exchequer and the Naval Prize Fund, which is dependent on the circumstances of capture in each case. The amount standing to the credit of the Deposit Account on 31st March, 1920, was £9,210,155 17s. 6d. £2,083,103 18s. 3d. has already been paid over to the Naval Prize Fund; how much more is due to it cannot be said at the present moment, as all the cases have not yet been brought before the Prize Court, and there are a number of cases which have not been brought before the tribunal established under the Naval Prize Act, 1918. The nature of the payments made from the gross receipts of the Supreme Court Prize, etc., Deposit Account, the total amount of which payments to 31st March, 1920, is £6,407,392 6s. 5d., is shown in House of Commons Return No. 48 of 1920, to which I would again refer my hon. and gallant Friend. All sums not found due to the Naval Prize Fund will be paid into the Exchequer.

    HOTEL PETROGRAD (GOVERNMENT LEASE).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Hotel Petrograd has been acquired by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, for what purpose?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The Hotel Petrograd has been taken on lease by my Department for the purpose of re-housing the Registry of Friendly Societies, which occupied a portion of the British Museum during the War.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a circular has been issued to Members of Parliament stating
    1894
    that this hotel has been permanently acquired? Is that a fact?
    Sir A. MOND: The hotel has been leased. The lease expires in 1951.
    Captain TERRELL: How much was paid for the lease?
    Sir A. MOND: £45,000 was paid for the lease, and the ground rent is £3,850.
    HON. MEMBERS: Economy!

  HOUSING.

    LONDON BUILDINGS AND EXTENSIONS.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Minister of Health the etimated value of buildings and extensions in course of erection in the area covered by the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs other than houses, and also that of houses?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I regret that I have not available the information asked for by the hon. Member.

    BLACK COUNTRY SCHEMES.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Black Country manufacturers are meeting with difficulty in executing their orders be cause of their inability to secure workmen owing to the serious lack of houses; that they are pressing local authorities to proceed with their housing schemes; and whether he can do anything to expedite the activities of those authorities?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am using every endeavour to expedite the building of houses in the district referred to, and I may say that the local authorities in Staffordshire and Warwickshire are showing a good deal of activity. Of the 37 urban authorities in Staffordshire, 24 have already had tenders approved for 6,852 houses, and 21 of these authorities have commenced building, the number of houses on which work had been begun on the 1st April being 673; 36 houses had been completed on that date. In Warwickshire all the 10 urban authorities had obtained tenders which had been approved and 9 authorities had commenced building. Tenders had been approved for 6,237

    1895
    houses, work had been begun on 993 and 195 had been completed.
    I trust that the manufacturers who are pressing for increased accommodation will assist by subscribing liberally to the local bonds to be issued by these local authorities.

    EMPTY HOUSES.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Smethwick corporation are finding it necessary compulsorily to purchase houses and to order the occupation of others that are being kept void for the purposes of sale; and whether he will take steps to remind other local governing bodies of their powers and duty in this respect?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. I am, in suitable cases, recommending local authorities to make use of their powers under the Housing Acts for the acquisition of houses which are, or can reasonably be made, fit as dwellings for the working classes.

    SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (EXPLOSIVES).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what is the total sum of money expended on the maintenance, guarding, and hauling, etc., of material at His Majesty's factory, Penrhyndraeth, since the date upon which the manufacture of explosives ceased; and what sums of money have been realised by the sale of explosives, of plant, and of stores and material respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The expenditure on maintenance, etc., at Penrhyndeudraeth has been £6,406, and the receipts £26,097.
    Mr. H. JONESasked whether, on the sale of 900 out of the total of 1,000 tons of explosives stored at Dinas Mawddwy, the purchaser was required to remove the explosives within any stated period of time; and if any stipulation was made that he should contribute towards the cost of storage and guarding the magazine during the period occupied in clearing the purchased explosives?
    Mr. HOPE: Under the terms of the contract, delivery is to be made f.o.b.
    1896
    Bristol during the year 1920, and, as I stated in the reply to my hon. Friend on the 26th ultimo, the material will be removed from the store at Dinas Mawddwy as quickly as transport and handling facilities allow. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. I should add that the monthly expenditure on this magazine is £61, and that the 900 tons have been sold for £45,000.

    DE KEYSER'S HOTEL.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Attorney-General whether some months ago the House of Lords heard an appeal from the Crown in the case of De Keyser's Hotel; whether they have yet given a verdict; and, if not, has he any information that the verdict will be given before this House is asked to proceed with the Indemnity Bill?
    Sir G. HEWART: The arguments in this very difficult and complicated case were concluded on the 9th day of March last, and Judgment has not yet been delivered. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Can the Attorney-General say whether the House of Lords are working hard at this question?
    Sir G. HEWART: I assume they are always working hard; it would be presumption on my part to express an opinion on their labours.

  IRELAND.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. MOLESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when it is proposed to commence payment of the allowances to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary force as provided by a recent Act of Parliament; when it is proposed to commence payment of the scale of pensions provided in the same Act to such ex-policemen as are entitled to the same; whether the arrears due will be paid in one sum; and whether he will state the cause for the delay in these matters which has taken place?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): As required by Section 4 (2) of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1919, draft orders

    1897
    as to allowances and pensions are at present being considered by the representative bodies of the ranks affected. Upon issue of the order for allowances, payment thereunder will be made immediately, the bulk of the arrears in each case being discharged in one sum. The extent to which any pensions may require revision by reason of an order under the Act must depend on the terms of such order when enacted, but the draft order on this matter, subject to consideration of any representations that may be received, will, it is hoped, become operative at an early date.
    Mr. MOLES: Does that mean that the terms of the Draft will in each case be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act?
    Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir.

    PRISONS SERVICE (PAY).
    Mr. DAVIESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that revised scales of pay for Grade II., Class I., warders in the Irish prisons service, and also for matrons, Classes I. and II., were announced in the official statement issued to the Dublin Press from Dublin Castle on the 2nd October last; that those revised scales were issued to the Press as having received Treasury sanction; that the officers in question have not, up to the present, been put in possession of those new scales; if so, will he now say why payment has been so long delayed; and will he take immediate steps towards having them paid as early as possible, and see that the new scales are made retrospective as from 1st April, 1919, as in the case of all other ranks in the Irish prisons service?
    Mr. HENRY: Further correspondence has been necessary with the Irish Government and the Treasury since the official announcement referred to was made, and as a result of this the revised scales for the matrons, Classes 1 and 2, are being promulgated, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1919. The case of the Class 1, warders, grade 2, is still under consideration, but it is hoped that a decision will be reached at an early date.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR OMNIBUS TRAFFIC.
    Major BIRCHALLasked the Minister of Transport whether a County
    1898
    Council has any power to stop excessive motor omnibus traffic on an old omnibus route; and, if not, whether the Government intend to deal drastically with such traffic at an early date?
    Mr. NEAL: I am advised that a County Council has no power to stop excessive motor omnibus traffic on an old omnibus route. With reference to the second part of the question, it is not the intention of the Government to take any legislative action in connection with this subject, except to impose an adequate tax upon motor omnibuses under the Budget Resolutions, the proceeds of which will be devoted to road maintenance and improvement.

    POLAND.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any information respecting the military advance of the Poles, and whether it is their intention to propose the reference to this matter to the League of Nations under Article 11 of the Covenant?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In reply to the first part of the question, the Government has no information beyond what has appeared in the Press. As to the second part, it has more than once been announced in the House that the Government could give the countries adjoining Russia no advice as to the course they should adopt towards the Soviet Government, and could accept no responsibility for any action they might take. As at present advised, the Government are not prepared to take the action suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that it would not be competent for the Government to move under Article 11?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I did not say that; but my hon. Friend speaks as if this were the beginning of a new war. He is aware there has been no peace between the Polish and Bolshevik forces, and there has been no cessation of hostilities.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no news or information except the Press; are we not in com-

    1899
    munication with our own diplomatic representative in Poland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What I said was that we had no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that Article 11 of the Covenant cannot be applied except before a war has been commenced? Cannot it be applied to hostilities which may be in progress?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly; but if the hon. Gentleman will look at Article 11 he will see that it lays it down that the League of Nations has to take action if they think it would be wise and effectual; this is the development of a war that has been going on.
    Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether, in point of fact, the Article does not apply to any war or any threat of war that takes place at any time, and will not the Government seriously consider what may be the ultimate effect of the unhappy events which are proceeding in Central Europe, and particularly in the State of Poland?
    Sir J. D. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask if His Majesty's Government are the protectors of the Poles or should they not themselves move in this matter?
    Captain S. WILSON: Are not the Poles our Allies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Undoubtedly it is within the power of every Member of the League of Nations to suggest action; but, as I have said, the Government are not prepared to suggest it because the circumstances are not of such a nature as to make them think it their duty to do so.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(at end of Questions): I beg to give notice that, on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night, I shall call attention to the non-presentation to this House of Sir Stuart Samuel's Report on the alleged atrocities in Poland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Mr. ACLAND(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he still intends to move the Closure Reso-
  1900
  lution in regard to the Home Rule Bill which is down on the Paper for to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House knows, the Government were very anxious to avoid the necessity of moving this Resolution, but felt compelled to do so in view of the fact that the Irish Nationalist Members, for reasons which I quite understand, were not able to associate themselves with a general understanding such as worked so successfully in connection with the financial business before Easter. As, however, these Members have publicly announced that they intend to take no part in the further stages of this Bill, and as I know that there is a strong desire among all Members of the House to avoid a guillotine Resolution if possible, the Government have decided not to move any Resolution meantime and to begin consideration of the Bill in Committee on Thursday in the usual way.
  In taking this course I rely with confidence on the support of hon. Members who realise how great the pressure is upon the time of the House of Commons.
  I desire also to express the thanks not only of the Government, but, I am sure, of the House of Commons also, to the Committee who undertook to allocate the time for this Bill.
  Lord R. CECIL: I am very glad to hear the gratifying announcement which my right hon. Friend has made. I would like to know whether it is quite clearly understood that there is no obligation upon anybody in reference to the Home Rule Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not expect any obligation, but I should have thought that the general opinion of the House, as expressed in the Debates before, justify me in the expectation that there will, at all events, be no unnecessary discussion on the Bill.
  The business for to-morrow (Wednesday) will be the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, Report; the Tramways (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, Report; the War Pensions Bill, Second Reading; and other Bills.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMISSION OF STRANGERS).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee, whether his attention has been drawn to a statement, made on Wednesday last on oath, that a dinner was held in the House of Commons recently by a number of gentlemen meeting for commercial purposes, and including several Members of this House, and that the dinner was ordered and paid for by a gentleman who was not a Member of the House of Commons; whether the Regulations permit of such a proceeding; and whether he has been able to ascertain in whose name the dinner was ordered?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: In the absence of the Chairman (Sir J. Agg-Gardner), who is unavoidably detained in Paris, I have been asked to answer this question. The attention of the Committee has been called to the statement, and they have ascertained that the dinner in question was ordered and paid for by a Member of this House. The Regulations certainly do not permit of the proceedings indicated in the question. Only Members and privileged officials are allowed to order and pay for meals in the Dining Rooms of the House of Commons.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the hon and learned Gentleman aware that four Members of Parliament have declared on oath that no business of any sort or kind was discussed at the dinner?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I came across the statement in the papers; but as a Kitchen Committee we could not inquire into that matter. It was only our duty to receive the order, as we did, from the hon. Member, and payment from him. We were not entitled to inquire into anything beyond that.
  Mr. PALMER: In view of the Regulations in the course of the recent criminal trial, I wish to know whether you, Mr. Speaker, would, for the information of new Members, cause to be placed in the Tea Room some statement as to the conditions under which Members may receive and entertain visitors.
  Mr. SPEAKER: My attention was drawn on Friday to the rider to the
  1902
  verdict of the jury in the case of the King v. Hease. I, who am responsible for the admission of strangers to the various parts of the House, have come to the conclusion that the best course is for me to invite the Kitchen Committee, which is a body elected from various-parts of the House and representing the House as a whole, to consider what change, if any, should be made in the Regulations admitting strangers to various parts of the House. I have asked them to consider that matter, and to report to me, and when I receive their Report I shall, of course, put it into effect. If it is necessary to give further notice of any changes in the Regulations, I shall be prepared to do so.
  I think that the general Regulations at present existing are pretty well known, that is to say, during the sittings of the House, in order to take strangers into the Lobby, or the corridors it is necessary to obtain an Order to View, but it is not necessary to obtain an Order to View if it is only desired to take a stranger to the rooms on the Terrace or to the Terrace itself. Of course, when the House is not sitting, strangers may be taken to the various parts of the House when accompanied by a Member. Those are the Regulations which generally obtain, but when I have received the Report of the Kitchen Committee it may be necessary to make some change.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  CHARLES DAVID MURRAY, Esquire, C.M.G., K.C., for the Burgh of Edinburgh (South Division).

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 93.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 93.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BILLS PRESENTED.
  DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL,
  "to regulate the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, and use of opium and other dangerous drugs," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Major Baird; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (BAKEHOUSES) BILL,
  "to prohibit nightwork in bakehouses; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Major Baird; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN BILL,
  "to carry out certain conventions relating to the employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children, and to amend the Law with respect to the employment of Women and Young Persons in factories and workshops," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Major Baird; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 94.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 94.]
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PONTYPRIDD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B) [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Profiteering (Amendment) Bill): Major Barnes, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Bridgeman, Lieut.-Colonel Buchanan, Mr. Charles Edwards, Colonel Greig, Sir Robert Horne, Mr. Mills, Mr. McCurdy, Major Nall, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Wallace, Sir Courtenay Warner, and Lieut.-Colonel Willey.
  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Duplicands of Feu Duties (Scotland) Bill: Mr. Fildes, Mr. Forrest, Captain Hotchkin, Mr. Gange, Major Molson, Mr. Sexton, Major Steel, Mr. Swan, Colonel Penry Williams, and Colonel Yate.
  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Trade Union Ballot Bill): Captain Loseby and Mr. Sidney Robinson; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Dawes and Mr. Joseph Green.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the Provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had added the following Member to the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Major William Murray.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY. [8TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.)
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21 (PROGRESS)
  (Unclassified Services.)

  IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £991,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for certain Salaries of the Imperial War Graves Commission and a Grant in Aid of the Imperial War Graves Commission Fund, formed under Royal Charter, 10th May, 1917."— [Note.—£500,000 has been voted on account.]
  Sir JAMES REMNANT: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £5.
  4.0 P.M.
  I move this reduction not with any idea of making an attack upon the Government, but in accordance with the practice of this House that, where it is desired to call the attention of the House to any particular subject, this is considered the best way in which the views of the House can be taken upon it. The Government that decided that, in the Division which we hope will be taken on this painful and fateful subject, the House shall be left free to vote as it wishes without any interference on the part of the Government Whips. One cannot help thinking that this must command the agreement and approval of the whole House rather than confining to strict party lines the decision in such a matter. The whole subject is extremely painful, and one would rather not have been called upon to debate it in public. I hope that anything I may say will not embitter or hurt the feelings of the bereaved in any way. One would have wished that the Press itself had not attempted to attribute motives to hon. Members, and that the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) had not issued a statement which commences by stating that it has the approval of the
  1930
  War Graves Commission, and which attributes to me—so I read it—a view which is entirely foreign to my thoughts. These statements can do nothing but make mischief in that they try to make out that any opposition to the proposal of the War Graves Commission is based on a favouring of the rich as against the poor. In the presence of death there can be no such question as rich and poor, and I very much regret that that should have been put out as the motive of any opposition that there may be to the proposal of the Commission. I can only speak for myself in this matter, but I am anxious that there should be equality for all, and that the right which is inalienable to every man, the right to do as he likes with his own dead, should not be taken away. Relatives should long treat their own loved ones in their own distinctive way, and I hope the House of Commons will hesitate long before it allows that right to be taken away or any interference with it. The dead are certainly not the property of the State or of any particular regiment; the dead belong to their own relations, and anything that savours of interfering with that right is bound to create opposition among the inhabitants certainly of our own Empire.
  I desire to make two requests to the Government. First, that the relations of the dead should have the right, within properly defined limits, as to size, taste, design, expense, and even of material to be used, to erect what headstones they like as representative of the personality of the individual, and as a personal tribute of affection to their own dead. The second request perhaps is more difficult of accomplishment or to grant. Still, it is a natural request. It is that where it is possible the body itself might be brought home to rest in England. With regard to the first request, the chief objection of which I know is that if you allow relatives to put up their own distinctive headstones, it is liable to create jealousy among the bereaved in that some may not be able to afford the expense to which others have gone. I do not think that contention can be substantiated. If there be one period of one's life when there is less jealousy shown, it is in the face of death when people choose to put up what headstone they like to their own. Supposing there be some who cannot afford to pay the small difference between what the Government propose

  1931
  to allow and the actual cost of the design, I have no hesitation, after my experience of the House of Commons, in saying that they have always shown their sympathy, and still more in all cases of distress during the War, and no one need be afraid or hesitate to plead with the House to provide any small financial assistance necessary. I am quite sure that it is not the money, but it is the feeling of our people that ought to be considered.
  The War Graves Commission say that you must have uniformity in order to produce a sufficiently artistic effect. I doubt if that really be a serious contention. We know that in our village churchyards there is a great want of uniformity, all members of society, whether fortunate or unfortunate, being able to put up what headstones they like, and there in God's Acre beauty still remains and is a joy for ever to those who look upon it. There need be no serious obstacle to granting my first request. I would like to refer once more to a very pathetic feature in regard to these headstones. There are many sad cases of men who have fallen on the field and whose comrades who loved them have there and then fashioned out of the best material which they could get together memorials and have placed them with suitable inscriptions over the graves of those who have fallen. Those memorials are treasured beyond measure by the relations. Surely it is not a great thing to ask, if they conform with the limitations laid down by the War Graves Commission, that they should be allowed to be placed over the graves of the men who have earned them at the hands of their comrades. From what we hear nothing out of uniformity is to be allowed, not so much as flowers or any other adornment. The whole situation is extremely difficult, and it may be that the War Graves Commission have reasons for what they have done and that the difficulties to carrying out the suggestions made may be almost insuperable. If so, and they appear to the House to be absolutely insuperable, then those who long for what they are asking must submit, but, as far as I can find out, the House has never been consulted on this matter. Beyond the Appropriation Bill of last December when the Noble Lord (Lord
  1932
  R. Cecil) introduced the subject, the Government have not had an opportunity of taking the House into their confidence and consulting it. If only one good thing comes of the present Amendment, we shall, free from any ideas of party strife or politics, be able to discuss this question with the Government and decide it once and for all.
  Although one would like to see it done, it is extremely difficult to bring the bodies home. It has been done in some cases, and I am afraid that those few cases where it has been permitted have created a larger amount of the unrest in reference to this matter. I should myself like to see it done and, if possible, this permission granted to the relatives. I do not wish to embarrass the Government, and I hope the Government will not think that I am moving this Amendment in any disagreeable sense. Whether we get what we want, or part of what we want or nothing, I believe that I am right in saying that all feel sincerely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, for the sympathy that he has shown in this matter. They certainly feel under a deep debt of gratitude to the War Graves Commission, and, if I may mention one name it will be that of one who perhaps has had more work than anyone else to do in connection with it—I allude to Major-General Fabian Ware, an old personal friend, who has shown, as everyone who knew him expected he would show, a rare and manly sympathy with those who suffered loss during the War.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I listened with great regret to the complaint which the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir J. Remnant) made against myself in alluding to the paper I have circulated to hon. Members. I confess that I cannot find any justification for that complaint. I put forward in that paper the policy of the Commission, which was equality of treatment in the matter of graves expressed by uniformity of design. For a long time there was on the Table of this House a Motion which was all I had to guide me in drawing up this paper, a Motion in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet, which said:
  "That in the opinion of this House the relatives of those who fell in the War should be allowed to erect monuments of their own choosing."

  1933
  That is a direct negative of the policy settled by the War Graves Commission, and it is on the lines of the division of opinion between those two policies that this discussion will, I imagine, proceed, and that the Division will be taken. I had nothing before me but the Motion that stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet, and in view of that, if I can be accused of misrepresenting him in the use I made of that Motion, or if he feels the slightest personal sense of injury, I can assure him I apologise most sincerely for it. But I do not think any such interpretation can be placed on the paper which I issued.
  Fortunately, the easy medium of the post has relieved me of the necessity of going into a great many facts and arguments which I have embodied in the statement of reasons which I have issued to hon. Members. But there are a few points to which I have not perhaps given due prominence in that statement, and to these I would like to refer now. The object of this Motion, in spite of the somewhat modified terms in which the hon. and gallant Baronet referred to it, is as I understand it, that in addition to the personal details provided for by the Commission's design, in addition to the incised cross or other symbol of faith and the text or inscription chosen by the relatives, in cases where the relatives can bear the expense, the whole monument within the limits of space assigned by the regulations is to be specialised according to their varying tastes, so as to represent some cherished characteristic in life or some peculiar phase of heroism in death appertaining to the one they mourn. I may say also that some propose, and this is a suggestion which has been strongly supported in many quarters, that some special form should be given to the monument to meet the deeply-felt religious sentiments of the relatives. No one could possibly be more reluctant than I am to deprive relatives of anything that can in any way assuage the irreparable sorrow which they will carry to the end of their days. They have had to meet awful trials in this War and they have borne themselves in their darkest hour with a heroism which has seemed to reflect and form a very part of that shown by those whom they mourn. The women: the mothers, the wives, the daughters and sisters of England and of Great Britain! We used to read of the
  1934
  Roman women in this connection. But classic story contains no examples of mingled resignation and pride comparable to that shown by British women in the 20th century of the Christian era. Can I say less of the men—the fathers who have lost their sons, often an only son. I can only say, and I think many hon. Members have felt the same thing, that when one met them for the first time after the blow had fallen, something came into your throat that almost prevented your speaking. And there they have stood, speechless too perhaps, but brave, proud, calm and uncomplaining. It has been wonderful throughout the War, for it is they themselves whose light of life has gone out who seem to have died the death for their country. No, it is no want of sympathy that will lead a single member of this Committee to go into the Lobby, as I hope a large majority will do, to confirm once for all the policy of the Commission—the policy of equality of treatment and uniformity of design. It is rather the natural movement of sympathy into the largest channel, and one where it is most needed, that will do it. I will say a word about this later on.
  I should like to refer for a moment to my own case, because I think it has some significance with regard to the policy of equality of treatment and uniformity of design adopted by the Commission. I approached this subject with an absolutely fresh mind. Having been very little in the House all last year I knew nothing of the discussions that had taken place here, mostly by question and answer across the floor of the House. Therefore, my mind was not only fresh, it was uninformed. I was only the man in the street. It was in that position that I answered the first circular I received from those who are moving this reduction. I answered it, declining to support the movement, and at the same time I wrote a letter to the "Times" which brought me a good deal of information. Then I went to work on the OFFICIAL REPORT, and all the facts I gained from that source confirmed me in the conclusion I had come to. Then I constructed my Paper. All this time I had nothing to do with the Commission. I knew nothing of it; I did not know a single member on it, except one man, the great poet of the Empire, who kindly came down to this House the other day and made a most convincing speech to a meeting of hon. Members. At the

  1935
  time I speak of, however, he was away, and I could not get at him. I cannot help, however, reading one sentence from a letter I received from him a day or two ago. The letter is marked "private," but I do not think he will object to my quoting this sentence, because it applies to the pathetic case of so many relatives, and while coming from him it will touch a chord of sympathy throughout the English-speaking race, that sympathy will cover thousands of other mourners in the same position. The words are these:
  "You see we shall never have any grave to go to. Our boy was missing at Loos. The ground is of course battered and mined past all hope of any trace being recovered. I wish some of the people who are making this trouble realise how more than fortunate they are to have a name on a headstone in a known place."
  That is from the man whose genius and patriotism, and devotion to the needs of others, have largely inspired this great national work. To continue my own story. Desiring that the service I thought I could render to hon. Members should be as complete as possible, I then got into communication with the Commission, and from them I learned many more facts that I have embodied in my statement. I have only told this personal story because I think it is in a measure indicative of public opinion which, so far as I have seen, has not in the face of many somewhat bitter letters on the other side, had adequate expression in the public press.
  In the course of my communications with the Commission two things struck me. One was the infinite consideration and sympathy which—short of abandoning their fundamental principle of equality of treatment—they had shown to all classes of relatives concerned in their pathetic task. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that the Commission has been, or is, animated by a spirit of officialdom or bureaucracy. Secondly, I became aware of the seriously hampering effects on their complicated work created by the atmosphere of doubt now thrown around their fundamental principle. There were three outstanding considerations which influenced me in the conclusion to which I came, and, as I believe they make the widest public appeal, I can leave myself out of the question now—and I am only too glad to do so—and deal with them as the
  1936
  collective view of those who support the policy of equality of treatment and uniformity of design. First, there is what I will call the genius of this War, so far as we were concerned, which has never in history had an opportunity of expressing itself before. That is the solid and united effort, embodying its unity in forces drawn from every island and continent under the British Flag, fused and welded into one, without distinction of race, colour, or creed, fighting, ready to die, and dying for one common cause that they all understood. It is that great union, both in action and in death, that the Commission seeks nobly to commemorate and make perpetual by its policy and design.
  In the second place, there is a peculiar feature about our Army, as I have understood it, and as I have heard it from many officers and from thousands of wounded soldiers with whom I talked during the War, and that feature has a distinct and direct bearing upon the policy of the Commission. While Army rank, of course, is, and always must be, essential to discipline, there was a spirit of brotherhood and comradeship which levelled all ranks and distinctions of another kind, and made our Army in the highest, truest, and best sense a democratic Army. The Commission could not be blind to it.
  In the third place, there is the subject to which my hon. and gallant Friend, who moved this reduction, referred, apparently, with some indignation, and that is the subject which would come under the head of the difference between rich and poor. My hon. Friend said that I had attributed that as the motive of the opposition to the Commission. I never did anything of the kind. I spoke of it as the effect of a change in the policy of the Commission. Whatever is intended— and I have not been able to ascertain what it is that those whom I call the Opposition wish—whatever is intended, there is no doubt that it would take the form of extra embellishment or ornamentation of the monument.
  Mr. TURTON: No.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I will put it in this way. There is no doubt that a monument treated in this special way would stand out amongst, and be more conspicuous than, the rest of the monuments. It is very difficult to estimate

  1937
  exactly what proportion of the monuments would receive this special treatment, but there can be no doubt that the vast majority of them would only have the ordinary monumental stone. I venture to think that it would be worse than a blunder to place, or to leave, in the mind of the vast majority of mourning relatives, this sense of differentiation—to put it in its mildest form—with regard to the graves of those who are just as dear to them and whom they would be just as anxious to honour in the same way as the others, if they only had the means to do so. Among the communications that I received consequent upon my letter to the "Times," there was one which said that this point was introduced as a matter of prejudice. I need not say that that was an unworthy suggestion. The writer went on to say that
  "The poor of this country are too generous to rob their fellow-sufferers of the solace of the individual memorial because they themselves cannot afford to erect one."
  I have not the slightest doubt that the poor of this country would be generous in such a matter. My point is that we, who speak for the nation, ought not so to act that the mourning woman in cottage or tenement, or in a moderate home, often not so well off as the wage-earner, should say to herself, or should have in her heart the thought, even if silent and unexpressed, "My man made the same sacrifice, died the same death, for the same cause as that one. Why should he not have as beautiful a monument? To my mind it is absolutely hateful to think of introducing these differences of means and opportunity into the atmosphere of this great National Memorial.
  There is only one other point upon which I would touch for a moment. I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend, and those who are with him in this matter, what they think the opinion would have been of the officers, because it must never be forgotten that this change would apply in most instances to officers. Do they think that officers who now lie shoulder to shoulder with their men, if they could speak would wish any difference to be made between themselves and the men who followed them so bravely and met a splendid death side by side with them? I can speak for one of them, who died at the mouth of a machine gun, and who lay "there in the grey light of morning
  1938
  amongst his men, as he would have wished to remain, only as their brother and their comrade. Knowing his feeling for his men, and theirs for him, my mind recoils from the idea of expressing by a special monument any difference between him and them. But in this matter the dead speak from the graves where they lie, as I can show by a very remarkable letter which I received from an officer whose experience covers far wider ground than anything I can say. The name of the writer is Colonel H. Lewin, R.A. He sent me a letter which he wrote to the "Times" immediately after mine appeared two months ago. It was not published then, but I am not certain that it has not been published since in another quarter. It is so important that I would beg the Committee to listen to what he says:
  "As one who had the honour to command troops in France throughout the War, and who was at some pains to ascertain their views regarding the decisions of the War Graves Committee, I desire to support strongly every word of the letter on this subject from Mr. Burdett Coutts, M.P., which appeared in your issue of the 23rd instant. It was in the winter of 1917–18, at the conclusion of the long Passchendaele offensive, that the proposals of the War Graves Committee were submitted to units to obtain their views. Drawings of the pro posed gravestones and sketches indicating how it was proposed to lay out the cemeteries were sent out on such a scale that it was possible for all ranks to see and study their effect. In order to obtain a detailed opinion of how the proposals were viewed, I assembled a small committee of all ranks in each unit, whose duty it was to draw attention to the proposals of the Graves Committee, explain them fully, and obtain individual expressions of opinion from every man serving. The replies I received from these committees were remarkable in their unanimity. The uniformity of design was what appealed most strongly to all. That the fellowship of the War should be perpetuated in death by a true fellowship in memorial was the unanimous and emphatic desire of everyone, officer and man. Death, the great leveller of all rank, was very near to those men at the time, and their deliberate and expressed wish was that, as they fell, so they should lie, and their memory be perpetuated in like form throughout. Since the taking of that census of opinion many of those who voted have been laid to rest in France. They lie buried now on the fields where they sealed their royal fellowship of death and sacrifice, and I for one feel that I shall betray their memory if I do not protest to the utmost of my power against any reversal of the decision which they then gave."
  I think the Committee will attach due importance to that letter. But in a matter

  1939
  like this the wishes of the dead themselves lay upon us an imperious and solemn mandate. The Imperial War Graves Commission has dealt faithfully with that mandate, and I think this Committee cannot possibly refuse to carry it out.
  In conclusion I would ask the Committee to look for a moment at the two pictures that arise out of this discussion. On the one hand, a cemetery, we will say, of 50 graves with half-a-dozen of these special monuments standing out conspicuous amongst the rest, or a cemetery of a thousand graves, with 20, 30, 40 of these special monuments equally conspicuous, and all the rest turned into Government stones, called so, placed in that category, by the mere existence of these special monuments. On the other hand, there is the picture that portrays all alike, great and lowly, peer and peasant, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, raised to one supreme level in death by common sacrifice for a common cause. The two pictures apply to 2,000 or 3,000 cemeteries in France and Flanders. I cannot doubt which of the two the Committee will choose.
  Viscount W0LMER: I very deeply feel it unfortunate that this Debate has to take place at all, and I think it might have been avoided had the matter only been brought to the House at an earlier stage when the appointment of the War Graves Commission itself was first made. But since this House has never been consulted on the matter, and since the War Graves Commission has acted in a way, although I know with the truest motives of kindness, humanity and line sentiment, yet have succeeded in arousing very poignant feelings among a large section of the community, it is necessary that this Debate should take place. We have just listened to a very eloquent speech, and the War Graves Commission has also taken very elaborate steps to put their point of view before hon. Members. I listened to my hon. Friend very carefully, and I have carefully studied all the documents, and I find that we come back in defence of the attitude of the War Graves Commission to two points. The first is the obsession that there may be some distinction between rich and poor if you allow any diversity of monuments.
  1940
  They claim equality for all. That is a claim which we who oppose the present policy of the War Graves Commission endorse to the full. We demand equality for all. Uniformity is not and never can be equality. You might as well say it was equality to order that every man should wear boots of number five size, or that everyone should live in a particular style of house. That would not be equality. There is an absolute distinction between uniformity and equality, and, indeed, an antagonism between them, which those who support the attitude of the War Graves Commission almost entirely miss. My hon. Friend who introduced this subject has explained that those who are asking for diversity of monuments entirely agree that there must, of course, be limitation of space, for obvious reasons. We entirely agree that there must be limitation of cost, and we claim that that meets in every way the arguments of my hon. Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). If we say the War Graves Commission fixes a limit of price and guarantees that no man's monument is more costly or more ornate than another man's, you can get absolute equality in that way.
  Then my hon. Friend says the very fact that five or six relatives in a cemetery of 50 graves would select a different form of pattern from the remaining 45 would single those particular graves out and destroy the equality which we all desire. I believe my hon. Friend is entirely wrong in his anticipation. I am absolutely convinced that if you gave liberty to relatives to select their own form of monument, you would not get 10 per cent. choosing diversity, but would get 90 per cent. choosing diversity, and in support of that view I would ask hon. Members to go to any churchyard in the country and study the graves of the humblest and the poorest and see the variety of ornament, the difference of conception, the difference of ideal, and the differences of individuality which exists in every single tombstone erected in the country. It is an absolute mistake to think that the English people like uniformity. It is an absolute mistake to think that if you gave the poor of this country the chance of choosing between what my hon. Friend calls Government stones and a design of their own choice and selection, they would not in nine cases out of ten choose the latter.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I said that these monuments designed by the Commission would be called Government stones if special monuments were allowed.
  Viscount WOLMER: That might be, but my point is that the vast majority of relatives would reject those stones and that only those relatives who liked them would have them and therefore would presumably be contented. If you allow relatives to choose, subject to limitations of space and of cost for their own graves, that which pleases them best surely their neighbours can have and would have no grievance against them. There are no practical difficulties in that matter.
  But there is a further point on which my hon. Friend laid stress, the conception that you have in the graveyards designed by the War Graves Commission a great national Imperial memorial, a great war memorial, a great memorial to the British Army. I entirely agree that such memorials are very fitting, very natural and very necessary after a great war of this sort. By all means have memorials. Make them out of Government stone if you like. Make them uniform. But you have no right to employ, in making those memorials, the bodies of other people's relatives. It is not decent, it is not reasonable, it is not right. A memorial is something to be seen. There will be two classes of people who will visit these graveyards: there will be the idle tourists in the first place, and secondly there will be the bereaved relatives. Are you going to consider the feelings of the bereaved relatives or the artistic susceptibilities of the casual tourist These graveyards are not and cannot be war memorials. Have your war memorials in England or in France or wherever you like and according to what pattern and design you like, so that all can go and admire them or not admire them, as the case may be, but you have no right to take the precious remains of bereaved widows, parents and orphans and build them into a monument which is distasteful and hateful to those relatives, as in many cases it is. There is a terrible confusion of thought—terrible because it is causing so much anguish to the country—which underlies the whole conception of the Imperial War Graves Commission, the idea that you are entitled to take the bodies of heroes from the care of their relatives and build them into
  1942
  a national State memorial. Then my hon. Friend in his most interesting memorandum calls it an Imperial memorial for the freedom of man. What freedom is it if you will not even allow the dead bodies of the people's relatives to be cared for and looked after in the way they like? It is a memorial, not to freedom, but to rigid militarism; not in intention, but in effect.
  5.0 P.M.
  There is another terrible confusion of thought in this conception, and that is that you make gravestones properly uniform. "Uniform gravestones" is surely a contradiction in terms. The object of a gravestone is to distinguish an individual from the surrounding graves. The Commission recognised that by having different lettering and different inscriptions on the gravestones. What difference in principle is there then in having different shape as well as different lettering? If you want by gravestones to perpetuate the individuality of dead men, those gravestones must be individual and they cannot possibly be uniform. Therefore the War Graves Commission has, in the first place, got hold of a wrong conception. They have tried to use the dead bodies of fallen heroes to build them into a national memorial. Then they have set about it in a manner which has undoubtedly caused the greatest anguish to some of the bereaved parents. I must ask the House to bear with me while I read some of the hundreds of letters I have received from bereaved relatives, widows, orphans, fathers and mothers, who feel most terribly and acutely on this subject. The hon. Member for Westminster spoke about the voice of the dead. No doubt it may be the case that some of the men who have died would have liked to be buried in the way that the War Graves Commission has decided.
  Captain BROWN: All of them!
  Viscount WOLMER: How does the hon. Member know? What right has he to say that? I know of the case of a boy who told his mother that he would "hate to be buried like a dog." Those were the words he used. That boy is dead, and that is how he is going to be treated.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not mean treated like a dog, but treated in a way which he thought was to be buried like

  1943
  a dog. Because a large number of men who fought at the front like the pattern of the Imperial War Graves Commission is no argument why you should impose that patter upon those who dislike it. You would grant to the men who fought and died for their country what they would like according to their known wishes with respect to their tombs, but because a particular design happens to agree with your artistic sense or because it happens to meet the artistic sense of some dear friends who have since died, that is no reason why you should impose it upon those who dislike the pattern. As I have said, I know a case where a boy, who was subsequently killed, expressed the greatest disgust at the conception of the Imperial War Graves Commission.
  Mr. HURD: Did he understand it?
  Viscount WOLMER: He had seen the pamphlet which they circulated. I will read a few extracts from the numerous letters I have received on the subject. Here is a letter from a mother:
  "I think the people who keep writing to the papers opposing the wishes of the relatives have got hold of the wrong idea. They none of them seem to realise that no one, as far as I am aware, wishes to make any difference between the graves of the officers and those of the men. I am sure that my son would not wish any difference to be made, but everyone, or nearly everyone, is horrified at the idea that the tombstones should resemble so many milestones."
  Another of my correspondents writes:
  "I have written to the Member for this Division on the subject, but he has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge receipt of the letter. There seems to be very little sympathy from those who have not suffered.
  I should like you to know that I feel very strongly that, as far as possible, the crosses should remain in simplicity, so marking for all time the true comradeship of officers and other ranks which existed, I do know, through the greater part of the regiment."
  Another letter says:
  "The limitation of space, though it would necessitate some regulation as to size, would not affect the form of the memorial. It is a most tyrannical measure, and one that weighs most heavily upon the poor, for you are doubtless aware that those who can afford to do so are evading the decision of the War Graves Commission by purchasing the ground on which the grave of those they love is situated."
  That is a point which I would commend to the hon. Member for Westminster. It
  1944
  is perfectly true that this is happening, and it shows that this policy of the War Graves Commission is making a very real difference between the rich and the poor, which is the very thing we all wish to avoid. Another of my correspondents writes:
  " I feel very deeply in the matter. It seems a most unwarranted and cruel step that the Government is taking, and I should think the nation will greatly resent it."
  Another says:
  "If there is one dissentient voice it should be listened to in a case like this."
  Another writes:
  "I sincerely trust that the strong opinion of those of us who dislike the uniform gravestone approved by the Imperial War Graves Commission may be fully represented. The feeling here in Inverness is strong on the subject."
  Another letter says:
  "It is so natural that we should look on our dead as belonging primarily to us as individuals, and it seems so strange that the Government cannot confine their attentions to those graves only where there are no relations to see to the last sad duties. If the Government were content to do that, there might be a chance of suitable monuments being erected."
  Another letter says:
  "On the 15th ult. I wrote to the War Graves Commission pointing out that the name and rank of my son were wrongly given on the temporary cross erected by them over his grave—the marble cross which we erected in 1915 having been destroyed by enemy fire, and requesting permission to erect a simple stone or marble cross in its place. I received the usual official bureaucratic reply that the War Graves Commission adhere to their original decision as to uniformity and as to the character of the headstone which they propose to erect, with which, of course you are fully acquainted. Their leaflet, dated 4th June, 1919, was also enclosed. Should they adhere to their policy on uniformity as indicated, I do not propose to accept their invitation to add anything to what they choose to put upon the stone, as I do not wish to desecrate my son's memory by countenancing in any way the hideous and unchristian memorials which they propose."
  I do not wish to endorse all the views expressed in the letters I am reading. I am reading them to show how terribly upset these bereaved relatives are. When you have people writing by the score, as anyone who takes a public part in this question must have, you realise the enormous amount of preventable misery that could be avoided if the War Graves Commission would only give a little more

  1945
  latitude in this matter. In another case a mother writes:
  " Our son's grave in the East is a particularly scandalous case, because there is not the slightest necessity to impose any restrictions. The poor boy, Corporal—, dispatch rider, motor cyclist, Signal Corps, contracted typhoid fever on active service and died in Alexandria Military Hospital. He is buried in Chatley Cemetery, and there is a large wooden cross marking the grave erected by his comrades. My husband and I immediately applied to buy the grave and for leave to erect a stone. We were told there was no need for the former but we could erect a stone at any time we liked. … On applying for permission in January, 1919, I received an intimation that it would not be permitted, and I have been treated throughout with the utmost intolerance and high-handed insolence."
  That is a sentiment which I should not like to endorse, because I know how the members of the War Graves Commission have tried to be polite to relatives; but the House must be aware of the very strong way in which these unfortunate relatives feel as to their treatment. Surely if we could avoid, if we could mitigate, if we could diminish the pain and the grief which these people are suffering it is our duty to do so by whatever means we can.
  The hon. Member for Westminster has tried to argue that diversity would mean inequality. I think we have a complete answer to that. We can have limitation of dimensions and limitation of cost, but if you give liberty of choice to parents I am certain that you will see so much diversity in the graveyards that there will be uniformity and diversity as well. It has been said, and I believe Mr. Rudyard Kipling made this point with great effect at a meeting of Members upstairs, that every gravestone has to be erected on concrete, and that if you leave it to the relatives to concrete their own stones you will delay the fixing of the concrete. Surely that is a technical difficulty that can be very easily overcome. You have only to leave a socket in your bed of concrete opposite the grave and the base of the gravestone provided by the relatives must be made to fit into the socket. It would go into that socket as soon as the War Graves Commission have completed their job. It has been argued that any alteration in the proposed plan would cause delay. That, surely, is a point for the relatives themselves. Let them arrange for the manufacture and construction of the gravestone, but, if
  1946
  they cannot get it done so quickly as the Government can, then let the Government do it if they like. That is purely a matter for them to settle. It has been said that you would have to circularise 500,000 relatives. You are circularising them already. The next of kin are being asked to provide the inscription that they would like put on the gravestone. Therefore, it is a matter of the utmost ease to ask them also whether they would like to have the Government pattern or a pattern of their own selection. We are told in the Memorandum of the hon. Member for Westminster that any alteration of the present plan would be breaking faith with the Dominions. I have only one word to say on that, and that is that the Dominions have complete freedom in regard to their own graves, and surely they would not like or desire to dictate to the relatives of English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh soldiers.
  Something has been said about the constitution of the War Graves Commission. I do not desire to say a word against the constitution of that Commission except this: I realise fully the sympathetic manner in which they have tried to act. I realise fully the high ideals which they have had before them, and I also know that two or three members of the Commission are themselves bereaved parents, but I think it is extremely unfortunate that the whole scope of the Commission's activities was not discussed in Parliament before its appointment, and it is exceedingly unfortunate that there is not a single woman upon that Commission. I listened with admiration to the eloquent passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster when he spoke about the women of England. Why are they not represented upon the Commission? Of the hundreds of letters that I have received the greater part of them come from women. Women feel more acutely upon this question than men. That is only natural. Why are the women not represented on the War Graves Commission? We come here, not to ask that relatives should be allowed to display wealth or privilege upon the graves, but only that they may show their love, that love which is itself stronger than death, the only thing that is, that love which makes the churchyard of our countryside beautiful in spite of the uncouthness of many of the tomb-

  1947
  stones or the lack of taste shown in particular ornaments, that love which alone can defy death, which robs man of everything except his bare personality. It is that love which will carry mourners to these graveyards in France, and it is to that love to which we as a nation owe a debt which we never can repay and which we ought in a matter of this sort primarily to consider.
  Mr. ASQUITH: It is very much to be deplored that we should have anything in the nature of a controversial discussion upon this topic. There are some of us, of whom I am one, who have a direct and personal interest in this matter, and I only rise to say in a sentence what I know to be the feelings of large numbers of grieved parents and relatives, as they are my own. These men, be they officers or rank and file, who fell, died with the same courage and the same devotion and for the same cause, and they should have their names and their services perpetuated by the same memorial.
  Colonel BURN: Like my right hon. Friend who has just sat down I, too, deplore that anything of a controversial nature should be said in connection with the work of the Graves Commission. Those who have spoken in favour of the Amendment do not realise fully the great difficulty of the task, the colossal task, which the Commission had before it. Consider, in the first place, the work that has to be done by the responsible officer who is representing the War Office at the present time, because remember that the cemeteries have not been handed over to the Graves Commission yet except a proportion of them, and at the present time the entire work has to be carried out by the War Office representative in France, who has a depleted staff with which to do it, and the work that has been done by that officer and his staff is worthy of all commendation in this House. The work that he has to carry out is to try to concentrate the remains of the dead into a certain number of cemeteries. At the present time the bodies are interred in some 4,000 cemeteries in France and Belgium, and when we realise the necessity in future of preventing overcrowding in these cemeteries, and of seeing that everything is done and kept in proper order so that the dead may be honoured as they should be, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to allow
  1948
  the graves to remain in the 4,000 cemeteries in which they are at present. Concentration is gradually being carried out and the exhumation and reburial have been done with the greatest care. Nothing to hurt any individual could be seen in any of these ceremonies, and the bodies are re-interred in the presence of a chaplain in one of the cemeteries.
  One of my hon. and gallant Friends and I have bean recently in France. We have seen four of the cemeteries that were completed as they all will be in the course of time, and I can imagine nothing more impressive or more restful than those completed cemeteries as they are now, with the stone of remembrance and the cross of sacrifice, in each of these cemeteries, which will last, I should say, for a thousand years; and though all these graves are similar in design, there is grass in between, and there are beautiful flowers in all those graveyards at the present time. The War Graves Commission has a horticultural staff, and it has instituted nurseries in the five different areas into which the burial grounds are divided, and these have started nurseries to grow shrubs and flowers to make these graveyards beautiful, and they will there collect a year's supply, or the best part of a year's supply, of seeds, in order to plant them in the different burial grounds. The British people can materially assist by sending saplings and seeds also to supplement those that are being sown in the cemeteries.
  When we compared those cemeteries with the French communal cemeteries which are all over that part of France, I thought that the comparison was very greatly in favour of the British cemetery, and when you came to look at those cemeteries, and you saw all the level grass with no raised mounds and compared them with the French cemeteries with their headstones of different types and patterns and the raised mounds of earth all over the cemeteries the comparison was very greatly in favour of our cemeteries, and when we went among the graves I ask any hon. Member what could be finer than to see there the rows of graves with those of a general, a private soldier and an unknown soldier, all the same. I have suffered in this War like my right hon. Friend. I know not where my boy's body is. His grave is not known,

  1949
  and whether he is buried or not is more than I can say, because the Germans came into the trenches where he was killed; and when I looked and saw the grave of a general and on either side that of an unknown British soldier, I felt proud to think that my boy may have been one of these unknown British soldiers.
  Difficulties have been set forth by many of the hon. Members who have spoken, and the difficulties of having different headstones are very considerable. The Imperial War Graves Commission is now at a standstill, and what it wants to know is that it may proceed to get all these cemeteries in order in the quickest possible time. As things now stand, I believe it would take some fifteen years before they can all be completed. Remember the difficulties that there are in the way. In the first place, it is a very difficult matter to get a contract for the headstones. I think that I am right in saying that recently a contract has been made for 100,000 headstones. When the Commission has a free hand, and is able to get on unfettered, and knows that it is the wish of the British nation that the work shall be carried out by it, things will advance more quickly, and I think that a worthy memorial of the British nation and the British Empire will be seen when all those cemeteries in France and Flanders are completed. There are difficulties still to be overcome, but when the wish of the people is known that wish will be carried out.
  When my Noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer), who spoke last, read some of the extracts from the letters that had been received, may I say that the experience of everyone of us is not like his. I have had letters from, and, what is more, I have had conversations personally with relatives who have lost their sons or their husbands in the War, and I have not heard one single individual say that he was not delighted that all the graves, whether of a field marshal or of a private soldier, are of similar design, and that those men who died in the same cause lie side by side. I think that it would be ungrateful if we had to go even to a division. I think that it would not be doing honour to our dead, and I am sure that hon. Members in this House and large numbers of people outside would feel very strongly if they thought that the question of the memorials to be put over the
  1950
  bodies of those men who died for their country, it should be a matter of discussion about which this House would have to divide. I think that the sense and feeling of the House will ordain that we shall not have to go into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. THOMAS: I have listened to the various statements of hon. Members as to the number of letters they have received on this subject. If the decision of the War Graves Commission were reversed Members of the House would have some indication of the strong feeling that exists in the country. I go beyond that and I say that we have no right in this House to ignore the wishes of those who have lost loved ones, or to disregard the people who have made the greatest of all sacrifices. No supporter of this Amendment would dare to get up, and say that he was expressing what he believed to be the desire of those who have passed away. It is not possible to interpret the feeling of officers and men. I emphasise "officers," because I refuse to believe that the officer who fought and died in this War desired any different treatment from, or wished to be buried otherwise than side by side with, those who made an equal sacrifice with him. Long before there was any controversy on this question, I had a letter which reflected the opinion of humble people. I visited France many times soon after the death of that brilliant young man, Mr. Raymond Asquith, the son of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith). I saw his grave. Close to, by the fortune of war, there was the grave of his cousin, young Tennant. Between were the graves of humble British soldiers, and as I stood there I thought of the equality that was responsible for that circumstance. I thought of the events that had brought the statesman's son, the peer's son, and the humble British soldier together, all with the same kind of tombstone, each burial place indicated in the same way. I was so struck with it that I put in my notebook the names of the soldiers, and I brought home from the grave the leaves of a humble flower. At Derby, later, I was speaking at a meeting of my constituents, and I told them of the incident. It was reported in the Press. A few days after I received a letter from Leicester, and it was to something like this effect: "I see in the Press that you have been

  1951
  near the grave of Raymond Asquith. I lost my only boy in the War. I am blind and his mother is deaf. I was told by some friends that he is buried near Raymond Asquith, and I wonder whether you could tell me that the grave is well kept." The name was Simon. I looked into my book and I found that was the lad whose name I had put down merely by chance. I replied to my correspondent and said that not only could I say the grave was well kept, but that I had picked a leaf from the grave and that perhaps he would like to have it. I leave Members of this House to imagine the reply I got. You may call it sentiment if you like, but I submit that it is a beautiful sentiment.
  For the magnificent way in which the War Graves Commission have performed their duty no praise can be too high. I have never known anyone who has been privileged to visit France and to see these cemeteries who did not speak with admiration of what had been done. I have always deplored the fact that poverty has prevented many fathers and mothers from visiting France and seeing the graves for themselves. The Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) said he was in favour of a limitation in the cost. Was there any limitation in the sacrifice that these men made? Although I quite understand that the supporters of the Amendment do not desire elaborate memorials, and that they do not wish to differentiate between the rich and the poor, I beg them to realise that that is the only way in which their action will be interpreted by other people. There are hundreds of thousands of poor people in this country who will feel that because they are poor they are deprived of honouring their sons as rich people have done. This Committee has no right to give any such ground for suspicion; no one in this House desires it. I believe it will be a mistake for the Committee to divide on the subject. These men died fighting in a common cause; they made the common sacrifice. They are buried as they desired to be. Let this House do the right thing by giving expression to every one of their wishes.
  Mr. TURTON: I hope the Committee will bear with me while, as far as I can, I put before the Committee the views of parents. I can say most assuredly that I hope the recommendation of the right
  1952
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) will be followed, and that we will for the rest of this Debate approach the subject in the most temperate and calm fashion. Surely to all of us it is regrettable we should be almost obliged to discuss on the floor of the House a matter which is so extremely painful. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) said he did not know what it was for which we parents were asking. I entirely concur with that portion of his statement in which he said that he hoped there would be no more hampering of the work of the War Graves Commission. The House will be unanimous on that point. The matter must be disposed of to-day once and for all, and I hope we shall have a reply from the Secretary of State for War sufficiently satisfactory to justify those of us who have put down an Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. I was glad to hear that the Whips are not to be put on. I agree with the last speaker that in a matter of this sort we ought to avoid a Division. I have put down the Amendment standing in my name in no spirit of revolt against the War Graves Commission. I think every speaker has been unanimous in praise of the courtesy of the Commission. What was called the pathetic task in which they are engaged has been carried out with great consideration, and I wish to give here my personal testimony to the courtesy and the kindness that I received from Sir Fabian Ware when I went to Winchester House to seek information. It is only right that those outside should know that the different officers engaged in this work have never failed to show the utmost consideration to those who, like myself, have gone on a very painful and difficult errand. In answer to the hon. Member for Westminster, let me say that we are asking for nothing that cannot be granted to the humblest and poorest in the land. I would not stand here for one moment to claim any privilege which the poor would not be entitled to share. Is it really suggested that we are asking to be allowed to put up some vulgar obelisk or what the hon. Member called a conspicuous memorial—I suppose a broken column of white granite?
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: The opportunity would be limited, as there is the same space allotted for all the graves.
  Mr. TURTON: The hon. Member used the word "conspicuous," and I did not "understand what he meant. I am obliged to him for his explanation. May I say that I agree with a leading article in one of the papers this morning which emphasised the fact that the men fought on equal terms and that in death they were not divided. There has been throughout equality of sacrifice. It has been our proud boast that there has been no difference between peer and peasant, and that all were ready and willing to give their lives. I should be a traitor to the memory of my son if I attempted here to claim for him any privilege or any right that could not be shared by the humblest private. What is it we are really asking for? We are asking that we should be allowed to put up a cross instead of a stone slab. The hon. Member knows that we are asking for nothing higher, as the space is very limited. We ask for nothing higher than the present stone of three feet six inches, I think. We do not ask for any embellishment, or that it should be in any way conspicuous, but we do claim the right to put up a cross. It is not a question with us of artistic taste or any question of sentiment. If it was a question of taste this Debate need never have taken place, and if it had been a question of sentiment equally this Debate need not have taken place. It goes far deeper than that. It is a question with us of absolute religion. We claim that we should have the right to put a cross over our sons' graves. On Sunday of last week I was in Belgium standing at the graveside of my only son in one of those large cemeteries just outside Poperinghe. I only wish that we could preserve what we have there to-day, those beautiful white simple crosses. I am perfectly well aware that that is an impossibility, but there is something so beautiful in their "Simplicity that one cannot help wishing that it could have been possible for them to have remained. We are asking for uniformity of design by all means, and I am not suggesting that parents should go outside what was originally put on the floor of Winchester House, where we then saw the slab, as I call it, and also the cross. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to assure us that in these large cemeteries we are really going to have uniformity? You have the bodies of French, Belgians, and others, and is it
  1954
  certain that there will be this uniformity of which we hear so much? If you do not have absolute uniformity surely you can give to us that which we understand France is not prepared to agree to at present. But though you have uniformity, why should you also have monotony? Will the Committee try for one moment to realise what it means in one of these large cemeteries, circled round with a stone wall, where I suppose there will probably be some seventeen thousand graves, all of them with headstones of one pattern and of exactly uniform size? Surely it would be more restful to the eye to have here and there a cross instead of the monotony of a countless sea of headstones.
  I think the Secretary of State for War will admit that we parents in one respect have not been unreasonable There are many of us who would have given all we possess if we had been allowed to bring our boys back to England and to put their bodies in the churchyard, where eventually we shall be laid ourselves, and where Sunday after Sunday we could see the grave. We accepted the decision of the War Office that that could not be done, and we have not been unreasonable in that respect. I understand that the War Office intimated to America that the same policy was to be followed with them, and that there was a difficulty of transport, but it only required one letter from the American authorities for permission to be given to have the bodies removed if they so desired. We have not required that our sons' bodies should be brought back to England. Some fathers were fortunate enough, either by influence or otherwise, to have that done. As we have not been unreasonable in that matter, surely we have the right to make an appeal to the Secretary of State. My final appeal is this. He has already intimated that all those who are next-of-kin are being written with regard to what is to be placed upon the headstones. Will he consent to have the further question put to them: "Do you prefer a headstone or do you prefer a cross?" I have reason to believe, and I speak with some authority on the subject, that the next-of-kin, parents or widows, or whoever they may be, if they were asked a question of that sort would reply asking for a cross to the extent of between 30 and 50 per cent. If that number of those vitally interested asked that there should

  1955
  be placed what to them is a matter of religion, namely, a cross over the grave surely the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse that that should be done. If he would give an intimation to that effect, I can assure him, though I can only speak for myself, that that would meet, I believe, the wishes of many parents who I know are in a difficult position over this matter. They want no difference whatever, but that the War Office should provide, as they originally intended to do, a cross. We have been lulled into security by what we were shown at first at Winchester House, where we saw a simple headstone and also a cross, which we understood was to be allowed. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, even now at this eleventh hour, to allow parents to say whether they prefer a cross or a headstone, and if he will give consideration from that point of view, then I would be more than satisfied.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: My only claim to speak is that I have recently had the opportunity of going on behalf of a committee to visit a large number of cemeteries in France. I should like to bear my testimony to the wonderful way in which that work is being carried out, and to the unfailing courtesy, kindness and consideration of those responsible for the work, and which has been so generally acknowledged in this Debate. It seems to me that the strongest argument of those who moved this reduction would be to suggest some alternative design which would be satisfactory; but nobody yet has done so. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says that what is wanted is a simple cross. All these designs have been considered, and I think he must be aware that a simple cross within the limited space could not possibly give sufficient room for the inscription, badge, and name. I think he knows, too, that after very careful consideration this particular form of headstone has been adopted for the reason that it provides for all those things. The hon. Gentleman said also that it is a matter of religion, and that so many feel that they must have a cross upon the graves of those whom they love. What about the old churchyards? What is it that makes them so beautiful? Is it a series of crosses? Hon. Gentleman know that it is the old-fashioned headstone which adds to the natural beauty. I ven-
  1956
  ture to say that fifty or a hundred or three hundred years hence, when these headstones have weathered the time, and have remained, they will be considered far better than what would be, owing to the limitations of space, a flimsy cross that could not possibly stand the wear and tear of time. Something has been said outside in criticism of the work of the War Graves Commission, but I am thankful that we have not heard anything here. Statements have been made as to their work, which I am anxious to contradict. It has been said that bodies have been unnecessarily exhumed. I can assure the Committee that in no case, except for some very urgent and special reason, is a body exhumed. It must be obvious to the most ordinary intelligence, considering the vastness of the work that has to be performed and its complicated nature, that no body would be exhumed unless it were absolutely necessary, and it certainly is not the desire of the Commission to do so.
  It has also been said that the cemeteries are neglected. I admit that the staff is quite inadequate for the work that has to be accomplished, but to say that those engaged in the work are deliberately neglecting it, is a gross libel. I desire to pay the highest tribute to the way in which the work has been carried out. I went out with an open mind and on the condition that I should be absolutely free to express my opinion when I came back, and that was freely granted. I was allowed to see the plans and to go with the other members of the Committee to any cemetery we disired to see, and I can testify to the unmitigated care which I found, and to the desire to consider in every way the feelings of those bereaved parents who are beginning to go out to see the graves of their dead. The question under discussion has been so completely argued that it is not necessary for me to pursue it beyond suggesting that those who are urging this do not realise the vastness of the problem. It is estimated that in any case, even under the scheme of the War Graves Commission, the scheme cannot be completed under 10 or 15 years, and if hon. Gentlemen will think what it would mean, first of all to get these designs executed, then carted there by some means, and eventually deposited, if possible, on the right grave, they will realise how immensely

  1957
  the difficulties would be increased. The Noble Lord said he wanted equality, but not uniformity. I venture to suggest that by this scheme you do not get uniformity, because there is ample opportunity for different inscriptions and forms, and you do get equality.
  I should like to make a few suggestions as regards the present position out in France. I think what is most urgently needed is some improvement in the Information Department. The great difficulty now is that parents are going out, and that they find the greatest difficulty in finding the graves of their dear ones. That is not the fault of anybody out there. There has been a great shortage of staff, and the clerical staff particularly has been very short, and I urgently suggest to this Committee that they should be increased. Already inquiry bureaux are being set up in the principal centres. I think these centres are, if I remember aright, Ypres, Armentières, Arras, Albert, and Amiens, and I suggest that that information should be made known in every post office, so that relatives could go to the post offices for their information, then find out from the Graves Commission to which centre they should apply, and then go to that bureau and get instructions as to how to arrive at the particular cemetery they want. I would suggest that we might employ the great tourist agencies to help us in this matter. The provision of adequate guides and information is badly needed. There are many parents now travelling about the roads trying to find graves that they cannot find, and I am sure a great deal of the difficulty would be got over if some arrangement of that sort could be made. My last suggestion is that the staff of gardeners should be increased. It is not I think, sufficiently known in this country that there is a very large demand and an urgent need for an increased staff of gardeners. It would be a permanent job. They would have the job of looking after the cemeteries, and after all it would be a great labour of love. It is a great opportunity for widows of soldiers who have fallen to take up their residence out there permanently and look after the cemeteries in which the graves exist. At this moment there are 200 urgently wanted, and as the cemeteries go on being taken over the demand for
  1958
  gardeners will increase. I am sorry to trouble the Committee with so many details, but this is a subject of intense interest, and no one in the House, I am sure, whatever his view, would wish to see a real, bitter difference of opinion on this subject. I would suggest finally that those who are critics of this scheme should, instead of writing epigrams to the " Times " newspaper or circulating statements, by pamphlets or otherwise, against the scheme, go out for themselves and see what is happening, and that meanwhile, seeing that this seems to be the only possible scheme, without any alternative, they should use their energies in helping forward what is the only possible scheme in the general interest of equality.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not know that there is anything much to be gained by Continuing this Debate at unnecessary length. I feel that perhaps everything that can be said has already been said, or very nearly so, and therefore I propose to say a very few words to explain why I am a supporter of the Motion made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Lane-Fox) has, if I may venture very respectfully to say so, made a very characteristic speech, that is to say, a speech full of good feeling and good sense, and it increases the difficulty which I should always feel when I find myself differing in opinion from him. I hope he will not think that I take that stand lightly or because I do not give full value, as far as I can, to all that has been said on the other side. He made a good deal at the end of his speech of the practical difficulties. I really do not think, in a matter of this kind, practical difficulties should stand in the way. The issues are so important, the feelings roused are so intense and acute that really, if it is a question of the cemeteries being completed a little earlier or later, I do not think that is a consideration which ought to weigh with the Committee one way or the other in determining a question of this kind. I have had some experience now of the practical difficulties raised by those who, quite rightly and properly, are anxious to avoid a change in their own scheme. They do see always the practical difficulties very much larger than, when the change has been made, turns out to be the case. How often have I

  1959
  heard evidence given in perfect good faith that such-and-such a scheme is practically quite impossible to carry out, and then, when the Committee upstairs has decided in favour of the scheme, it is carried out without the slightest difficulty. I do not think the Committee would be wise to attach too much importance to that argument.
  I hope it is unnecessary for me to repeat—I should have thought it quite unnecessary but for an observation which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas)—that this is not a question as between rich and poor, and is not intended to be. Before I conclude my observations, I think I shall be able to show to the Committee that this is a question really in which the poor take far more interest than the rich, broadly speaking. It is quite true that the rich have great powers of expression and can write more easily to the papers, but I am convinced that this matter, rightly or wrongly, is one which touches the heart of the poorest in this country quite as much as, and, indeed, more than, it does the heart of the rich. My right hon. Friend said that whatever we intended, we should be regarded as urging the case of the rich. I have no doubt that anything that one does in public life is liable to misconstruction but I do not think a man who is afraid of taking the course he thinks right because he is afraid of misconstruction is justified in remaining in public life. I am quite sure that my wish is not to make any distinction between the rich and the poor, that I am as keen and as anxious for equality of treatment as anybody in the House, and I will not be afraid, because it may be said, maliciously or carelessly, that I am actuated by any such motives, of maintaining the view which I have formed in this matter.
  I do not care myself very much about memorials, tombstones, or cemeteries. They do not, in fact, appeal to me very much one way or the other, and I do not take any part in this discussion for my own personal point of view. I have lost relatives, like everybody else, but I should not care really, as far as I am concerned, what memorial was erected over them, though personally the memorials actually suggested do not appeal to me as being those which I
  1960
  should care for; but the matter does appeal to others profoundly and tremendously. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the strength of feeling excited by this question. It is not peculiar to a few people or to a section of the community; it is not peculiar even to this country; all over the world, through-out all history, there has always been this profound sense of attachment to the tombs of those who have died on the part of those who have survived. Therefore, it is really a matter which the Committee must not decide on any light ground, and I am sure they are not going to. They must consider it as one in which their decision, one way or the other, is going either to console or upset people out of all proportion to any reason or apprehension that they might individually be able to give. I feel that there is really at the bottom of this—apart from what I think is an entire misapprehension, namely, the question of equality, in which I do not think there is really any difference of opinion between the two schools of thought—a fundamental difference of opinion. It is expressed very clearly in the pamphlet issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), on page 5, where he says:
  "It is not intended to express only or mainly the personal sorrow of relatives."
  That is what he thinks, and that is what is the foundation of the policy, which I think is a mistake. In the next sentence he says:
  "It is a collective tribute by the Empire and the nation to those who all alike made the same sacrifice, to the same cause, and between whom, therefore, as individuals no distinction of rank, position, or means should be made apparent."
  I entirely agree that no distinction of rank, position or means should be made, either apparent or otherwise, but the real question is, Is it right that this should be a national monument, or, as he puts it, a monument intended to express the personal sorrow of relatives? Is it, in other words, to be a personal thing or a national thing? That is the fundamental difference, and I do not think my hon. Friend disagrees with me in that. Should the individual tombstone put over the individual grave be a national monument or a personal one? Right through the Graves Commission is the conception of a national monument; that has been their

  1961
  governing conception. May I just remind the Committee that that is an entirely novel idea? It has never been done before in the world's history, by any Government, at any time, in any nation, in any place, in any age, in any civilisation. It has never been said that the State has a right to turn the individual memorials to individual persons into a national memorial against the will and against the desire of their relatives. It is an entirely new idea.
  May I remind the Committee that, even in the case of a distinguished person, for whom a statue is voted in this House, it is never done against the will of the relatives or of the person in question? In this case you are going to do something entirely novel, for which no precedent in the world's history can be found. It may be right, but it is an entirely novel thing. It is characteristic of that way of thinking that on this Commission, which was evidently selected with great care, and in many respects is a most admirable Commission, with representatives of the Army, the Navy, official classes, Labour, and a great many representatives of artistic feeling, and so on, there are no women and no representative of any religion. You would naturally have representatives of the great religious bodies on the Commission if you were looking at it from a personal point of view. It is essentially official.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Does the Noble Lord know of the extent to which the representatives of religion have been consulted?
  Lord R. CECIL: I know nothing at all except what is contained in this document. I am merely talking about the Commission itself. I do not want to make the slightest reflection. I am sure they have done their best, and given a great deal of devoted thought to the subject. That is not the point I am making. Go on a little further. You are going to have a national memorial. You do not even allow relatives to plant flowers on the graves.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR and AIR (Mr. Churchill): After the work is completed relatives can plant flowers on the graves.
  Lord R. CECIL: I understand that is all under the control of the Kew
  1962
  authorities; they have a staff of gardeners.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The intention is to allow relatives, who desire it, to plant flowers on the graves.
  Lord R. CECIL: That is an exception to the general principle of which I am very glad. A gentleman writes complaining bitterly because he was not allowed to move his son's body from one of these cemeteries into a French Communal Cemetery. It is the same idea. Personal consideration is, I do not say absolutely wiped out, because certain concessions have been made, but the dominant note is that this is a national memorial and not a personal memorial. Something has been said in the same order of idea about the importance of making these memorials permanent. I cannot help thinking that is a mistaken view. You are going to have them erected very firmly in concrete. Is that sound? Is it really a reasonable thing to consider that they should last for three hundred years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will tell you why. There have been great deeds done, not only by individuals but by armies. The deeds of our armies in France and Flanders are imperishable, but they do not depend on memorials. Their memory remains, and always will remain. It will not depend on whether you fix the stone in concrete or anything of that sort. It is a delusion and a snare that you can affect the memory of deeds like these by anything you do in stone. That is entirely a misapprehension. Then I am told that these memorials are to be beautiful and artistic. I am not going to argue about the question of what is artistic; but one thing is quite certain, and that is that it is a matter which will change with each generation. There is nothing so impermanent as artistic feeling. That which one generation thinks beautiful, the next generation almost always thinks the reverse.
  I come to the real case, as I see it, on the other side. To my mind, the object of a tombstone is really a memorial to the individual. It is so in this case, and it must be so in every case, and I cannot think, when you once admit that, that it is not better, within the limits of practicability, that the people who should chose the memorial are those who were most near to them in affection and relationship.

  1963
  It does not seem to me there is anyone else you can suggest, once you conceive the thing as a memorial to an individual. It has been said with a great deal of force that the dead themselves should be allowed to choose, and the hon. Gentleman who made that point said he had no doubt they would all choose these headstones. But who is really to say what the dead would choose? Is it to be the parents or the comrades in arms?
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Was the Noble Lord in the House when I read the letter showing that the proposals had been widely submitted to troops, and that every care had been taken to ascertain their opinion?
  Lord R. CECIL: That does not prove anything. I am afraid I do not really attach any great importance to this kind of consultation, unless I know how it was carried through. I will undertake to consult anybody and get the proper replies I desire. Assuming it really represented their wishes, even then they can only speak for themselves: they cannot speak for the dead. I think the people who are far more likely to know the wishes of the dead than anyone else are the parents and those who have known them all their lives, who have got that instinct of affection and sympathy which really makes them judge far more closely than anyone else. Let me ask the hon. Member whom he would trust to know his own inmost feelings. Would he trust his colleagues in his profession or his nearest relatives? I have no doubt which answer he would give. Therefore, if it is to be a question of individual memorial, surely it must be those who are nearest and closest to the deceased who shall be given the greatest possible measure of choice. There is one other aspect of a tombstone. It has been throughout regarded by all religious men as a witness to the faith in which the deceased died. It has always been so, and it is obvious that, from the point of view of the religious man, it is merely the beginning of a new life, and it is natural, therefore, that if you are going to put up a memorial to his death you would wish to make it symbolise the religious faith in which he lived. Who is to judge what is the best symbol for his faith? Can you really suggest anybody except those who knew him most intimately, who
  1964
  had the most sympathy with him, and who lived all their lives with him? Surely it must be the relatives as far as possible.
  I come back to this: Is not the real question to be asked in dealing with this question, what is it that the nearest relatives really want? Is there anybody's claim that can be put in front of that? Is there any professional or military conception, any artistic preference, any feeling of fitness that can really and honestly be put against the desires and wishes of the relatives? I cannot think so myself. I hope the Committee will not think I am being didactic, but I cannot bring myself to believe anything else. To me it is incredible to set aside such considerations as those. I cannot say how bitterly it offends every fibre of my being that you should turn round and say to those women who have suffered prodigiously, "No, we take from you what every woman in the land prizes and what she exercises under every other condition." If her son died on the way home, she would be allowed to say exactly how she would have the grave. If he died in hospital, the same. No one would have dreamt of doing otherwise. There would have been a revolt in the country if you had interfered with their wishes. I cannot bring myself to believe it. If the people are to be consulted, I agree there are limitations which you must put in order to avoid offence. You must say that there shall be no ostentation, that no greater expense is to be incurred by one person than another, and that the Government will insist that they shall all be treated alike. I can understand all this, and the conditions as to space. I even understand that a completely free choice may be impossible. I am ready to believe that. I am ready to say that if it be really necessary to limit the choice, let them be given alternative designs from which to choose. That is the best you can do; find out generally what it is they want.
  Does any human being in this Committee doubt that if you sent round such a request and consulted the parents and relatives, if you said to them, "Will you have what the Government chooses for you, or would you rather have a voice in choosing the tombstone for your son, husband, or father, I say can anyone doubt that every single woman would say, 'I would rather have a voice in the matter '" It is, as some hon. Member

  1965
  remarks, a question for the poor. Let them have their choice. The Government ought to pay in either case the same sum, but give them a choice as to the form, spirit, and nature of the design. I have not the slightest doubt of what the reply would be to a request such as I have indicated. For what it is worth I will read to the Committee one little piece of evidence in support of what I am saying, written by a chaplain who had formed a view, generally speaking, in favour of the Government's proposals. He is a Scottish clergyman. He says:
  "I have written to our Member asking him to support your point of view, not because of my own instincts as to the desirability of a uniform memorial for a uniform sacrifice, but in talking it over with various bereaved mothers and widows I find that the prevailing feeling is in favour of their having the right to put up their own monuments."
  That is, I am convinced, the overwhelming feeling. I am quite sure that the Graves Commission ought to take such steps as are right, proper, and possible to deal with that demand, and ought not to be led away by the specious arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Westminster, and so turn these graves into a national memorial, whereas, in truth, they are a memorial to the individual suffering which these women have undergone and a witness to the faith in which those whom they loved died.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I think it is probably the general desire of the Committee that a discussion so painful to all of us should not be unduly prolonged. I, for one, would not have risen but for the fact that I desire, if I may be permitted to do so, to impress one aspect of this matter which has been very little dwelt upon. Like my hon. Friend opposite, I am one of those who will never even have the melancholy consolation of mourning at the grave of my son. The appeal I desire to make is on behalf of those, of whom I think there are some in this Committee, and many thousands outside, that in those cemeteries which will be scattered over the world even we may have some share in the memorial which will be erected to our honoured dead. May I convey what is in my mind by an illustration? A young officer leads his gallant men into a German trench. The Germans evacuate the trench and shell it. The officer and his men are shattered and the trench becomes their tomb. The Germans
  1966
  afterwards re-possess the trench. It is impossible thus to secure individual graves for our boys; but those boys are as much loved by us as any of those who have individual graves, and we would, therefore, without any controversy what ever, appeal to the Commission to see whether it is not possible that in the cemetery nearest where many came to their death there cannot be some memorial where their names are recorded, so that all dying in that locality may have the honour of being recognised by this country? If under the conditions we cannot go and kneel by the side of the individual grave, we can at least go to the memorial where our boys' names will remind us of what they suffered and sacrificed for us. I do not know whether it is possible—
  Mr. CHURCHILL indicated assent.
  Mr. THORNE: I hope it is possible, because it will bring satisfaction to tens of thousands of hearts in this country. May I appeal to my hon. Friend, with whom I feel complete sympathy, not to force this to a Division. A Division on such a subject would harass every one of us. Our men, officers and men alike, on every stricken field have fallen together. In their death they were not divided. Let us, their fathers, not be divided here.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It will certainly be possible to meet the wish which my hon. Friend has just expressed in regard to the memorials of those whose bodies have not been found. The Commission are considering an alternative proceeding— either the one suggested by my hon. Friend of putting up a general memorial in the cemeteries nearest the scene of the fighting on which the names of those who were missing in those operations could be recorded, or, alternatively, choosing a memorial for the regiment with which they fought and inscribing on that general memorial of the regiment the names of all who, wherever they fell, have not had their bodies recovered. I would not prejudge the result of that examination, but in one way or the other that aspect of the case must be fully met.
  I would venture to share the hope expressed by my hon. Friend that, if possible, this harassing Debate may terminate without a Division being necessary. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) has stated with great moderation and

  1967
  appealing force the point of view which he holds so strongly. I must, however, for a moment dwell upon the practical aspect of the case. This is a unique undertaking from the point of view of its size and scale and the conditions under which the work is to be carried out. In France and Flanders alone there are 500,000 graves to be dealt with. The means for making tombstones in this or any other country are limited—local and limited—and they are more or less proportioned to the ordinary rate of mortality. This task which is now entrusted to the Imperial War Graves Commission can only be achieved within a reasonable period of time if standardisation plays a large part in the production of the tombstones. It is not merely a question of standardisation, but of these memorials arriving at the graveyards at the same time so that the work can be immediately undertaken and the graveyard brought into complete existence. Many of these places, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway said, are situated in the desolate war-shattered wildernesses of th Western Front, 10 or 20 miles from the present habitations of men. It is necessary that the working parties engaged on this work shall be fed, housed and maintained in these districts by an elaborate organisation, and it is absolutely necessary that as each cemetery is taken in hand the memorial shall arrive at the right time, and shall not be broken or shattered in transit, so that the work can be completed as speedily as possible.
  Even with this strict standardisation which is being followed, it is calculated that more than ten years will elapse before this task can be completed. If there was to be extra complexity in this task, if, as the Noble Lord suggests, 90 per cent. of relatives were to exercise an independent judgment, and produce independent memorials, you would not get these graveyards finished within the lifetime of the present generation. That would mean that a large number of graves would be left untouched during the time that most of us here are alive, and consequently those whose dear ones are in this position will have suffered really serious injury, more serious, I think, than that suffered by the restrictions on individual choice which it has been found necessary to impose. These practical reasons must be examined in
  1968
  another aspect. It has been suggested that there should be several forms of standardisation of tombstone from which a choice could be made. To that extent no doubt there would be simplification upon that universal freedom of choice which some who have spoken desire. The complications would still be very great. I know that the line of argument which has led the Commission to the adoption of this particular headstone is one which has steadily overcome objection and alternative suggestions in the minds of everyone who has studied the subject. It is perfectly true that more written matter can be contained within the limits of space allowed on a stone of this shape than on any other form of stone which can be devised. It is perfectly true that this particular form is more durable and more likely to survive the ravages of time than any other form that can be devised. I was at first very anxious to lend any influence I might possess with the Committee in the direction of creating a cruciform headstone as an alternative, but I was convinced by further study that really this was impracticable. Either the stone so finished would cost more than the present uniform stone, or else it would be of a flimsy character which would, in a few years, be defaced by time After all, the religious faith of every soldier or officer is to be denoted on the stone by the symbol of his creed, and where reason to the contrary does not appear, the cross will be universal on every stone. The incised cross is far more ancient than the cruciform headstone. No argument can be maintained which says that there is any particular religious sanctity about the cruciform headstone which is denied to the incised or embossed cross. If you accept the conditions of equality of treatment, which no one here has disputed, and which all agree should guide us, if those conditions of equality, of space and of cost are at once admitted, I do not believe it is physically possible, within those limitations, to design any satisfactory practical alternative to the stone which the Commission have adopted.
  There is, however, another aspect, and that is permanence and durability. If a variety of types were permitted there would be great varieties of durability and great variation, and part of the graveyard would be falling into disrepair while other portions remained intact.

  1969
  That, I am sure, would be regrettable, and would conflict with the principle of equlity which has animated the Commission. My Noble Friend, in his thoughtful arguments, even seemed to challenge the propriety of aiming at an element of permanence, and he said that the great deeds of history did not depend upon memorials of stone or brass in order to remain in the minds of subsequent generations. That is quite true. We do not think that the work of the Imperial War Graves Commission will be the sole memorial of the deeds done by our armies in the great War. The Imperial War Graves Commission have a definite task, and they must be judged by how they fulfil that task. These memorials which they are endeavouring to set up do aim at permanency, as far as human effort and human power to foresee the future exists. There is no doubt whatever that the Commission have aimed at permanency or durability through long periods of time. Is that wrong? Does that conflict with any other conception, historic or religious? It is all we have in our power to do. It is little enough, but that is the least we can do. We can give these soldiers who have perished in the War memorials which will last for hundreds of years. Does that add to the pain of human being or can it take away in any degree from the consolation of human being? Is it not, on the other hand, in the feeling of ordinary people in this country more likely to be a form of comfort and of consolation to them to know that the humblest soldier who has fallen will, as far as we can foresee, and as the result of the policy which this nation has embarked upon, be remembered; his name, his regiment, the place where he fell will be remembered through periods so remote that probably all the other memorials of this time will have faded and vanished away.
  Why should we not have respectful regard to this idea of permanency which underlies the work of the Commission. There is nothing wrong or irreligious about it. It is a mere effort of reverence to do what little lies in our power to express those deep sentiments which we hold and which we feel. I should like to remind the House that these graveyards will be different from all other graveyards by their simplicity and their symmetry, and I think there is some justification for our considering the collective and the cor-
  1970
  porate aspect of the memorials, as we also consider the collective and corporate aspect of the sacrifice. If you visit the churchyards of this country you will see that there are very few memorials more than 100 or 150 years old. Unless you visit our cathedrals it is only under very extraordinary circumstances that you come across a tomb which dates back to the Stuarts or the Tudors, and only 300 or 400 years separate us from that period. In the process of time, as the frailer memorials moulder, the ground is cleared and new stones are erected once the old ones have been removed, and so in the short time of a few centuries most memorials have probably disappeared altogether.
  The cemeteries which are going to be erected to the British dead on all the battlefields in all the theatres of war, will be entirely different from the ordinary cemeteries which mark the resting place of those who pass out in the common flow of human fate from year to year. They will be supported and sustained by the wealth of this great nation and Empire, as long as we remain a nation and an Empire, and there is no reason at all why, in periods as remote from our own as we ourselves are from the Tudors, the graveyards in France of this Great War, shall not remain an abiding and supreme memorial to the efforts and the glory of the British Army, and the sacrifices made in that great cause. Personally, I believe, from what I have heard, that nearly all who have been to see these cemeteries have been profoundly impressed by their sense of beauty, of repose, and of dignity, and few have come away from them without a feeling of reverence and of comfort. To suggest that there has been any want of religious feeling in those who have undertaken this work, is altogether wrong. A Cross of Sacrifice will be in every cemetery, and the religious feeling of every creed, so far as is humanly possible, has been studied with the utmost care.
  I have heard it said that the stone of remembrance is a meaningless symbol, not possessing any Christian significance. The stone of remembrance, however, is part of the effort of the Commission to secure a permanent memorial. I have been speaking about periods of 200 or 300 years ago, which, after all, we may make arrangements for as far as we can, but these great stones of which I speak

  1971
  are of Portland stone, weighing about 10 tons, with a common inscription, "Their name liveth for evermore," and there will be 1,500 or 2,000 of them on the plains of France alone, and these stones will certainly be in existence 2,000 or 3,000 years hence. We know the mutability of human arrangements, but even if our language, our institutions, and our Empire all have faded from the memory of man, these great stones will still preserve the memory of a common purpose pursued by a great nation in the remote past, and will undoubtedly excite the wonder and the reverence of a future age.
  I realise altogether that no conception of this task pushed to its extreme brings us to any other conclusion than the impotence of man. Even when 200 or 300 years or 2,000 or 3,000 years have passed, one sees that in the end the all-effacing hand of Time must wipe out every purely human effort, but so far as the Commission is concerned, they have believed in this idea of testifying, so far as they can, in stone to the memory of the deeds that have been done and the sacrifices that have been made, and this may bring a measure of comfort and consolation to many of those who have lost their dear ones. Certainly, it is a conception which in no way excludes those spiritual and religious significances which are attached to the life and action of human beings.
  I trust and hope that without asking for too much or too great a refinement in a task of such magnitude and such difficulty, the House, as a whole, will support the policy and the scheme which the Commission have so patiently and laboriously evolved. I have a feeling, after having listened to this Debate, that they have judged and rightly interpreted public opinion. I am sure that they have judged rightly in interpreting the soldierly opinion, and I believe that they have judged rightly in interpreting what is called democratic opinion. If it be true that they have interpreted the prevailing general sense and wish of the community, I do trust that they may be authorised to go on with their scheme free from any sense of uncertainty, and that those who cannot agree with it, and do not like it, may feel that they themselves have been called upon to make only one further sacrifice amongst the
  1972
  7. 0 p.m.
  many great ones they have made already. I trust that the Committee, in coming to their decision, will bear in mind the very grave practical inconvenience that will be caused here and throughout the Dominions if any action is taken which would paralyse or overturn the whole scheme, on which action is already. proceeding. I venture to interpret the sense of the House by making a final appeal that as this case has been argued so fully, we shall, if possible, however painful it may be to individuals, decide this matter in the sense of the general wish, without indication of division, or sentiment, or views.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Will the Committee allow me to say that with the consent of hon. Members who have supported and would support the Amendment I have had the honour to move, we have agreed we will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman? I do not, therefore, propose to divide the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question then will be, "That the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn."
  Lord R. CECIL: No, not withdrawn. Speaking for some interested outside, I am sure many of them feel so deeply that there is no question of its being settled; they will go on fighting for this cause.
  Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £990,995, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [22ND APRIL].
  CLASS II.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,899,862, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, a Grant in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants in Aid; of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: Before we agree to this Vote, I think we should gather from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture a little more information as to the research work for which he is asking a very formidable sum in this Vote. We do not criticise the amount, because, during the twelve years I have been in this House and have heard this Vote called in question, I believe I am right in saying that on every single occasion we have complained of the smallness of the sum asked for by the Minister of Agriculture as compared with the amount voted for similar work in many other countries not of such importance in regard to agriculture. Particularly, I wish to gather information as to a disease which is sweeping the gardens of this country and is rather gathering ground in the fields, and that is the wart disease in potatoes. The other day we were told in the newspapers that the gentleman who carried on the great experimental station at Ormskirk had suddenly died. It seems a great pity that in connection with a disease like this, which has been creeping on this country little by little, there is only one experimental station, so far as I know, in this country. When the Board of Agriculture twelve years ago was cross-examined on this question, I remember perfectly well being jeered at for bringing it up. I was told it was only a disease of a passing character due to climatic conditions. But little by little the disease has grown. The Board of Agriculture took hardly any notice of it, but experimental stations were started with private means. There were, even in my own county, experiments carried on which brought out, first of all, that there were immune varieties of potatoes. The experimental stations were closed down because the Board of Agriculture would not take sufficient interest in the matter. What we want to know is, what is going to happen to the experimental station at Ormskirk? Who is going to be put in charge of it? Does the Minister intend to utilise other places in the United Kingdom for carrying on these experiments? We want to know further what new experiments are going to be carried out? It is
    1974
    of absolutely vital importance that this should be done, because it has been found that, although you have these immune varieties of potatoes, it does not follow that they remain immune, and it is necessary to go on creating new varieties by crossing present varieties with a view to preventing this disease spreading. I hope we shall be given a more satisfactory reply than we had on the last occasion in regard to a disease that may prove even more serious in its character than it is to-day.
    I pass from that to another research which I think the country is much interested in. It is only right that the country and that this House should know what is going to be done on behalf of the National Poultry Institution, and whether the research work advocated by the National Poultry Council is to be carried on. During the War we knew, to our cost, how poultry and eggs rose in price, and we knew the reason was that the great supply countries failed to give us what we most needed. On the other hand, we are perfectly well aware that the more poultry we breed the greater will be the egg supply of this country, which could be made very nearly self-supporting if only more were done to educate the people. We are told there is going to be an institute established for doing this. What I want to know is whether here, again, as in the case of the wart disease, experimental stations are to be shut down in some places and started in others? Are you going to do away with that great experimental station, the Harper-Adams Agricultural College in Shropshire? If you do, you will have to start over again from the beginning, and if you move to Methwold, in Norfolk, as suggested, I venture to assert you will go to a place to which the public will never go, because it is one of the most inaccessible spots in Norfolk. The Harper-Adams Agricultural College in Shropshire has been reported as a most successful institution, carried on with great skill and at great cost. Why is it to be changed? We all know perfectly well that the National Poultry Council are asking for more re-search in the matter. The old maxim was that you should grow two blades of grass where one grew before, and we say that, by means of the research which we advocate, which will enable us to get the best variety of fowl, we may produce 50 eggs where only one was produced previously. We want research work in

    1975
    regard to the breed so as to get more birds on the ground. We want research work into the matter of incubation, which is likewise of great importance. We also want research into the question of food for poultry and into the manner in which that food should be given to the birds. We want, indeed, feeding experiments on a big scale. That has been called for by the Poultry Council, and I think it may be found to be an important means of reducing the cost of living. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Vote will give us a good deal of information on this subject. I had the pleasure of telling him that I was going to bring it up. I was asked by a very influential member of the National Poultry Council to do so, and I do it with the greatest pleasure, because I think we are very far behind in regard to our knowledge of poultry keeping.
    I will carry my questions with regard to research from the poultry-yard to the stockyard. We never seem to be able to gather information from the Ministry of Agriculture except on those few chances that we have in this House of putting direct questions to the Minister in charge. We listened to a very able speech from the right hon. Gentleman when the Vote first came on, in which he dealt with many questions, but he never touched on the question of the Cattle Testing Station, which is of the greatest importance from the point of view of our highest grades of live stock, which are in such demand from foreign countries. A great deal of money has been spent on this station. What has been the result? The animals are sent from farms where they are carefully watched and kept under supervision for a considerable time. What diseases have been found, and how many animals have passed through the station? That would give us a good idea of the number of animals that are being exported from our best herds. More important is the question of who is in charge there. I know that the Minister will say it is Sir Stewart Stockman, who is the Veterinary Officer. He is the supreme head, but we want to know who is actually in charge of this station, where are the reports that are made as to its work, and can we have more information thereon? There is another part of the veterinary work about which we want to know, namely, the Veterinary Laboratory. A wonderful
    1976
    work is going on there in the production of the sera for inoculation against disease, and especially against epizootic abortion in cows. At isolated places in this country, small associations have been formed for inoculating animals in the district. We have had one in North Shropshire, and I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for North Shropshire has just walked out, because he would probably have been interested to hear what I was going to tell him. The result of that inoculation has been so successful that on many farms where this abortion was rampant, and for which considerably less rent was obtainable on that account, now, through the use of the serum supplied by the Ministry from the Veterinary Laboratory, the cases of abortion, instead of being about one in six, have come down, on a large number of farms, to only one in sixty. I think it will be agreed that that is a very good result. Why cannot we hear more about this laboratory and the work it is carrying out, why is it not more advertised, and why are the Ministry of Agriculture not blowing their own trumpets a little more? We have a gentleman now who is perfectly able to do that, and we are going to give him a chance of doing it.
    I will only ask him one more question. I want him to tell us a little more of what is being done to counteract the extraordinary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease that are occurring in different parts of the country. Farmers are not satisfied with the Ministry on this question. It deeply concerns them, and they feel that the Ministry are not playing quite the right tune with regard to their experimental work in trying to find out what is going on. The other day they created a Committee, and they chose several gentlemen well known in the world of science, although some of them have never been heard of by the practical agriculturist. We have these scientific gentlemen in the form of a Committee, but we never hear what they are deliberating about, or even if they are doing anything at all. We do know that there is not one practical agriculturist on that Committee, and the consequence will be that when it reports, its report will be so scientific that the ordinary practical agriculturist will look upon it with disgust, and will hardly believe what is written in it. I think the money would have been better spent if with those scientific gentlemen there were a practical farmer—one

    1977
    who has had the disease on his farm, and has gone through the racket of having his cattle destroyed in consequence. All that we know is that outbreaks occur; we are not told if the Ministry of Agriculture ever find out anything—whether, for instance, the disease has been brought over on soldiers' boots, or by a dog in an aeroplane, or through imported food, or anything of that kind. All we are told is that the Ministry have drawn a ring, and have closed the markets and slaughtered a large number of cattle. The time is coming when the agriculturists of the country must be taken into the confidence of the Ministry of Agriculture, and when a vote like this is put forward it is only right and fair that we should demand to know what is going on in this direction. There are several research matters of importance that I have not touched upon, but when reading through this Vote the other day I came across this:

    "Miscellaneous inquiries, Experiments, etc., conducted by or on behalf of the Ministry

    £1,500."

    What is that £1,500 for? If it is to be used as a little pocket-money for anything that comes along, I would ask that a second experimental station should be immediately started for wart disease, so that this disease, which I think is more serious than any other that occurs in our food-bearing plants, may be attacked in a serious way. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman winds up the Debate he will be able to give us information on the subjects about which I have asked, because I believe that by doing so he will be satisfying a considerable amount of criticism that is going about the country at the present time.
    Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has pressed the Ministry to give us more information with regard to research, and I join with him in thinking that there is no more valuable side of the Ministry's activities. He has done a public service in bringing it so prominently before the House. In regard to this matter, I think that the Ministry, so far as they can, should endeavour to enlist and elicit the confidence and interest of the agriculturists themselves. The difficulty in these matters has been too much that the information given has been far above the head of the practical agriculturist, and that he is not able to understand it, though I know how difficult it is
    1978
    to get men who are competent both to conduct scientific research and also to give the results of their researches to the practical agriculturists of the country. I congratulate the Ministry on having at any rate made a commencement in this very important matter, and also on having dealt so promptly and drastically with disease. The question of rabies was a very acute one a year ago in the West of England, but I am glad to say that rabies has now been extinguished there, and the Muzzling Order, with all its inconveniences, has gone. We have had attacks of foot-and-mouth disease there, and here again I would re-echo what my hon. Friend opposite has said. Cannot we be given more information as regards the origin of this disease? It comes down in the middle of a district which, apparently, has no communication with the outside world; it is stamped out at great expense, and we know nothing more about it. If the right hon. Gentleman could give us some information on that, I should be very much obliged.
    I want to make one or two criticisms, which I hope my right hon. Friend will accept in the part in which they are made. The old Board of Agriculture has been turned into a Ministry. I do not know what the exact advantage is, except that the name is rather more high-sounding, but I observe that in regard to the departmental staff there has been a very large increase. I make no apology for calling attention to these increases in staffs of Government Departments, because I believe that, before the country can tackle the question of economy, it must begin with Government Departments. I observe that the Board of Agriculture in 1913–14, the year before the War, spent in salaries—apart from research work, and simply on salaries in Whitehall—just £121,000. This year the Estimate is £450,000—nearly three times as much. I am very dubious as to the benefit the country will derive from this large accretion to the Government servants. The right hon. Gentleman talked of slippered limpets. Apparently there are still some slippered limpets left in the Government Departments. I understand the Ministry has ground them up to be used as poultry food. I wish him all success in the Government Departments. He told us the Ministry was engaged in the constructive development of agri-

    1979
    culture, whatever that may mean. There, again, I am a very old-fashioned person. I do not believe you are really going to make farming or agriculture prosperous or profitable by endeavouring to cultivate the land from Whitehall. Farming from Whitehall is a poor business. Over and over again in the old days we were told by the gentlemen in Fleet Street how to cultivate the land. I did not much believe in the Fleet Street farmer, and I do not much believe in the Whitehall farmer, whether he is in the Ministry of Agriculture or elsewhere, and I do not think, going back over a few years, that any agricultural system has stood the test so well as our own during the dark years of depression that existed between 1880 and 1900.
    I want to ask my right hon. Friend a few questions about the control of agriculture and the orders which are going about. The food supply is going to be a matter of grave and anxious concern. I do not think anyone realises how dependent we are upon foreign production for the supply of our food. My hon. Friends had a May Day demonstration in London, but all the demonstrations and all the resolutions and all the oratory will not deprive us of being dependent upon the foreign farmer for a large amount of the food that we consume. Next year, unless one is gravely mistaken, the wheat supply of the world will be very short, and there will be very considerable difficulty in supplying the world. At present the price of the loaf is camouflaged, so to speak, by the Government subsidy. I do not know how long that will go on, but I am informed that if the loaf were sold at its proper price, without the Government subsidy, it would be something like 1s. 4d. If we are to have agricultural progress and agricultural production we must have a certain amount of security. You cannot have this security with all the changes and orders and controls which are going about. If you want wheat grown in this country you must be prepared to pay the price for it. There is no escape from that. If wheat is to be grown here you must make it profitable to the farmer to grow it. Unless it is made profitable it will not be grown. There were something like 400,000 acres of wheat less grown in 1919 than in 1918. This year, I believe, the acreage will be down again. Now you are controlling the price of wheat. I
    1980
    am not advocating anything like an increase in the cost of living. To my mind the great overwhelming necessity of this country at present is to reduce the cost of living, which is inflicting intolerable hardship upon the suffering thousands who have not profited by the War. When the Food Controller makes Orders, does he consult the Ministry of Agriculture? Does the Ministry of Agriculture agree with all the dictums and Orders that he issues? The Food Controller may control, but before you can control the price of any article you must produce the article, and the Ministry of Agriculture is the authority who is responsible for food production. I am rather wondering whether Government Departments act in a kind of water-tight bulk-heads, whether they ever consult one another, because I cannot believe that some of the Orders which have been issued lately can have had the assent of the Ministry of Agriculture. I ask this as a matter of curiosity and for information I am wondering whether the Board of Agriculture agreed with this recommendation. The other day there was a scarcity of potatoes. Down comes the Food Controller and fixes his price. I do not object to the price being fixed, but we have to remember that if you fix a controlled price you will be perpetuating an artificial scarcity. If you had let the farmers have the full price they would have planted a larger acreage of potatoes. Instead of that, the Food Controller, I presume with the consent of the Ministry, fixed a price. The farmers say, "We will not put in potatoes." Therefore what we are really doing is to ensure scarcity for next year, and scarcity means dearness.
    There is another school of thought which says that the State must take over all the land—that it must be farmed from Whitehall. If you interfere with the individual initiative and enterprise of the farmers, this country will grow far more thistles than cabbages. It will be a fine country for asses, for I understand donkeys thrive on thistles. The right hon. Gentleman told us he wished to increase the arable area of the country. I quite agree with him. He told us that more milk could be produced on a given area of arable land than on grass land. Again I agree. But there is another subject which is of vital importance on this question of arable land and that is labour. Agriculturists want to know with some

    1981
    certainty what is the labour policy of the Government. I know it is a delicate matter, but it is essential that the Minister should make his voice heard in the councils of the Government when dealing with this vitally important subject. The wages of agricultural labourers have been low—before the War far lower than ever they ought to be. They have been increased lately, and rightly so. The farmers can well afford to pay the increased wages, but they will not pay them unless they are earned. They cannot. An answer was given yesterday as to the intentions of the Government with regard to labour and the Ministry of Labour. Has the Ministry of Agriculture made any representations to the Ministry of Labour about this question of agricultural hours?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Oh, yes.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Does the Minister of Labour take any notice of them? I understand there is some idea in the mind of the Government that you ought to make the work in the factory the same as the work on a farm. If you are going to try to make the hours on a farm the same as in a factory you must prescribe the weather also. I cannot help thinking that there is great confusion of thought in this matter. Therefore, I want the right hon. Gentleman to impress it upon the Minister that he must not do anything which will interfere with the productive capacity of the land. I hope he is doing it. Assuming that it was made illegal to work more than 48 hours a week and there was a field of corn or hay the food would be wasted if it was left. I want the Minister to use his influence with his colleagues in the Government. There is no more vital subject than that. I quite agree if men work overtime they should be paid for it, but there must be some elasticity in the question of hours on a farm. I hope that will be pressed home upon the Ministry of Labour.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: So far as hours are affected at all, it is not done by the Ministry of Labour, but by the Agricultural Wages Board.
    Mr. LAMBERT: That is true, but I understand the Government is contemplating a new policy. We were told yesterday that it had not been decided
    1982
    whether they could put this in the Bill or not. The right hon. Gentleman should be very careful about that matter. Another matter I wish to advert to is the question of land settlement for soldiers. Everyone of us has the greatest possible sympathy with the ex-soldier who wants to settle on the land. You are endeavouring to do it from Whitehall, through the county councils. I suggest whether you cannot put some little responsibility on the man who wants to be settled. Endeavour to give him some interest in the matter. I would much rather that you should give a sum of money to the man who wants to be settled on the land, because it will be cheaper in the long run and probably more satisfactory to him than the policy which is at present being pursued. The Ministry has practically compelled local authorities to buy a large amount of land. We in Devonshire have something like 3,250 acres now bought and there will be another 5,000 acres which yill come into hand soon. We have not been able to get the labour nor the means to adapt this land for the use of smallholders. The proper buildings are not there. They have to be put up or the present buildings adapted. Does the Ministry of Agriculture discuss matters with the Ministry of Health as regards building?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Then how is it there is such chaotic muddle? I was present at a conference of the county authority the other day and we could not make head or tail of the business. The Ministry of Health is pressing one way and the Ministry of Agriculture is pressing in another way for the erection of these buildings. It is impossible to erect buildings at a reasonable cost if you have two Ministries competing one against the other. That is perfectly hopeless to expect. After listening to the builder, the architect and others we were all in a state of absolute blank as to what was going to be the result. The clerk of the county council told us that a Ministry of Health inspector had been down and his solution for converting these dwellings all over the County of Devon and adapting them for agricultural purposes was that if we could not get the work done locally by the local builders we might bring down a London builder to do it. A London builder? Where is the money coming from? Who

    1983
    is to pay for it? It is easy to say the Government will pay for it. The ratepayers can never undertake anything like the expense of doing it to-day. Is it not possible to get things done a little less extravagantly and a little more quickly? I want to bring in the ex-soldier. If he has a good character, give him a certain amount of money and let him do the work himself. The men cannot pay the rent that will be demanded if you are going to equip these holdings in these extravagant times. You must recollect that if you are going to build upon the plan that the local authority does build upon, it will be quite impossible to obtain an economic rent. Cannot the Ministry of Agriculture persuade the Ministry of Health to adopt a different policy in regard to housing in country villages. In our own parish the inspectors came down and selected a site for six cottages; an excellent site with a beautiful view, but the cottages were to be all in a group. It would be far better to put these cottages in country villages—and here the Ministry of Health can intervene—where the men can get a bit of land attached to the cottage. That will give the woman an interest, and the man will be able to work at home on a small field of two or three acres.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Am I to understand that they are going to build houses in the country villages without any garden?
    Mr LAMBERT: In this case they are being built in a group. There will be a small garden. I am suggesting that instead of building the cottages in a group, it will be far better to put them at a reasonable distance away from each other so that they might have more land, and, of course, in places where the children could get to school. We had certain plans before us the other day and they were examined by practical men on the parish council. There was provision for a beautiful parlour; all on paper. We suggested that we would rather have a pigsty than a parlour.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Is this a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am suggesting that you should intervene and get the Ministry of Health to deal with this question on better lines.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Do you only want a pigsty or a parlour?
    Mr. LAMBERT: If you can have both, by all means, but a pigsty is preferable to a parlour in agricultural districts at the present time. The two Departments should work together. We are all interested in the production of food, and if you can only give these small cultivators a bit of land in connection with their cottages, you can bring together the Ministry of Agriculture's policy and the Ministry of Health's policy. There is also the question of rates. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture are not going to pursue any policy which will increase the rates. There is nothing that is exciting the rural ratepayer so much to-day as rates. We are constantly complaining that we have burdens thrown upon us by the Government. Rates have a very hampering effect upon agriculture and its productivity. No one can erect a cottage by private enterprise without considering the question of rates. Therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will look into this matter and will not impose undue rates upon the local authorities, which the ratepayers very strongly resent. I have tried to put my views frankly, because there is no subject which is more interesting to this country to-day or for the future than the quesion of food producion.
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel BURN: I make no apology for diverting the discussion from agriculture to the fishing industry. I represent a constituency in which there is a fishing community and many people who are interested and employed in the fishing industry. I represent Brixham, which is certainly the hope, or rather the nursery, of trawling. It was the first town that started trawling, and though they rather stand by their antiquated methods, everyone knows that the Brixham fishermen are fine men. They have proved their gallantry not only in the War, but also in bad times on the sea, and they certainly have saved lives year after year. A finer lot of men have never gone on a trawler. The fishing industry is in a somewhat parlous state at the present time, and I do not see how it can ever be put on a proper basis until we have a Minister or someone who is entirely responsible for the fishing industry. At the present time fishing is mixed up with agriculture, and it is only natural that in this country where agriculture is, as it always has been, the first industry, that the Fishery

    1985
    Department should be looked upon as somewhat of a bye-product.
    There are so many persons connected with the fishing industry that someone ought to be responsible for them, and ought to answer questions in relation to the industry. The fishing industry is now mixed up with four different Ministries: the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Health, the Board of Trade and the Admiralty. At the present time no one knows what amount of the Estimates is to go to fisheries alone. The salaries paid to certain representatives of the fishing industry at the Ministry are quite inadequate. We see by the Estimates that there is a third-class collector of statistics who gets £52; a laboratory assistant who gets £75; an assistant analyst who gets £150, plus War bonus of 30 per cent. Then there is a temporary inspector with £270, with six assistants, three at £250 and three at £200, without War bonus. These latter are said to be the outdoor staff, who do most important work, and who must be judged by that work. A taxi-driver can make £12 a week in these days, and a crossing-sweeper can make as much as some of the minor officers in the Fisheries Department. If a man is expected to give his best work, you cannot get that work unless he is adequately paid for it. Apparently the Ministry considers that there has never been any such thing as a great War, and that we are living as in the olden times when prices were very different from what they are to-day. The work cannot be done on these salaries, which are absolutely inadequate.
    The fishing industry is one that concerns us as a nation very deeply. I believe that what I may call the five years' close time on the sea has been very beneficial to the breeding of fish. It was considered that before the War some of our waters were being fished out, but that cannot be said now, for fish can be caught in great quantities. One question that comes before all others is that when the fish is landed the transportation to our inland towns is very defective. At the present time the cost of catching the fish and bringing it to land is inadequately paid for by the price that is got when the fish is brought to shore. That is because hundreds of tons of fish that are brought to shore cannot be transported to our markets inland, and have to be destroyed and used as manure. That is a serious
    1986
    matter in regard to our food supply today. Until we have a Minister who is responsible for fisheries alone we cannot get fair play for the fisherman. There are many matters which ought to be taken up and ought to be settled defininitely by the Ministry, but at the present time they belong to some other Department, or they are not anyone's child. There is the policing of the deep sea and inshore fishing grounds; the disposal of fishing vessels to be returned to the industry from the Admiralty; the manning of the fishing vessels, and the dealing with wrecks and clearing of fishing grounds. In Devonshire the fishermen have suffered very severely from the wrecks sunk by enemy action off our shores and in the best fishing grounds, and the Admiralty before the War were trying experiments regarding certain explosives and sank an old hull in the best fishing ground. I talked to the Admiralty for some time before the War and eventually I got a gas buoy placed to mark this wreck, but not before much gear had been lost, because the men trawl there and in the short days of the winter, when much of their work is done in the dark, it was impossible until this gas buoy was placed there to see where this wreck was concealed, and several of the boats lost their gear. That all means money, and to-day the cost is far greater than it was before the War. The gas buoy was removed from this wreck at the commencement of the War, and during the War there was nothing to be said. It was perfectly right that all marks should be removed. But since the War that gas buoy has not been replaced, and to-day we have a repetition of the old grievance of gear being lost there. No steps have been taken up to the present by the Admiralty to remove or blow up, as may be considered best, the wrecks that are lying off Berry Head and the channel of the Devon coast.
    The Board of Trade is another Ministry that has a large number of functions which affect the industry and which ought to be transferred to a Minister responsible for the fisheries. These functions include the survey and registration of fishing vessels, the granting of certificates to skippers and second hands, the signing on of crews, discipline, and the settlement of disputes, fishing harbours and docks,

    1987
    wrecks and the salvage of fishing vessels, casualties, the regulation of sealing and whaling, the prosecution of offenders against international or municipal fishing laws, and the regulations as to boarding fish at sea, rewards for life saving by fishermen, administration of international fishery conventions, life saving appliances at sea, and apprenticeship regulations. Those are all important matters and should be in charge of the Ministry of Fisheries. Most important of all in these days is the Ministry of Transport in connection with the fishing industry, because until a system is organised by which fish caught can be transported to the markets at a fair price, the fishing industry will never be secure and the fish will be wasted.
    Then the Ministry of Health has certain duties to perform with regard to the fisheries which were vested in the local board. That is to say, the control of pollution in the sea, estuaries and rivers, and the obstruction and storage of waters, weirs, etc., for weirs certainly do make an obstruction as they prevent the fish from getting up the rivers. Then shellfish regulations, and responsibility for the sanitary regulations and control of wet, dry and fried fish shops, and certainly that is very necessary in these days. These functions ought all to be transferred from these different Departments. This is not asking for more money at present, for we all know that economy is the order of the day, and the Treasury naturally closes its doors to an appeal for money. But I believe that what would be saved from the Agricultural Department by transferring these powers to a Ministry for Fisheries would pay for all that we ask to be done, or, if there was any question of a grant, that it would be a very small one. A Fisheries Council Bill was brought forward, but that does not find favour with those who are interested in fishing, because the council is not considered to be sufficiently representative—
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Bill is passed.
    Colonel BURN: I did not know that. That was because they considered that it was so useless and so unrepresentative that they scorned it. In making this appeal to the Government we feel that we have got a good case, because in this country more than in any other the actual
    1988
    development of the fishing has not been anything approaching what it ought to be. I am not complaining about the action of the Minister in his dual capacity. I am certain that he has got more than he wants to attend to the necessities of agriculture, and it is not conceivable that he would have sufficient time to give to the fishing industry. I believe that if this is only undertaken, and undertaken in the proper spirit, the fishing industry could be developed very largely. The matter should be taken up and taken up now, because summer is coming, and this question of transport is more than ever vitally necessary. When the hot weather comes the fish must be transported at once, or else it will all have to be destroyed. Last week we had time only for a very short discussion of the Fisheries Vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) then set forth what he considered were the great grievances of the industry, and though he is, as everyone knows, well versed in everything concerning agriculture, I claim also that he knows all about the fishing industry and is interested in that industry. That discussion continued only for, I think, about an hour, and the Debate closed for Private Business. I only wish that we had more supporters here to urge the Government to take action and to see that the fishing industry of these islands is once for all put on a proper basis.
    Dr. MURRAY: I am very pleased to find that the House is taking a greater interest in the fishing industry than it has taken for years past. That is good from two points of view. The industry is very important, and the Government should do all in its power to encourage it as an industry per se. The Government should also regard the inexhaustible resources of the sea as a great source of food supply. If fish occupied a more prominent position in the dietary of this country, and especially South of the Tweed, we would be a very much healthier race than we are. I would like to endorse what the last speaker said with reference to the value of a recruit to the ranks of those who take an interest in fishing matters. I take it as a good omen that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is taking such an interest in this question. I recall that he became much interested in another question many years ago, and I saw him the other day present

    1989
    at the obsequies of the land taxes. From his success in that direction I anticipate that he will be a great source of strength to those who identify themselves with the fisheries question. I support the suggestion that there should be a Ministry of Fisheries. We could dispense with a few of the Ministries, and I would suggest that, instead of having a Minister Without Portfolio, a Portfolio for Fisheries might be established. It is sometimes thought that the fishermen acted only in connection with the sea forces during the great War, but from my part of the country a large proportion of the men went into the Army, and we all know the splendid work they did. As was natural, while the great bulk of them were away the industry almost collapsed, and it is taking a long time to get on its legs again. I think the industry deserves the very close attention of the Government. The conditions have so changed with regard to markets and with regard to the cost of boats, gear, material and labour, that it is exceedingly difficult to restore the industry to its former importance.
    I wish to refer more especially to the pickled herrings' industry. Before the War, Russia was the first great market for this food; then came Germany and then the United States. The conditions of these markets now are such that it is exceedingly difficult for private enterprise to cope with them. The Government, very sensibly, came to the help of the pickled herring industry last year and guaranteed the curers a certain price. Although on the face of it that may appear to have cost the Government £1,250,000, I understand that as a matter of fact the guarantee has not cost the Exchequer a single penny. The Government acted merely as bankers for the industry. The curers having been enabled to face their difficulties with a certain sense of security, some progress was made in reinstating men in the industry last year. When the guarantee was promised by the Government there was a condition that the industry would not apply for the guarantee again. Those concerned expressed the hope that it would not be necessary to renew their demand, but the conditions are not one whit better this year than they were last year, and a continued guarantee this year is essential if there is to be any attempt to reconstruct this branch of the industry. It is a matter
    1990
    which affects Scotland as well as England. A great number of Scottish fish-curers come down to the English coast; they have no prejudice against the English herring, and they show Englishmen how to carry on the trade. As against that, I may say that I have seen English fishermen at Stornoway and sometimes within the three-mile limit. I understand that there are some beautiful buildings in Hull which have been built upon the proceeds of illicit fishing on the West Coast of Scotland. So that we are quits with regard to that matter. The cured-herring industry on the English and Scottish coasts is very important, and if the Government want to do anything in the matter of reconstruction, so far as the men are concerned, this is the best way to do it. Otherwise the herring industry will approach a state of collapse and the population along the coasts will be plunged into poverty and distress, which would be a great and undeserved calamity on those who have done their bit in the War. Even last year with the security of the guarantee the fishermen only made a wage of something like £2 a week. The fishermen will insist, and rightly, on something more like a living wage, and the consequence will be that the cost of the herring will be more, and with the state of the labour market and the exchanges, and the condition of Russia and Germany, the situation this year will be even more difficult than it was last year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep these things in mind, and will not regard the pledge that was given as absolute and like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, and that he will consider the matter sympathetically this year again and help this industry.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I desire to reinforce the very weighty arguments which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn). I speak for a very considerable fishing industry in the town of Fleetwood, where, even since the War, 130 steam trawlers have been working out of it, and where great quantities of fish have been landed. I am glad to say that in my corner of the country fishermen are doing fairly well, and perhaps that is owing to the superior qualities and great enterprise of Lancashire men over Scotsmen.
    Dr. MURRAY: In the herring industry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: We do not confine ourselves only to herring fishing.
    Dr. MURRAY: White fishing is all right.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I desire to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the note on page 2 of the Estimates, where I see that a sum of £10,000 is put down for the construction of fishing vessels to be transferred to fishermen on repayment terms. Surely that is a very meagre and miserable sum to put down for such an important purpose. I do not know how much it costs to construct a trawler, but I think you would get very few ships indeed for £10,000. I imagine that this must be a token Vote. The idea is a very excellent one if only the proper amount of money is spent on it. That idea is that you should enable individual fishermen, whatever their status, to become owners in partnership of one of these steam trawler vessels and to repay the cost on easy terms to the Government. I commend the idea very much, but would like some further information as to the amount to be spent on it. For many years there has been a long standing grievance among my fishermen and I expect in other ports as well, that owing to the three mile limit Regulation they are not allowed to fish in many of the most thickly populated bays on the coasts of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, while any foreigner can go into those bays and fish where the local fishermen cannot go. Moray Firth is an example. Donegal Bay is another. The entrance to Donegal Bay is very narrow and the Irish authorities are able to prevent Irish steam trawlers from working there in the three mile limit, but any German or Norwegian or Dane can come and is allowed to fish at his own sweet will, because where he is fishing is actually outside the three mile limit.
    I quite see the object of the Regulation which is as far as possible to prevent fairly shallow bays from being overfished. It is a very good idea if you keep everybody out, but surely it is most irritating to keep your own fishermen out and let the foreigner in, and to see the foreigner land his fish at the port of the men who would be prosecuted if they fished there. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman either to do away with the restriction on British fishermen or by international agreement secure a sanctuary for the fish and let nobody come in. This is a
    1992
    case which I think a separate department of fisheries would take up and would get some arrangement made. The Parliamentary Secretary is, we all know, a very hardworking man, but 90 per cent. of his work must be devoted to agriculture which is primarily his duty. Fishery is to him naturally only a half-time work or even less, and no man can properly attend to the two subjects. Therefore, I wish to urge upon the Government the real necessity, from every point of view, of at once appointing a separate Minister of Fisheries. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), that in his opinion next year there will be a shortage of wheat in this country. I do not pretend to have expert knowledge, but from what my friends tell me I understand there is a very grave possibility at any rate of that happening, and if that is so, surely we ought to do all we can to increase our fish supply. Nothing is more important to the food supply than a cheap and large supply of fish. What is being done to transport the fish when it does arrive? Only three weeks ago in the port of Fleetwood some 80 tons of fish were not even used for manure, but were taken out and dumped into the sea, as was stated, I think, by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) on the last occasion on which this Vote was discussed. The fishermen were not to blame, nor were the townspeople, but it was the Ministry of Transport that was to blame. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has not time to fight the Ministry of Transport in order to get proper fish trains arranged for from Hull, Fleetwood, Grimsby, and so forth; but if we had a Minister whose sole job it was to look after this industry there would be a far better chance that something would be done, and that we should get a move on in getting the fish taken inland from the ports.
    I see several hon. Members opposite who represent what they call labour, and I put it to them that this is a matter in which their constituents are vitally interested. The more quickly the fish is transported inland the cheaper it will be. If it is allowed to remain at the docks it deteriorates, and nothing is nastier than stale fish, especially if it has been on the ice ten days before it reaches the port. Therefore, I ask the Labour party to assist us in trying to get this Ministry

    1993
    established. It would be useful too in regard to freshwater fish. Salmon appeals to everybody's palate, but not to everybody's pocket, because it is very expensive, but I am quite sure that the rivers of this country are capable of increasing their yield of salmon enormously if they were properly looked after, if the spawning beds were looked after and the obstructions were removed. Hon. Members know that hundreds of years ago the Thames was so full of salmon that the apprentices insisted upon a clause being put into their indentures that they were not to be fed on salmon more than twice a week, because it was so common that they got tired of eating it. The Thames is now largely free from pollution, except in the very lower reaches, and if we had a Minister whose duty it should be not only to look after the sea fishing bat also the freshwater fishing, I am sure we should have a very substantial addition to the food supplies of this country.
    Major HOWARD: I am sure we farmers know that in the Noble Lord who is head of the Ministry of Agriculture and in the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry in this House we have two gentlemen who are doing the best they possibly can for agriculture; but there are a few items in the Vote of which I should like to have some explanation. There is an increase in the Vote of £1,028,000. I am not complaining of the amount of money that will be spent by the Ministry, providing it is spent in the best possible way and that there is no waste, but I am rather doubtful about these numerous and increasing appointments that are being made. On page 76 of the Estimates we see that 16 district land commissioners are appointed, in the place of three last year, and that there are 35 district sub-commissioners. What they all have to do I do not know.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They are appointed under the Land Settlement Act.
    Major HOWARD: On page 82 we notice that on land drainage and land reclamation the Ministry are only spending £97,200, against £260,000 last year. Therefore, I take it that they are doing considerably less work, but when we turn back to page 77 we find that they are for the first time appointing two engineers and one engineering assistant for land reclamation, and one commissioner and one engineer for land drainage.
    1994
    They had none of these officials last year, when they were carrying out work to the extent of a quarter of a million, but this year, when the works are. considerably less, they have appointed this large number of additional officials, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will give me some information about that also. A large number of additional inspectors have been appointed, and I hope they are not being appointed similar to a good many who were appointed last year. Inspectors were appointed last year whose duties were, I believe, to go round and check the returns of farmers' crops, prncipally wheat, and we were told by the right hon. Gentleman in this House that the reason was in case the Corn Production Act should come into use and the Government should have to pay something under it to farmers because the price of wheat did not reach the guarantee. I think every thinking man who knew anything about agriculture knew very well that the price of wheat would not fall to the price inserted in the Corn Production Act, especially when the Government had fixed the mnimum price of wheat at 76s. 6d., so that the farmer could not receive less than that, yet in spite of that they appointed a huge number of officials to check the acreage on the farms because of the possibility that the farmers might receive less than they were guaranteed under the Act. In regard to agricultural research, we all welcome that, providing the money is properly spent, and I have no doubt that is so, for if there is one thing that farmers benefit by, it is the experiments that are carried out by the various experts and the knowledge that is sent round as a consequence. Grants are being made for research work other than the research work which is being carried on by the Ministry itself, and I hope that such experiments as I have in mind will be encouraged, namely, the experiments of the Royal Agricultural Society. The work has been done under the direction of that Society, which I am sure stands very high in the estimation of farmers, and I think I may say that that Society, in the experimental farms and other experiments it has carried out in different places, has been of the greatest service to agriculture in general. I am sure the farmers attach a great deal of

    1995
    importance to those experiments, which are plain, practical experiments, and not spectacular, as are, I am sorry to say, a lot of demonstrations carried on by the Ministry. Nothing of that sort is carried on by the Royal Agricultural Society, and I do appeal to the Ministry to think that over, to think of the good work the Society is doing for farming and agriculture in general, and see if it is not possible to increase the grant for research work by the Royal Agricultural Society. I am sure they are the people in which the majority of farmers have every confidence, and they have received a great deal of assistance from them in the past.
    I want to endorse what was said by the right hon. Member on the front Opposition Bench, that we are confronted, from an agricultural point of view, with very serious times. It is very surprising that, as the cost of the Ministry of Agriculture is going up, so is the wheat production of this country going down. The wheat production went down considerably last year, and I do not hesitate to say, from my own observation, going round the eastern counties—one of the principal cereal-growing districts in this country— that our wheat acreage will not be down 400,000 acres this year, but nearer 1,000,000 acres, and it is a peculiar coincidence that that should be happening when the cost and increased staff of the Ministry should be going up by leaps and bounds. What we want as agriculturists is for the Ministry to get the Government to give us some settled policy. Let us know where we are. We do not object to paying good wages, but we do not want another Department coming in, which is not in touch with wages, and saying what we shall have for our produce, as has been done in the past, and then for another Department, which the right hon. Gentleman represents in this House, to issue orders and regulations so that we do not know where we are to-day, and certainly do not know where we are likely to be to-morrow.
    There is one other item to which I should like to call attention, and that is an item for compensation for land under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, 1917. So far as I know, under that Act the Ministry were given certain powers in case they were of opinion
    "that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry;
    1996
    or that, for the purpose of increasing in the national interest the product of food, the mode of cultivating any land, or the use to which any land is being put, should be changed."
    And it goes on to say that the Ministry can take this land in hand. The Ministry have acted on that power, and, finding land which has not been properly cultivated, they have taken that land in hand, and they have so damaged the land that they have to provide in the Estimates £250,000 for the purpose of paying compensation for land which they have taken over for the purpose of improvement. If that is the way that they have improved the cultivation of land, I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite in saying that it is no use trying to farm from Whitehall. I should be very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry here whether that is not the meaning of this £250,000 payable under Part IV. of the Act of 1917, because, if that is so, it bears out what was said by my right hon. Friend opposite, that the less the Ministry of Agriculture interfere directly with farming, the better. The more advice, the more instruction, the more assistance they can give to the farmer, the better for agriculture and the production of corn in this country; but undue interference, as we have had in the past, can do nothing but tend to reduce production, and probably be a serious menace in the near future.
    Considering the serious position in which this country is very likely to be through the shortage of food, and the high prices which must necessarily result if there is a shortage of food, the Ministry should take every step they possibly can to ensure national production, and it is their business to point out to those who are engaged in agriculture the danger of letting production in this country sink to a very low level. Even in time of peace if we are going to let our production shrink, as it is shrinking every year, until we have to rely to a very much larger extent than we do at present on foreign supplies, we shall find ourselves in the very near future at the mercy of some combine or ring, in the countries of production, over which we have no control, and then the people of this country will have to pay very dearly for the neglect of an industry which, if properly encouraged, might have prevented them from being at the mercy of rings or combines. If we were to pro-

    1997
    duce, as I believe we could, with proper help from the Government, from one-half to three-fifths of the whole of the corn that is required in this country, then if any combines or rings in foreign countries should try to hold up our food supplies, we should have sufficient stock in this country, with a little tightening of the belt, to break those rings or combines. But the policy has never been pursued by the Government of giving sufficient encouragement to agriculture. We are producing a very much smaller amount—between one-third and a half— and will soon shrink below one-third, and the combines would have us at their mercy, because we should be starved in a few weeks, if they got into operation. Therefore, it is in the interests of all to assist in preventing that calamity, which would be a very serious calamity should it occur, and I am afraid it will occur if the Ministry do not encourage agriculture more in the future than they have in the past.
    Mr. H. HOPE: The condition of the agricultural industry at the present time warrants more attention being given to it than is apparent here to-night. In the figures before the House we see the details of expenditure in which the Ministry are engaged for the betterment of the industry. Many of these figures will not be cavilled at by agricultural Members. In the first place, we recognise that money spent upon agricultural research is money wisely spent, because we see that, not only on the Continent, but in America and in our own overseas Dominions, the expenditure of money has effected an enormous improvement in methods and results. When we know how much we have remained behind the good work done abroad in the last 20 or 30 years we are glad to see the beginning of an improvement here. But it is not enough merely to spend money upon agricultural research. What is absolutely essential is that the work carried on by the Department should be carried on in accordance with practical agricultural views. It is very much to be enjoined that the Department should pay heed to the views of the farmers. It is all very well for the Department to think that they can teach the farmer his business, but agriculture as practised in this country—and as a Scottish Member I
    1998
    think I may say, as it is practised in Scotland—has been developed to a high degree of perfection that is not easily beaten. If, therefore, there is going to be research work—and I hope there will be—it is essential that the farmers should be taken into the confidence of the Government, and that the work should be done in accordance with the views of practical agriculturists.
    Reference was made, and I think very properly, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Shropshire to the work which has been and is being done in the great Dominions in respect of wart disease in potatoes. The work of the Government in this respect has been a bungling work. Farmers have been told to plant nothing but what are termed "immune" varieties. I think I may say without fear of correction that the majority of immune varieties are very much inferior to the good quality potatoes that were being previously grown. Wart disease is not a new thing. I knew of it thirteen years ago. Farmers took what steps they could to avoid any recurrence of it, and I think that the farmers did then what was just as good for the stoppage of the trouble as anything which the Department has done since. We see in the Estimates that expenditure is put down for seed-testing. Enormous good can be done at the seed-testing stations to increase the productivity both of grain and of all other plantings. The question is one that deserves the closest attention. We have seen varieties of oats introduced from Sweden and elsewhere which have enormously increased the productivity of the areas, and in other directions the Government might do good work in introducing and propagating improved varieties of grain which would largely increase productivity. In all this work it is necessary that the practical farmer should be taken into account and carried along with the Government.
    On the question of foot-and-mouth disease, I think the Department might show more activity. We have had the disease now existing for quite a long time. In pre-War days we knew what urgent steps were taken to stamp out an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I rather think that the farmer is not so active as he used to be in this matter. The importation of store cattle has been prevented. Although that is the law of the country, yet there have been a certain

    1999
    number of Friesian cattle introduced which, as a breed, are prone to this disease. The Department are open to a good deal of criticism in allowing the landing of these cattle. The attempts made to improve the grass of the country are to the good. The application of phosphatic manures has had a great effect; the basic slag, which was the cause of much improvement of grasslands in the past, is now apparently altered in composition, for the basic slag of the present day is nothing like what the basic slag was in pre-War times. Therefore a very serious obligation rests upon the Department to try and meet that difficulty. We have Seen what bad work the Government has done in regard to bringing in phosphates from the shores of the Mediterranean and we have very little encouragement to think that the loss of the Lincolnshire slag will be made good. I do hope that the Department will use all its powers to procure phosphates, because there is no manure which will have a greater effect. In all these directions there is much room for improvement. When we see at the present time that the acreage under cultivation is largely decreasing, I cannot but think that we ought to warn my right hon. Friend, and tell him that agriculturists expect a little more activity on the part of his Department than it is showing at the present time. We see how the industry is living in a state of suspense. We have been told that legislation was going to be passed which would have the effect of putting agriculture on its feet. Farmers are afraid that something is going wrong with the Agricultural Bill, and unless we get an assurance at the present time that a settled agricultural policy is going to be carried out as promised, I think there will be a serious reduction in the quantity of land under cultivation. I hope my right hon. Friend in charge of the Department may be able to press upon other Ministers the need of a forward policy, and if he can do that he will do a good deal for the agricultural industry.
    Captain HOTCHKIN: I think it has been clearly emphasised that the chief need of the country is the production of wheat. One of the chief causes of the small production of wheat is improper drainage. I see in the Estimates
    2000
    for land drainage last year the amount was £135,000, and this year it is £72,000. This is a question which requires very serious consideration. On this matter I can only speak for my own locality. We have the River Witham, which is the main artery of the drainage. We have local authorities who pump their water from this river, and we have the higher land that drains by gravitation. Nearly all our waterways are being choked up and it is important that a grant should be made to deepen the main channels in order to get rid of the water naturally, I think they should, urge on the various local bodies the necessity of carrying out their duties in this respect. When you come to the upland waterland there are often no drainage authorities at all, and some of these smaller bodies on the main arteries have to take the water from the upper lands. This is taken by various channels artificially by gravitation, and the result is that, unless these channels are properly cleaned out, the water from the upper land cannot get away. That would not happen in the part of the country I am talking about, where there are thousands of acres waterlogged which ought to be under wheat, if the smaller stream which takes the water down could be drained and deepened, and this happens because the Commissioners and drainage authorities do not do their work properly. I ask that the Ministry should consider the whole question of drainage seriously, and if it is possible, devote larger sums to what is one of the most important means of increasing production in our country.
    With regard to land reclamation, I know what is taking place on the Lincolnshire coast, and I see that £100,000 last year was devoted to this policy. I am very glad to see that it has now been reduced to £11,200, because this land, although it has afforded employment to men who otherwise would have been unemployed, is not a practical scheme, and is not one which the local inhabitants consider sound because the cost of the land, when reclaimed, will be very much more than it is worth. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that only £11,000 this year is being put down for that purpose. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that this will be the end of the money spent on reclamation in this locality, because now, when money

    2001
    is so very valuable, it is not really necessary, and the cost of the land when reclaimed is very much more than it is worth. What we do want is a consistent line of policy outlined by the Ministry of Agriculture. Hundreds of farmers are going out of business because they do not know where they are or what the policy of the future will be, and in order to get more production and get the very best results in agriculture for this country, it really is necessary to have a clear and definite policy, when I feel sure every farmer will do his best to produce all the grain he can and everything that is possible.
    Captain TERRELL: I do not wish always to appear in the role of a critic of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, but, frankly, speaking as I do for a purely agricultural division, I cannot to-night adopt any other attitude. We have before us the Estimates of this Department, and they represent a large expenditure. The total amount involved is between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Department, is a great increase on pre-War Estimates. I believe that in 1913 the total expenditure of the Department was only £519,000, and it is up to all of us in this House thoroughly to survey the whole field of operations of the Department, and to ask ourselves the simple question: Is the nation getting full value for this enormous expenditure? We have created a new Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, we have brought into existence a large and, let us hope, a competent staff of Government officials. We are told that they are filled with enthusiasm and energy. I do not doubt that for a single moment. The Parliamentary Secretary the other day told us of some of the various duties which the Department are undertaking. He told us, for instance, about their agricultural education and research work, the organising of demonstration plots, their scheme in connection with the improvement of livestock, their grass land improvement scheme, their horticultural scheme for educating and instructing smallholders and allotment holders, the experiments which they are carrying out for the purpose of mitigating the wart disease in potatoes, their lactose factories for dealing with whey, their experiments in connection with sugar beet growing,
    2002
    their duties in connection with such animal complaints as rabies and foot-and-mouth disease, their training schemes for ex-officers and soldiers, and for disabled men, and, finally, their duties in connection with fisheries; but I regret to say that he did not deal with that about which those of us who take an interest in agriculture are waiting to hear something. He did not utter a single word as to the intentions of the Government in making known their agricultural policy.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I could not possibly do that; it would have been out of order on a Vote which dealt only with administration in present and past years.
    Captain TERRELL: We have before us the Estimates of this Department which is costing the nation between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. I maintain, if the Department has not a policy, that it is certainly not worth £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of the taxpayers' money.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is not fair to say that it has not a policy. You, Sir, I am sure, will realise that I am not in a position to discuss questions of policy on the Estimates.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will keep to the Estimates.
    Captain TERRELL: The delay of the Government in introducing any policy at all is causing widespread discontent among all those interested in this industry throughout the country. It is causing farmers to turn existing arable land back to grass; it is bound to affect the food supply of this country, and it can have only one result, namely, to increase the cost of living to all people in the country, whether they be the rich, the middle class, or the poor. The other day I received a very important letter from the National Farmers Union, asking me if I had the opportunity to bring to the notice of the House a Resolution passed unanimously by the Council of the Union on 21st April. I need not apologise for taking this course, because, after all, the National Farmers' Union is a very important organisation. They have at present over 80,000 members scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country and employing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, and I do say that the enormous amount of money which they

    2003
    have sunk in this industry certainly entitles them to receive sympathetic consideration. The Resolution reads as follows:—
    "That this meeting of the Council of the National Farmers' Union views with the gravest apprehension the continued delay on the part of the Government in introducing the Agricultural Bill."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to discuss legislation. He can only deal with the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Captain TERRELL: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I want to take this opportunity of urging my right hon. Friend to make some statement on this all-important question. I have repeatedly asked his Department questions. On one occasion we were told by the Leader of the House that every question asked by hon. Members costs the State something like 30s. I can only say that I have never received an answer from the right hon. Gentleman's Department which is worth anything like that sum. I should put it at about 9d. I maintain that this resolution, deliberately drafted and passed by the Council of the National Farmers' Union, bears out my previous remarks. It would appear that, at the present time, this Department, which is costing the State between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, is causing a state of chaos and anxiety throughout the whole farming industry. Perhaps some hon. Members may think that agriculturists are demanding something without reason or justification, but all those interested in this industry base their expectations on definite promises and pledges which have been made by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture.
    Major BARNSTON: May I ask if, on this Estimate, it is in order for the hon. and gallant Member to discuss the policy of the Government, or should he not confine himself to the Estimate?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Of course, the hon. Member must confine himself to the Estimate, but there is some latitude allowed to hon. Members when discussing the administration of the Department. To refer to policy is, of course, out of order, but I gather the hon. Member's argument to be that the policy pursued by the present administration is bringing chaos and anxiety to the farmer. He
    2004
    must avoid discussing general questions of policy, when asking the Minister to reply on that point. I will ask the hon. Member to keep strictly to the Estimate.
    Captain TERRELL: I have been doing my best to keep within the bounds of the Estimate, but I want to repeat that we are asked to vote a very large sum of money, and the Ministry of Agriculture, as a great State Department, is not worth the expenditure of so much money unless it has a policy. It is up to it to produce a policy, otherwise it ought not to have the money for which it is asking. The farmers, I was saying, base their expectations on definite promises. May I inquire if I would be in order in giving two short quotations, one from the Prime Minister and the other from the Minister for Agriculture, dealing with those pledges?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know until I hear them.
    Captain TERRELL: The Prime Minister said:
    "I cannot, as one who was associated with the conduct of the War in those days, remain responsible another year without taking every measure that is necessary in order to make it impossible that there should be a repetition of those perils in the story of our native land."
    When the right hon. Gentleman said that he was dealing with the food supply of this country for which, after all, this Department, whose administration we are discussing, is to a very great extent responsible. Three weeks later Lord Lee, the Minister for Agriculture, who, I believe, under these Estimates, receives £2,000 a year, speaking at Gloucester used these words:
    "I have got a perfectly definite mission to carry out, and that is, in the interests of national safety, to do all the Board of Agriculture can do to reduce the dependence of this country upon the supplies of essential foods from Overseas. This policy is essential not in the interests merely of this or that section of the agricultural industry but in the interests of the whole nation, and more particularly of the urban population."
    I submit that from these declarations the country are entitled to assume that this State Department has got some sort of policy, and I would say, in conclusion, that if they cannot produce that policy they are not worth the money they are asking the taxpayer to pay.
    Mr. JODRELL: I fully agree with the remarks which fell from the hon. and

    2005
    gallant Member for the Sudbury Division of Suffolk (Major Howard), and I hope the Ministry will take them to heart. I am not going now to criticise the Ministry. I want rather to ask its assistance. I have been assisted so often by the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Treasury Bench and his staff recently over matters connected with fisheries that he will forgive me, I am sure, if I go back to that subject. There is at this moment a peculiar trouble in the fishery world. It exists in connection with the distribution of fish from the shores where it is landed to the consumer inland. I know my right hon. Friend will say that this is a matter for another Ministry, but, in spite of that, I ask his assistance in putting pressure on that Ministry as, between them, I hope that they may be able to alleviate a trouble which is becoming very acute indeed. The trouble affects particularly the Division which I have the honour to represent. I do not know if the House is aware that there is in the borough of King's Lynn a very old and a very interesting fishing community comprising some 700 families, who live in a quarter of the town entirely by themselves, who live their own lives and who have their own customs and manners and their own means of livelihood. These people have a small tiny creek, a tributary of the Ouse, which is full at high tide and empty at low tide, and this is their only harbour. In it are crowded a number of small smacks which are run by a very needy, yet a very hardy and a very valuable type of man, for no people in the War served the country better than those who swept the North Sea in these small smacks. They are now faced with a shortage of trawl fish, herrings and mackerel, the reason for which we do not know. What these people really depend upon is the crop of cockles, mussels and whelks. Mussels have to be sent right across England and even as far as Scotland. The cockles are a very large source of food in the Midlands, and in towns on the East Coast. I should explain that, as long as the cockle is in his own shell he will keep on shore for some days, but the freight on a bag of cockles has been so increased since January that it no longer pays these people to send these cockles inland at all. The result is that they are taking the fish out of the shells and selling
    2006
    them in that way in bags. I need not point out to the right hon. Gentleman, not only the loss of valuable food to which that gives rise, but also the danger that is likely to ensue. Again, the demand for mussels, on account of the increased freight, has so decreased that there is no longer any such sale for them as would pay the fishermen for sending them inland. Therefore whole cargoes of them have been taken and put back on the beds in the Wash. In this matter I would ask the sympathy of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Captain Hotchkin). He looks across the Wash at my constituents, and I know that he is watching the interests of a similar class on his own side. With regard to whelks, it is generally understood that these are a coarse class of food, but as a matter of fact they are largely consumed in the Manchester district, and they are a very nutritious and palatable food.
    I want to ask the special attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great increase which has taken place in freights. For instance, a twelve-pound parcel of shrimps or prawns cost 6d. before the War to take to Newmarket. It was 11d. during the War, and now it is 1s. 4d. Before the War the railway companies collected from door to door, charging 1d. a bag. This charge is now raised to 6d., and sometimes 8d., and on this account the railway lorries going down to the docks at the north end of Lynn, which used, on returning empty, to take up these bags, now do not do so, because it does not pay, and the whole industry is at a standstill. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford will sympathise with me, seeing that his constituents have been customers of my constituents in King's Lynn, when I tell him that the cost of a bag of mussels is 3s. for the mussels themselves, 4s. 2d. for carriage, and 7d. for the bag, making 7s. 9d. in all, whereas his constituents only wish to pay 6s. 2d. These figures have been given to me as recently as the end of April, and the position is getting very serious for these 700 families living at the north end of King's Lynn. A sack of flour can be sent for a much less amount than can the same weight of fish. The cost of fishing tackle, as we have already heard in this Debate, has also been a great factor, and it has risen enormously. Rope, which cost 6d. per lb. before the War, now costs 1s. 4d. A prawn net before the War cost £6 10s.,

    2007
    and now it costs £25. There was a gale three weeks ago, which carried away the mainsail of a small smack, which is the sole means of livelihood of its owner, who happens to be a well-known fishing woman of the district. She paid £27 10s for that mainsail, but to get a new one she had to pay £97 14s. All this is pressing terribly hardly upon these people, and, if there is one thing that my right hon. Friend could do to alleviate their position, it is to put pressure upon his colleagues at the Ministry of Transport to ease this matter down, and make it more possible for this community to live.
    I should like to draw his attention to a matter of which I think he is already aware, namely, that this same creek in King's Lynn, known as the Fisher Fleet, is a prehistoric harbour, which used to extend right through the town and out into the country on the other side. In the early 'seventies, however, the Dock Company was formed, and cut this harbour in two. I do not say it was not necessary, but it left this fishing community merely two or three hundred yards of this most impossible harbour. They cling to it for old association's sake and because it is among their homes. Under the Act of 1877 certain arrangements were made by which the Fisher Fleet was to be properly flushed with water from the docks, and also that certain lights should be kept burning. These were put out on account of the War, and I consider that they should now be relighted. It was also arranged that certain landing stages and sheds should be kept in good order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman's assistance in this matter. I am given to understand that an official from his office has quite recently been sent down to investigate some of these points, and I must thank him for the rapidity, courtesy and efficiency which he and his office have shown in attempting to deal with these very difficult matters. I would, however, ask him to drive it home, for there are other offices concerned besides his own. We have great confidence in him on the coast of Norfolk, and I am perfectly happy, on behalf of my long-suffering constituents, to leave the matter in his hands.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: That is a time when, very rightly, everybody is considering economy, but the one Department which,
    2008
    I think all sections of the community are agreed, might well have rather more money spent upon it in the future is the Department of Agriculture. It is universally admitted that for many years past our agriculture, as compared with that of other countries, has been desperately starved and under-staffed, and that its work, therefore, has necessarily been inadequate to the requirements. I do not think the House is likely to question the increase under the head of salaries, although it is an item which, in other Departments, would naturally call for serious and detailed criticism. We do, however, expect that, with this increase of salaries, there shall come an increase of activity, and we hope that from this increased expenditure we shall see larger and more complete results in the future. I do not suggest that these salaries or personnel are excessive. All who know the Ministry of Agriculture know that at this moment it is still very much under-staffed. Some of its principal officials are greatly overworked, and I hope that, in spite of the call for economy, it will be possible to supplement the work of some of these valuable men, because I feel very anxious lest some of them may break down, and not be able to continue their work. I am sorry to say that at the present moment there seems to be no immediate prospect of any improvement in the premises in which the Ministry of Agriculture is housed. One of the earliest questions I remember beng constantly asked in the House was when there was going to be a possibility of the Board being better housed. At present they are housed in, I believe, 17 different buildings. With such intricate and detailed work as the Ministry has to carry out, involving so many different subjects and different branches of science, it is urgently necessary that all these subjects should be brought together and coordinated in one building as far as possible. This question has been talked about ever since I have been in the House, and though we actually got to the stage of having new premises built, no sooner were they ready than the Ministry of Munitions put in a prior claim. No one can say that at present that Department is not very important, but I hope at a very early date the Ministry will cease to have any particular value, and we shall be able to use those buildings for the far more productive and valuable

    2009
    process of producing food rather than munitions. At present the Ministry is in a most uncomfortable condition, and one cannot at this particular time suggest any increase in anything which may be called luxury buildings, but I hope before long the Ministry will be properly housed.
    I am not quite sure what the position of the Ministry may be as regards the Agricultural Wages Board, but I want to know what is the reason why there seems to be a complete change of policy on the part of that Board, and what position the Ministry occupies in controlling any changes which may take place. When the Wages Board was first set up it was part of the arrangement that there should be a Central Wages Board in London, and that the necessities of the various parts of the country should be represented by District Wages Committees. The scheme involved that the initiative should come from those District Wages Committees, so that the needs of each particular district should become known to the Central Board, which would then be able to deal with them. But the policy has now been completely changed. I do not know why it was sanctioned, or whether this came under the control of the Ministry, or whether it has been by their suggestion, but at this moment it seems that the Central Wages Board in London issues instructions and suggestions to the District Wages Committees, and, after they have been considered, fixes a flat rate to become statutory for all the districts. That may or may not be a good policy, but it entirely reverses the scheme under which the Wages Board was set up. The old policy was that the requirements of each district should be reflected and brought up to London to be decided, while one thing was avoided which everyone desired to avoid, namely, that the thing should be controlled from London, and should not represent the requirements of the district. I should like to know whether the Ministry have any control over the matter, whether they have sanctioned this change of policy, and whether they cannot do something to ensure that in future the districts have a better opportunity of being heard rather than have the wishes of the London Executive imposed upon them and the original policy entirely reversed.
    2010
    Something has been said about the drainage requirements of the country. Anyone who has travelled through the country in the last three months will have noticed its deplorably waterlogged condition. We have seen acres under water; we have seen what would otherwise be a promising wheat crop standing in water and gradually dwindling away. There is nothing that causes more deterioration in agriculture than the waterlogged condition of many districts. A short time ago the House passed an Act to deal with drainage. It seemed to me by no means a heroic measure, and I regretted very much that the powers given to the various authorities were not greater. Many boards have been set up, but so far they have not been able to do anything which could be considered as work of any serious value. It is too early yet to judge of the results of the work they are doing. It will take time. But I should like to know what the view of the Ministry is and whether they think any improvement can be made or that any legislation is required to improve the existing condition of things which is very unsatisfactory and very harmful to the crops.
    Another point is the difficulty of getting basic slag. The Ministry has been sending round a most able lecturer on the value of slag for the improvement of crops. Everyone who has studied agriculture knows what a large acreage there is under grass very often of a poor, neglected quality, particularly in pasture. Professor Somerville has a reputation second to none in this matter. He has conducted a series of very valuable experiments in the North of England on the improvement of pasture. There have been a great many experiments carried out previously for weighing the hay grown on plots variously treated. He directed his" attention to trying to improve pasture and he did it by having large plots fenced off and a certain number of sheep put into them which he weighed after the experiment and made a comparison between the increases of weight of the sheep on the different plots. He obtained very valuable results which he is now explaining to his audiences It is no use sending round a gentleman who very strongly advocates the use of basic slag if those who want to use it cannot. get it. This is very largely due to difficulties of transport, but it is up to the Ministry to try to improve it.

    2011
    All the Ministries will be pressing for various things, and unless the Ministry of Agriculture keeps its own end up and asserts itself against the other Ministries we shall not get our basic slag and agriculture will go down. I urge the Minister to be courteous but very firm, and not to adopt the attitude which has too often been adopted of being so perfect a gentleman that you have nothing given to you at all.
    I should have liked to deal with the question of plant diseases, but that has been dealt with. I am glad to see that there is a considerable increase in the Vote for the purpose of smallholdings. We should, however, like to know what is happening. At the present time, great tracts of land are being bought by various county councils who are being encouraged by the Ministry of Agriculture, but in the present condition of housing, and in consequence of the difficulties of getting labour, the holdings cannot be equipped. We are all sincere in wanting to see soldiers settled on the land, and in wanting to encourage the system of smallholdings, but if there is to be a great disturbance of the existing tenant farmers and smallholders cannot be put upon the land, it is obvious that valuable tracts of country may tend to become derelict, with a consequent loss to food production. I should like to know how far the Board are encouraging county councils to buy immediately land which might otherwise be occupied by tenant farmers, who are certainly producing a considerable amount of food. It is obvious that smallholdings cannot be created until there is proper means of equipping them. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture are perfectly happy on the subject of money, and that they are encouraging the authorities to go on buying by saying that there is plenty of money in the till. I hope that they are not encouraging them to buy beyond the actual probabilities of the situation. We all desire a full and complete and satisfactory system of food production, and that is the reason why we welcome the changes we see in the increased activities of the Ministry, and we hope the food production will be considerably improved thereby. The whole House appreciates the work which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has done. We all know that he is a
    2012
    whole-hearted supporter and well-wisher of agriculture, and we also know that he has very great knowledge on the subject. In regard to the points we have raised, we trust that he will be able to meet us, and we know that he will do his best in that direction.
    10.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the Ministry of Agriculture to re-define its policy as regards the future of smallholdings During the last few months there has been a considerable amount of unsettlement in the minds of the agricultural community as to what is exactly to be the final policy to be pursued. Coming from a part of the country which is almost entirely one of small farms I have always held, and there is a very great body of support in this House for it, that we should encourage the men to get back to the land, to farm a small quantity of land such as they and their wives and families could cultivate, where it is possible economically and conveniently to do so, and where it is handy for the markets. I cannot see any use, with the extraordinary cost of building at the present time, in taking large farms and splitting them up and re-splitting them up again and making them into smallholdings, but where you have a market close to the town and where it is possible to find the land and to take it economically from a farm which has an insufficient amount of buildings, and where it is close to a village where the men can be housed, I do think it is sound that you should follow as closely as you can the policy of getting your ex-service men back to the land.
    In these Estimates there are one or two points of detail on which I should like to have some explanation. You have an increase of approximately £750,000 for training ex-service officers and men. There you have an excellent and first-class expenditure of money, and I should be the last to criticise it. Under the other head you have approximately £1,000,000 being spent on smallholdings. If that is expended judiciously, and if the Parliamentary Secretary will explain how it is being spent, I am sure we shall vote willingly for the expenditure. There are, however, other forms of expenditure which are not quite so satisfactory. There is an increase from £6,300 to £50,000 for temporary clerical assistance. This may be necessary in connection with the smallholdings estimates or in connec-

    2013
    tion with any further increases which the Department have found necessary in the re-settlement of soldiers on the land, but I do think that it is the duty of the Ministry to explain to what that large increase of salaries is due. It is only by taking the details of the salaries paid in this way that the House can possibly hope to have any control over the expenditure. I find that for technical outdoor staff inspectors you have an increase from £53,000 in 1919–20 to £95,000 in 1920–21. There is also an item for a woman inspector. She may be very useful, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) suggests that she may be very ornamental, and I have no doubt that she may be, but when you get a single individual in the Estimates as a separate item, that individual is likely to grow into many in a few years' time, and we have some reason to ask for an explanation as to the policy that is being followed in this respect. We find that assistant inspectors have been increased from 39 to 59. It is all very well to let inspectors increase in this way. They may be doing excellent work, but I have heard during the last 18 months considerable criticism of Government inspectors as regards agriculture. I have heard of farmers continually being worried as regards their farming by men who suddenly arrive and tell them what to do. As a general rule, these inspectors create a great deal more dissatisfaction than convenience in the districts to which they come. I would not like to repeat some of the remarks which I have heard passed in reference to Government inspectors in this matter, but I do ask the Minister, knowing that he understands thoroughly the mind of the farmer and remembering how greatly the farmer dislikes having his affairs interfered with in any way, that when you come to increase inspectors, unless you are particularly careful, you are probably tending to compel farmers to take less care because they are worried, and when they are worried they will pay as little attention to their farms as they possibly can.
    I would like to get a few more details as regards the £250,000 which is being expended on the growth of sugar beet. I have always heard that sugar-beet growing was an exceedingly profitable industry, and I am convinced that if you
    2014
    get a large sugar-beet-growing industry in this country, which would employ an enormous number of hands in agricultural districts, give a great amount of work to factories in producing the machinery required and yield certain feeding stuffs for our stock, it would be encouraging not only to labour in the country districts, but also to labour in the towns. I would like to have full details, if possible, of all that has been done to encourage this particular industry, and as to what efforts are being made to secure that the results of experiments which were carried on in country districts before the War are being co-ordinated and used, so that we may grow sugar in the best and most suitable climates. It is only right that any Member who is interested in a large agricultural community should press the Government as soon as they can—I mean before any preparations have been made for the harvest next year, before the autumn sowing comes in—to lay down a very clear constructive agricultural policy. You have at present corn-growing land going back into pasture. You are losing a good deal of the progress which was made in country districts during the War, and unless you can define exactly what the Government will do in future as regards agriculture you are going to see it go back, which will be bad not merely for country districts, but for the towns as well.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked so many questions in the course of this Debate that I think it better to take the opportunity of answering some of them now, though I do not propose to occupy all the time that remains, so that this need not necessarily close the Debate. A great deal has been said about the fact that I have to represent in this House not only agriculture, but also fisheries, and perhaps it is just as well that I should say a word about the fishery question first. We have been pressed very hard to get rid of this unholy combination of agriculture and fisheries, and to set up a separate Ministry. There is very great difficulty in the way of the proposal. I do not think the House or the country is particularly anxious to set up new Ministries at the present moment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You have just set up one, without portfolio.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It was set up some time ago. But that has really nothing to do with it. If there is to be a really comprehensive Fisheries Ministry it must deal with the whole of the United Kingdom. Are my Scottish friends prepared to have one Ministry of Fisheries for Great Britain and Ireland? It would mean the disappearance of the Scottish Fisheries Board. I have never yet been able to ascertain that my Scottish friends are prepared to do that. If they are not, it is obvious that to set up a separate Ministry in Englannd would be quite futile. The two fisheries go together. We go and fish to some extent in Scottish waters, and Scottish fishermen poach a great deal more in our waters. At all events, they fish together, and the difficulty is that if you are to have a really strong and competent body it must be one Ministry for the whole of the United Kingdom. There are other difficulties, and they are international. Our fishermen travel the whole world over; they fish from Iceland to the coast of Morocco, and it would be very difficult to devise any Fisheries Ministry who could have the power now wielded in international affairs by the Foreign Office and other great Government Departments. I fully realise that our powers as a Ministry of Fisheries are altogether too small, and that there are certain powers which might with great advantage be handed over by the Board of Trade and other Departments The matter is now being considered. We have a large Bill under consideration, and I hope I may be able to introduce it this year. It would have the effect of strengthening greatly the powers of the Ministry in dealing with fisheries generally. The other powers that might be handed over with advantage are matters for inter-departmental negotiation.
    I am entirely at one will hon. Members in this—that owing to cur lack of powers, and owing to the fact that fisheries have been, in a sense no one's child up to the present, they have not received that attention at the hands of the State that they ought to have received. A great deal more could be done, not only in connection with the ordinary fisheries, but in connection with the great trawling industry, which really is the backbone of the whole thing. I realise that there are grievances We have done
    2016
    our best and we hope to do still more. We have improved the status of the Fisheries Division, and we are taking every possible step to deal with the question of transport. It is a grave misfortune that valuable food should have to be destroyed for want of transport at the ports. When you talk about the Fisheries Ministry dealing with all these things, you do not suggest, I assume, that we should take from the Ministry of Transport their powers as regards the transport of fish? That would be making a cross division in administration which would be impossible. We are calling the attention of the Ministry of Transport to our present difficulties, and we shall continue to do so. When attention is called to the difficulties which the industry experienced during the War, and to the great falling off in the landing of fish, may I give as a proof of the re-establishment of the industry that the catches for the first quarter of this year have been a record. Our officers of the fishery branch in innumerable ways, and often without sufficient legal powers, and acting on their own initiative, have been able to assist very materially in the re-establishment of the industry. With men coming back from the War and getting back to the fishing industry and with the shortage of everything, coal for trawlers, salt for curing, we have been able to get over many of those difficulties, and I think the industry is being re-established on a firmer basis than ever before. With regard to the guarantee to the herring industry, I am afraid I should be travelling outside anything in these Estimates if I were to deal with that question, but I realise fully that it was of enormous advantage to the herring fishery that we were able to give that guarantee last year. We entered into a very solemn promise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would not ask for it again, but, of course we have got to consider the present situation; but beyond promising to give it the fullest consideration, I cannot go further into the matter. With regard to the hon. Member (Mr. Jodrell) who spoke of the difficulties of his constituents owing to the high cost of the carriage of shrimps and whelks and cockles, especially out of their own shells, I can only say that I have been endeavouring to assist in the matter, as

    2017
    he was good enough to say; and I will certainly make further efforts to do so. The hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) spoke of the insufficient salaries paid to officers in the Fishery Department. We are quite aware of that, and we would be glad to have them put on a better footing. We have been able to secure the War bonus for a good many who had not got it before. Apart from that, in the organisation of a staff, and especially a scientific staff, it is not good economy for the country to pay insufficient salaries to men of high scientific attainments and men who are of the greatest value to the country, but whose services the country will inevitably lose unless they are paid at a proper rate.
    I come to the question of agriculture of which we have heard a good deal tonight. I was exceedingly glad that so much of the Debate was taken up with questions of education and research. I have always held that the future of British farming depended largely on knowledge, and we have got to encourge research in the first instance to the utmost of our power on the most approved and up-to-date lines, and, secondly, we have got to take what steps we can to disseminate that knowledge among the farmers of this country. We are trying to do that, and I think we are doing it not unsuccessfully. When comparisons are made, as they have been made to-night and at other times, between what we are doing and what other countries do, it is absolutely true that a few years ago what we were spending on agricultural education and research in this country was a miserable figure. It was no more than £13,300 a year, while Canada was spending £840,000 a year and the United States of America, on their Federal allocations only, £4,000,000. We are now spending in these Estimates £523,600, a very large increase, which I think is fully justified, and I believe that money will bring in a very handsome return in the future. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Ludlow Division (Sir B. Stanier) asked about the wart disease in potatoes, and the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. H. Hope) also spoke about what is being done in the matter of research into the wart disease. The position is this. This is an old disease. It has not lately come into this country, but it has become infinitely worse in the last 10 years, and
    2018
    if we were not going to allow practically the whole of our crops of potatoes to be destroyed by wart disease, we were bound to take active steps. A research station was set up at Ormskirk, in Lancashire. It has been Very successful. It discovered certain varieties of potatoes which were immune.
    Sir B. STANIER: They were discovered long before that.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend objects to the word "discovered," but it certainly carried the discovery very much further and has enabled us to provide seed potatoes of an immune character which can be planted in infected soil, thereby preventing the spread of the disease. We are bound to carry on those experiments and to maintain these restrictions, unless we are going to lose our crops of potatoes in great parts of the country. I am sorry to say that the very able superintendent died recently, and I am not yet in a position to say who his successor will be, but I have no doubt we shall be able to get a very good man. In the meantime, the hon. Member asked me if we were going to set up another research station. No, I think not, because our policy is as far as possible to concentrate research on specific objects at particular places, and in that way we think we get the best work done. He also asked me about a poultry institute. I agree that a great deal of research could be done in the matter of poultry; there is an immense field for poultry in this country. The imports of poultry and eggs before the War were enormous in amount, and they chiefly came from Russia. No longer can they come from Russia, and probably that source of supply is closed for a good many years to come. There is the greatest opportunity for the development of this great industry at home, but we want to provide poultry rearers with the best knowledge and information and so forth. I am glad to say we have obtained a provisional guarantee from the Development Commissioners to find a certain amount of funds in order to establish a poultry institute. Where that poultry institute will be is not definitely settled, but probably at Methwold, in Norfolk, where we have a large amount of land regarded as being entirely suitable, whereas I am informed that there would not be the same amount of land available at the Harper-Adams College.

    2019
    Then my hon. Friend asked me about the cattle-testing station. The cattle-testing station was set up at Pirbright in order to comply with the regulations of the South African Government, who insisted that all cattle for export to South Africa must be tested at the Government testing-station before embarkation. We have been criticised because it is said there is not sufficient accommodation. We are trying to get additional accommodation, but it is not our fault that this has got to be done. It is simply for compliance with the regulations of the South African Government. I think up to date something like 250 cattle have been tested there, but that is no test of the amount of cattle exported generally, because it only applies to South Africa, in whose interests the station was established. Then my hon. Friend asked about the Veterinary Laboratory. He knows that there is a very able Chief Veterinary Officer in charge, Sir Stewart Stockman, and I am very glad to say the Laboratory is doing very efficient work. A good deal of work has been put on it lately. It had to test practically every suspected case of rabies. The head of every dog suspected of rabies was sent to the Laboratory and tested there, but, apart from that work, which has been, on the whole, very satisfactory, because rabies has now been stamped out of the greater Part of the country, most valuable work has been constantly done in making up serum for various diseases, and I am sure that part of the work of the Ministry is well worth recording.
    My right hon. Friend opposite asked me a good many questions about foot-and-mouth disease. We are taking, and have taken, every possible means to stamp it out, and wherever foot-and-mouth disease has shown its head, we have come down upon it heavily, and we have stamped it out there and then. It is an expensive process, occasioning the slaughter of a lot of cattle and involving a lot of compensation. When we are asked if we know what the origin of the disease is, I must say we do not. If we had known the origin we might have prevented it coming in. Unfortunately, it has come in, and made its appearance in a sporadic manner all over the country, and it has been almost impossible to find any clue—this
    2020
    is the opinion of my scientific advisers— of what has been the real cause of it. But we have done the best thing we can. We have appointed a highly scientific and technical committee to inquire into the matter. My hon. Friend objected that there were no practical farmers on the Committee, but really I suggest to the House that this is a matter of science and technical knowledge, and it is only science which can ascertain the cause. Of course, they have not reported up to the present time, as the Committee has only just been set up, but I hope we may get an answer before very long.
    My right hon. Friend then spoke about what he called the farming we are doing from London. It is perfectly true, as he said—and nobody subscribes to the doctrine more than I do—that you cannot make agriculture prosperous by cultivation from Whitehall. But that is not our policy. Our policy is to lay down such conditions that our farmers can make it prosperous. I really think we are doing very little in cultivation from Whitehall. He spoke about control. I agree that many of these controls have been a hindrance to agriculture, but I suppose they were necessary during the War, and some of them are still necessary; but we are getting rid of control as quickly as ever we can. We have got rid of the control of milk and milk products. We have got rid of the control of pigs and pig products. The whole of the control of meat will disappear, I hope, on 4th July.
    My right hon. Friend asked what was the position and the relations between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. When it is a question of food control the ultimate decision lies with the Ministry of Food. But they always act in consultation with us, and I am bound to say that, at all events recently, we have had little complaint to make against them. They have treated us with every courtesy and consideration, and have paid attention to our representations. My right hon. Friend suggested there was no co-ordination between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture in the matter of housing. If it be rural housing where there is less than half an acre attached they attend to it; if there is more than half an acre attached, we do. The whole question is whether it is really rural housing, or land settlement in the

    2021
    nature of a cottage holding, or a smallholding. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me examples of where there has been a lack of co-ordination, and where a county council has, in consequence, found the position difficult to carry out, I shall certainly inquire into the matter.
    One or two criticisms were made by the hon. Member for Sudbury as to the actual Votes and the figures appearing in the Estimates. My hon. Friend fell into one error when he suggested there was a big increase in the amount of money we are spending this year as compared with last year. That is not the case. It is quite true there is a net increase of something like £1,000,000, but that is accounted for simply by the fact that the Appropriation-in-Aid this year is very much less than last year, when we were engaged in a very big scheme for the sale of tractors, ploughs, and other things which brought in a very large sum of money which was taken as an Appropriation-in-Aid. Practically none of that appears in the present Vote. Consequently, instead of there being an increase of £1,000,000, as appears if you take the net Vote, there is, as a matter of fact, something between £250,000 and £300,000 less spent this year than last. Owing to the fact that the food production Department is being demobilised, a great deal of work the Ministry was doing through that Department during the War has not been done, but an enormous amount of new work has been put upon us in the matter of land settlement, which is very costly. Some hon. Members asked as to what the figure in the Estimates for land settlement represented. It represents many things. There is a loss on the smallholdings, as we all realised would be the case. The rents the ex-Service men pay will not pay the loan charges. There must be annual losses, as were contemplated when the Act of 1919 was passed. That annual loss appears on our Vote. There is a large sum in the Vote for the additional purchases of land for our farm colonies.
    In comparing the Vote this year with previous years it must be remembered that this large additional cost for land settlement was put upon us. I am not saying we object to it. We are only too glad to help in the settlement of soldiers on the land, but it is a costly process. In it we are merely carrying out the policy which Parliament, in its wisdom,
    2022
    has imposed upon us. There is another very big item of £750,000 for the training of ex-service officers and men. That may go on this year and next year, and there must have been a very much bigger reduction in our Votes, had it not been for the expenditure of large items in connection with land settlement and the training of ex-service officers and men. It has been suggested that the cost of the staff is more than it used to be, and more than it ought to be. There has not been any actual increase, but a reduction in the staff, and the additional cost is due to the fact that we have to pay £93,000 war bonus this year as against £36,000 last year. It is suggested that last year our temporary staff cost £6,000, and this year it is £50,000. Last year the greater part of the cost of the temporary staff appears in the Vote for the Food Production Department, and if this is taken into account it will be found that last year we were spending a good deal more than £50,000.
    A question was asked about inspectors. We have not appointed any additional inspectors at all. It is quite true that the land settlement problem has cost more, and we have been told how slow we are in settling ex-soldiers. All I can say is that if there has been an increase in the Commissioners and sub-Commissioners they are very hard-worked gentlemen, and I am sure there has not been an appointment of a single man whose work has not been fully required, and who is not fully engaged in his work at the present time. I would like to say a word or two about the matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), and that is the question of the Wages Board. It is said that there appears to have been a change of policy in the conduct of this Board, and it has been argued that the Act never contemplated an alteration in the minimum wage unless it was suggested by the District Wages Board. In a sense, that is perfectly true. The original minimum wage was fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board on the suggestion of the District Boards, and this is the provision laid down by the schedule:
    "Where a District Wages Committee has been established in any district, it shall be the duty of the Committee to recommend to the Agricultural Wages Board a minimum rate of wages for that particular area."
    In the early part of last year the Labour leaders on the Agricultural Wages Board

    2023
    asked for a considerable rise in wages, and this proposal had not come from the District Wages Committees. As the matter had been pressed upon the Board by the leaders of the Labour party on the Agricultural Wages Board, they thought it was incumbent upon them to go into the whole matter and increase the minimum wage Practically, the same thing has occurred in the present year, and very likely will occur again. I do not think, however, that there is anything in that which is in any way contrary to the Act, for not only did the Act in the paragraph that I have already read say:
    "Where a District Wages Committee has been established for any area it shall be the duty of the Committee to recommend minimum rates of wages applicable to that area"—
    but the schedule also said:
    "No variation or cancellation of such a rate shall have effect within that area unless either the rate or the variation or cancellation thereof, as the case may be, has been recommended by the District Wages Committee, or an opportunity has been given to the Committee to report threon to the Agricultural Wages Board, and the Agricultural Wages Board have considered the report (if any) made by the Committee."
    That really contemplates two classes of proceeding. The Central Body either proceed on the recommendation of the District Board or they refer a suggestion of their own to the District Board and get their assent. It seems to me, therefore, that the action that the Wages Board have taken—I am not saying whether it be right or wrong—has been strictly in accordance with the Act and within their own power. In view of the fact that it was known all over the country that an agitation was proceeding for an increase in the minimum wage, I do not see what other action the Agricultural Wages Board could have taken. There are one or two other points about which I ought to speak. One hon. Member asked about the item of £250,000 for compensation and suggested that if, when we farmed from Whitehall we had to pay no less than £250,000 in compensation, when we handed the land back, we were indeed very bad farmers. That is really a misunderstanding. This £250,000 is not compensation which has been paid in respect of land taken over by Agricultural Executive Committees and farmed by them. It is compensation which has been paid or
    2024
    may be paid this year to persons who have had ploughing orders served upon them, not from Whitehall, but by local committees and who have claimed that there has been damage done to their land and that therefore they are entitled to compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. H. Hope) spoke about two matters which are of interest at the present time. He objected to the importation of Friesian cattle at a time like this when foot and mouth disease is very prevalent. No Friesian cattle have arrived up to the present time, and therefore they cannot be responsible for any foot and mouth disease which has occurred. Apart from that, as I have said on a previous occasion, we have been induced to allow an importation of about 100 pedigree Friesian cattle, all to be the progeny of 2,000 gallon cows, which is a very severe test; and to be brought here under the most strict regulations of the Department with a view of improving and broadening the particular breed in this country which has the very highest milking qualities. We were recommended to do it by the Astor Committee on Milk, and I think we were thoroughly justified in trying to strengthen the breed already here and make it of still greater value to the community. But apart from such an exceptional case as that, we have not the slightest intention of departing from the general policy of refusing admission to cattle from abroad. We have not the slightest intention of admitting store cattle generally as demanded in some quarters. Another hon. Member spoke about our sugar beet experiments, and asked for further explanations. The sum of £250,000, which appears in the Estimate, is half the subscribed capital of the company which is establishing a sugar mill at Kelham in order that experiments may be carried out under the best possible conditions.
    Something was said about drainage and reclamation. It is not true that we are spending less on drainage than we were in the past, and it is not true that we do not attach the greatest importance to land drainage. We know how important it is, and have done a great deal in the matter of land drainage during the War. I was asked whether further legislation was necessary? I do not think it is. I think the Act of 1818 gives us practically

    2025
    all the powers we need. At the present time work is going on under that Act. Ten new drainage authorities have been established, with jurisdiction over 76,000 acres, and nearly forty more areas or extensions of areas, covering a quarter of a million of acres have been arranged. I quite agree it is important we should take properly co-ordinated steps to deal with drainage, and I may point to the Provisional Order Bill for the drainage of the Ouse, by which it is proposed to set up practically one authority for the whole of that vast area, instead of the one hundred authorities now existing. That is an example of the work we are doing in the matter of land drainage. Something has been said about the cost. The cost cannot fall on the Ministry or on the taxpayer. It must be reclaimed, and quite properly, from the land benefitted by the drainage, and that may explain the very small sum that appears in the Estimate at the present time. With regard to reclamation we were asked by the Ministry of Labour to undertake big schemes of reclamation in order that we might provide work for soldiers out of employment. The number unemployed was found to be less than was anticipated, and the work, in many cases, was not very suitable for them. Moreover, when we got to work, we found that the value of the land, when it was reclaimed, was very much less than the cost of its reclamation, and in these days of rigid economy we felt that we must confine our efforts in that direction to the narrowest possible limits. We, therefore, do not propose to undertake further works of reclamation at present.
    There is just one thing that I must mention, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox). He spoke about land settlement, and asked what our policy was, and whether we were not buying too much land, and were not disturbing existing tenants who were farming well, without placing smallholders on the land. Our policy is quite simple. We have a certain number of approved applicants among ex-service men, and we cannot stop buying the land or equipping the holdings until we have carried out our promise to every one of those approved ex-service men. The land we have bought up to the present is very nearly sufficient to deal with those who
    2026
    have been approved up to date, but new applications are constantly coming in as men are being demobilised, and we shall have to buy more land. We are trying to do it with a minimum of disturbance. Though we may buy land to-day, it does not follow that we get possession of it. We never disturb a sitting tenant if we can possibly help it, and when we have to do so in order that we may begin the work of equipment, we perhaps enter upon a small part of the farm and allow him to farm the rest as long as we possibly can. A definite pledge was given to the ex-service men of this country, that those who were suitable, who had the knowledge, the capital, and the capacity, if they were approved, should have the chance of cultivating a bit of the land, and we are bound to carry that out to the utmost limit.
    Mr. LANE FOX: My point was whether the Board are taking land before they can really make use of it.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Possibly we may have to buy it, but we are not entering into occupation. At all events that is my information. If my hon. Friend can give me cases in which we have actually entered into occupation of land before we have equipped it, I shall be glad to inquire into them. We buy the land, and make our initial preparations, and then are able to get to work at once as soon as we get possession. It is a very difficult problem, and is being carried out with the greatest possible consideration to existing tenants; and I should like to take this opportunity of commending the work that is being done generally by the county councils in this matter. I regret more than I can say that I cannot announce, and I should be entirely out of order if I did, any legislative policy, although I know that my hon. Friends are most anxious to learn about it. It is entirely outside the purview of the Estimates. It must not, however, be thought, because I do not, and did not on the previous occasion, mention any legislative policy, that we have not got one.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not tell us when we shall hear about it?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I wish I could, but it will be at an early date. In the meantime, dealing with the subject strictly before us, without entering into the question of policy, we have to see that

    2027
    this great Department, in every way that it can be, is of real assistance to the two great industries for which it was founded. I know it is easy to criticise, but our task is a difficult one. We are dealing with a very old and complex industry, an industry which, after all, must be dependent particularly upon its own resources, an industry which has weathered many storms, very often without the slightest assistance, and in the future of which I have the greatest confidence. All we can do is by research, by education, by giving the best possible chance to our farmers, by stamping out animal diseases and guarding their flocks and herds, and so forth, as far as possible to lay down the best conditions under which they can carry out their industry. I agree entirely that the attempt to farm from Whitehall would simply spell disaster. I want to see our farmers, and for that matter our fishermen, relying on their own resources, knowing that in all difficulties they will have the help of the Ministry which has been established for their benefit.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I am sure the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic and comprehensive reply he has made to the numerous points which have been raised. I do not think he has neglected to reply to anyone. His agricultural heart, I am sure, is in the right place, and we have very great confidence in him. He referred to the negotiations which were taking place with other Departments. He also said they were trying to do certain things. I hope he will not forget that of late his Department is no longer a Board, but a first-class Ministry, representing the greatest industry in the land, and I hope in the course of those negotiations and the efforts he is making in the interests of that industry he will not forget that he represents a first-class Ministry. His Department not only represents the greatest industry, but all interests in that industry. Negotiations in connection with the agricultural policy seem to be taking place between the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, and the National Farmers' Union. A secret conclave seems to have been held between those persons in February last.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is true the Minister of Agriculture met members of
    2028
    the National Farmers' Union in order to ascertain their views, but he also met representatives of the landowners to ascertain their views.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I do not know of any meeting with the landowners. If it took place I conclude it was also a secret conclave.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Neither of them was secret, as far as I know.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I have a copy of the "Morning Post" of 17th February—
    "The deputation of the National Farmers' Union remained with the Prime Minister and Lord Lee for about an hour. On their departure the President of the Union, Mr. Herbert Padwick, said he was not at liberty to say anything except that 16 farmers of the Union had been engaged with the Prime Minister, each of them representing very large farms, and an equal number representing small farms."
    They were obviously engaged in discussing the agricultural policy. The agricultural policy does not concern the National Farmers' Union only. The Union started in my constituency and I was an original member of it. On about six occasions out of ten I disagree with the steps they take, but I generally agree with the individual members. The policy of the Union is at times different from the policy of the general body of the farmers of England. It only represents a section of the farmers, but the Ministry seems to be obsessed by the notion—I hope the Prime Minister is not—that the National Farmers' Union represents the whole agricultural interests of England. They do not represent all the farmers of England, and nobody recognises that better than the National Farmers' Union themselves. That is the position, and it is somewhat unfortunate. Many Members of this House seem rather afraid to tell the Naional Farmers' Union what they think—I am not in the least afraid. It is much better to tell them. They respect you much more if you tell them what you think. The National Farmers' Union do not represent the whole agricultural interests of England, and the sooner the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary know that—if they do not know it already—the better for the interests of agriculture. Agriculture consists of owners, occupiers, and labourers. The Members of this House who repre-

    2029
    sent agricultural constituencies represent all those interests. If we had not the support of the agricultural labourer I and my agricultural county colleagues would not be here. The bulk of the agricultural labourers support us and send us to this House. Ninety-five per cent. of the farmers support us and send us to this House, whether they are members of the Farmers' Union or not. I raise this point because we have an exceedingly strong Agricultural Committee in this House which represents not only agricultural labour, but all the agricultural interests, and if there are any matters to be discussed affecting the agricultural policy of this country, instead of discussing them in secret conclave with certain members of the National Farmers' Union, they should be discussed with the Agricultural Committee of this House, in the first instance. I wish to draw attention to the £50,000 for temporary clerical assistance this year, as compared with £6,300 last year.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have dealt with that.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I was not here. I understood it had not been dealt with. With respect to the question of the Wages Board. I cannot agree with the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I support the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy). This new policy seems to sweep away the powers which were vested in the District Wages Board by the Corn Production Act. If any alteration was to be made, or any proposal was to be put forward for altering wages, it was to be on the initiative of the District Wages Board. That was what I understood when the Bill was discussed. I cannot accept the view put forward on behalf of the Government, and I hope they will reconsider the position, because the whole intention was that on all these questions of wages the position in every county should in the first instance be put forward by the representatives of employers and employed in that particular county.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

    PROFITEERING (AMENDMENT) [EXPENSES].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to make further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses incurred under the Profiteering Acts, 1919, as amended by any Act of the present Session, to amend and extend the duration of those Acts to an amount not exceeding one hundred and twenty thousand pounds.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to take this Vote to-night? This Bill was taken for Second Reading late at night, which was most unfair. The Committee stage of this Financial Resolution was taken after 11 o'clock last night, and now it is proposed to take the Report stage after 11 o'clock. This is most unfair to the House and to the country. According to the explanation given last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the original Bill a sum of £75,000 was asked for, and only £16,000 has been spent. Under this amending Bill, which does not go much beyond the original Bill, a sum of £120,000 is asked for. In these days when millions are voted by the minute £120,000 may seem a small sum, but very much more is involved. Those who go before the tribunals have to incur considerable expense, and, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Sir E. Wild) told us on the Second Reading, lawyers have been kept extremely busy by this legislation. The President of the Board of Trade should be here. The hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) always explains things with great lucidity and courtesy, but it is no discourtesy to him to say that the President of the Board of Trade should be here to give his views. The President of the Board of Trade informed us of the extremely meagre results of the last Act; he went so far as to say that the Act, while a very excellent Act, had shown that there was no profiteering or next to no profiteering. He performed the wonderful feat of speaking to a brief for both sides; he defended the profiteer, stating that he was not a profiteer in the majority of cases, and praised the Government for its excellent Act. The tests of the last Act and presumably of the new Bill are: Has it stopped profiteering? Secondly, has it

    2031
    brought down prices? It has not brought down prices.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Neither of those matters arises on this Resolution; they relate to the Bill itself.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I at once withdraw my argument from the original Bill, but presume I would be in order in suggesting that in connection with this Bill, for the financing of which we are asked to vote £120,000, the money would not be spent to the weal of the people, and that it would be little more than a gesture with which to keep the people quiet, and to draw off the hue and cry which has arisen because poor people feel distress at the continual rise in prices. We all agree that the Bill is not introduced in any vindictive spirit. On the other side of the English Channel they started rather with the idea of "revanche au profiteer," and they talked of hanging profiteers. They actually broke up the stalls of suspected profiteers in the markets of the large towns.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing whatever to do with this Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member must start with the assumption that the House has passed the Second Reading and has approved the principle. The principle having been approved, the next question is, Is the House prepared to Vote this particular sum of money which is required to carry out the Bill? That is the only point arising.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will address myself to that. An Act of this sort ought at least to pay its way. The fines in the few cases of real profiteering have been very light indeed, and in too many cases there have been no fines at all, orders having been made that the few pence of overcharge should be handed back to the complainant. I admit that in the North and Midlands, in one or two bad cases, there were pretty sharp fines, but, generally speaking, they were ludicrously small. The working of the original Act has been ludicrous, and presumably that will apply in the new Bill also. I submit if this Bill was worked as I am about to propose, we might be able to make a little money for the relief of the Treasury. The Committees that have been set up to work the Act are, in
    2032
    the main, packed with those directly interested in the class of trade under review—
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: Is it in order to discuss the Bill in this way, after you, Sir, have twice ruled the hon. and gallant Member out of order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is in order so long as he confines himself to the financial aspect, but he was just beginning to get off the rails.
    Captain ELLIOT: May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to curtail his remarks, as a number of Members desire to discuss an important question on the Adjournment. If the hon. Member continues, there will be no time to do so.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Would it not be in order for the Government to withdraw the Resolution at this late hour and allow the discussion on the Adjournment to be taken?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Government not to press this Report stage now? There are matters of importance to be discussed on the Adjournment. I had a subject myself. The Resolution could be discussed at another time.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): It is clear that it is the wish of the House to get on to the Motion for the Adjournment, and, therefore, I will only make a few remarks. The Money Resolution is required because the Profiteering Bill has already been sent to a Standing Committee, and the House, I am quite sure, wishes to have it passed. I gave an explanation of the Resolution last night, and there is a White Paper.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman say, as he proposes to withdraw the Resolution, when he proposes to re-submit it?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not propose to withdraw it.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I understood my hon. and gallant Friend gave way. I had some remarks to make, but I would rather my hon. and gallant Friend finished, if he was going to finish.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought he had finished. He sat down.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I very much regret there was a misunderstanding. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was going to allow this Debate to be adjourned.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What reason did I give you to think that?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I daresay I was disarmed by his appearance of acquiescence, and I thought, by the manner of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that he was going to suggest that the Debate should be adjourned. I have been accused by him of at one moment declaring that the charge was too light and the next that the charge was too heavy. I am sorry if I did not make my meaning clear, but I was endeavouring to point out that the amount of public money we are being asked for is much too large. £120,000 is to my mind a very preposterous sum for such a useless Bill. The sum, I think, is increased largely because the fines inflicted have been in the past too small.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already said that, and I must remind him that there is a Standing Order against irrelevance and repetition.
    Captain S. WILSON: It will not get into the Hull Press either.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member for Holder-ness, I am sure, gets enough notice in the Press, and will not grudge anything I may get. I get rather too much, as a rule, of the wrong sort. I apologise for repeating myself. It is not a thing I often do. My brain is fairly fertile. It is simply owing to what I imagine was my lack of lucidity that caused me to go over the ground again. The way in which I suggest this money could be raised, and at the same time the Bill become more efficient, would be by an increase in the fines, and the way they would be increased would be by a different personnel on the committees.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps I could save the hon. and gallant Gentleman trouble by saying that the fines go to the local authorities, and therefore it makes no difference.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But the expenses of the committees, I believe, are paid for locally. This particular matter was well discussed in the small hours of that August morning when some of us devoted ourselves with a good deal of attention to the consideration of this Bill. What I am suggesting is that, with greater administrative efficiency at headquarters, the personnel of the committees could be altered and the fines increased. By a very small adjustment, in spite of the objection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, this sum of money we are asked to vote must be very much reduced. I intend to move a reduction of the Vote by £50,000, which will bring the amount down to £70,000. I suggest this is a very reasonable reduction. It will prevent extravagance in working the Bill, and I hope it will have the effect of stimulating that efficiency in working the details of the Act already on the Statute Book, which I hope will lead to some cure of the undoubted evil of profiteering.
    Captain COOTE: May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to abstain from this frivolous obstruction of the Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant gentleman wishes to raise a point of Order, he should address me.
    Captain COOTE: May I appeal to you, Sir, to allow me to discuss a matter in which a great number here take more interest than the hon. and gallant Member, who obviously is not engaging the attention of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to talk himself out, as he is doing, he is entitled to do it.
    Lieut.-Commmander KENWORTHY: I hope I shall not have to talk myself out, and I hope you will pull me up before I reach that limit. I suggest that if £70,000 is expended, the Board of Trade should then come to this House for a supplementary amount. That will also have the very desirable effect of giving slightly greater control to this House over the expenditure of public moneys. I hope the Government will agree with this reduction, and, if not, that hon. Members present who approve of my reasons will give me their support in pressing a reduction on the Government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have proposed the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," and I cannot now, therefore, put an Amendment.
    Captain W. BENN: I must remind hon. Members below the gangway it is not our fault that this matter has been brought forward to-night, and we are quite entitled to raise our voice. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary received the Committee stage last night without debate. We think it is highly improper that £120,000 should be passed without the presence of the Minister. We propose to point that out, whether the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway like it or not. There is the bearing of this Resolution on the Indemnity Bill and not the Profiteering Bill. The latter Bill provides that certain societies of traders may advise as to what are fair prices. That is why we are voting this money. Yet the Indemnity Bill seeks to prevent the importation of goods from abroad which would help to check high prices!
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is altogether remote from, and has nothing to do with the Resolution.
    Captain BENN: Of course, I bow to your ruling. But the hon. Gentleman last night made a short statement in which he said that it was estimated
    "that £75,000 would be required. Nothing like that sum was spent. I think only £16,000 was spent during the period."
    Is it a sound principle of finance to take out of the pockets of the taxpayer £75,000 when only £16,000 is required? What about the people who have been taxed to make up that difference? The hon. Member for Montrose must know that one of the causes of taxation is that you should not take out of the pockets of the people more money than you intend to spend. What is proposed?
    Mr. STURROCK: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really desire that the Government should have spent more money?
    Captain BENN: One of the causes of sound taxation is that you should not take from the taxpayer more money than you intend to spend. What did the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote say last night? That more was taken than was required for the service of the Vote.
    2036
    When we see, therefore, that he takes £75,000 and only spends £16,000 it makes us rightly critical and suspicious of the demand for £120,000 this year. How is that £120,000 to be spent? In his statement last night the hon. Gentleman said:
    "The expense has somewhat increased, and on the basis of the March expenses it is calculated that the total amount would be only about £40,000."
    So that, although to propose a reduction would not be in Order, £80,000 would appear to be a reasonable sum.
    "But it has to be remembered that there have been no legal expenses up to now, and if we were involved in any important legal action we should very likely have to spend a very much larger sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1920, Col. 1856, Vol. 128.]
    This is not really the way in which to deal with the finances of the country, especially when we all desire to act with meticulous economy. The hon. Gentleman has not favoured us with any statement at all about these legal expenses. Some legal chance may arise in which the money may be required. The hon. Gentleman may ask us to say what he should do? Well, the proper course is laid down by constitutional practice in this House, and that is that the Government should come and ask for a Supplementary Vote. That is a constitutional proceeding, and, I submit, that it is improper to come here and ask for £120,000 when you admit that you are only going to spend £40,000. While we do not desire to divide against the whole Amendment, I contend that this is a matter which requires the attention of the House and one which requires the presence of the Minister himself, or, in his absence, a much more satisfactory explanation is needed from those in charge of this proposal.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Several hon. Members have alluded to the absence of the President of the Board of Trade. May I explain that my right hon. Friend is attending a most important meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce. [An HON. MEMBER:"IS he there now?"] I do not know whether he is there now or not.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I at once accept that explanation.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was interrupted during his speech by a number of hon. Members,

    2037
    who appeared to be anxious to discuss another question, and I understood that it was the wish of the House that that subject should be taken and not a matter upon which everybody is agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] For that reason I did not reply, except to say that the Government did not intend to withdraw the Motion. The hon. and gallant Gentle-man who started this Debate first of all complained that the Act had been a failure because we had only spent £16,000 in the first 7½ months. The only inference from that is that we ought to have spent more, and then we should have been wrong. In reply to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) has said, I would remind him that these resolutions are always drawn with a certain amount of latitude to prevent the necessity for bringing forward Supplementary Estimates.
    Captain BENN: What is the figure that is going to appear in the Estimates on which, of course, the taxation will be based?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I imagine that the figure will be £120,000, and if it is not all spent the balance will be shown when the accounts are made up. It has been said that you cannot trust the Department to run this as economically as it should be done, but that statement is not compatible with the fact that we might have spent £75,000 and we only spent £16,000. You cannot argue both ways. Seven and a half months ago it was hard to tell what the expenses would be, and it is equally hard now. Many hon. Members have pressed for prosecutions under the Act, but if we have no money in hand over and above the normal expenses based on the last month for which we have the accounts, how on earth are we going to be able to take legal proceedings? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) twice read out the few remarks that I made last night, and he attempted to show that I said that the expenditure was only going to be £40,000. I said that, based upon the figures for March, in which month there were no legal expenses, it would come to about £40,000 or £44,000, but that I required the latitude given by the larger sum in order to meet these legal expenses. That is the reason that we are asking for the larger sum. We do not want to spend it, and we shall not spend it if it be not called
    2038
    for. I say that our practice in the past seven and a half months, when, having been in the position of being able to spend £75,000, we have spent only £16,000, is sufficient guarantee of our desire for economy.
    Mr. BILLING: I rise to speak from a totally different standpoint from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who initiated the Debate (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I regret that he should have seen fit to suggest to the Ministry that they should pay their- expenses by a system of fines. I think that to appoint various committees and then to suggest to them that unless they can succeed in fining the people who appear before them a substantial amount they will be unable to pay their current expenses is an incentive to them to act as unjustly as, I submit, is frequently the case with benches of magistrates in connection with motor car fines. It is bad in principle and worse in practice. I am in favour of giving the Ministry all the money that they desire in this matter, because £50,000 will never enable them to set in motion the extraordinary legal machinery necessary to capture the profiteer whom I want to be caught. They may possibly with £50,000 capture a couple of grocers or tobacconists, but they will never get the man who corners petrol or building materials. There are many gentlemen— they may or may not be Members of this House—who can afford to buy them off for the sum for which they are now asking out of the profits of a single deal. I am willing to let them have all the money they want, but I am anxious that they should not fine these people, but put them into gaol. Therefore we must not ask for a reduction of this Vote; we must rather give them further powers. We must tell them that Members of this House are only too anxious to strengthen their hands, to give them all the money they require, so as to put into operation the most efficient legal machinery, which is also, I understand, the most expensive machinery in this country, so that we may eventually catch the man who is really penalising the consumer of this country. I want Ministers to realise, when they leave the House to-night, that, so far as hon. Members are concerned, they feel most keenly for the people whom they come here presumably to protect, and they are desirous, not only of giving

    2039
    the Government unlimited powers in this matter, but unlimited money also, so that they may carry on their crusade against the real profiteer—the man who makes millions by a stroke of the pen. These are the men who are the real danger to the community, and they are the men we want to bring to the bar of public opinion. I, however, do not think the amount the Government are asking for will enable them to achieve that object. There are many hon. Members in this House who would not wish to obstruct any genuine measure which the Government brought forward in order to capture the real profiteer; they would, on the contrary, give them every possible assistance. But it is in the minds of some hon. Members, at any rate, that this is not a Bill really having this end in view; it is only the perpetuation of an act of camouflage on the part of the Govern-
    2040
    ment—an effort to persuade the elector that his interests are being looked after, when all that is being captured is the fly on the angler's hook without any fish at all.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    RATING OF LAND VALUES BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at sixteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PEACE TREATIES.
  MANDATES (ALLOCATION).
  MANDATES (ALLOCATION).
BRITISH ARMY.
  EATON HALL HOSPITAL, CHESTER.
  EATON HALL HOSPITAL, CHESTER.
  TROOPS IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA.
  TROOPS IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE DEPOT, CHARLTON.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE DEPOT, CHARLTON.
GERMANY.
  ARMIES OF OCCUPATION.
  ARMIES OF OCCUPATION.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS (WAR GRATUITY).
  VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS (WAR GRATUITY).
  PRE-WAR PENSION (MR. MORRIS).
  PRE-WAR PENSION (MR. MORRIS).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (SESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (SESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT).
BUDGET PROPOSALS.
  SPIRITS (INCREASED RETAIL PRICES).
  SPIRITS (INCREASED RETAIL PRICES).
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWS).
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWS).
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX (CO-PARTNERSHIP FIRMS)
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX (CO-PARTNERSHIP FIRMS)
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  NATIONAL ACCOUNTS (ADJUSTMENT).
  NATIONAL ACCOUNTS (ADJUSTMENT).
  ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE.
  ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE.
  RUSSO-ASIATIC CORPORATION (INCOME TAX APPEAL).
  RUSSO-ASIATIC CORPORATION (INCOME TAX APPEAL).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  HOUSE BUILDING.
  HOUSE BUILDING.
  RENT RESTRICTION BILL (EXEMPTION).
  RENT RESTRICTION BILL (EXEMPTION).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  RAW COCOA (RE-EXPORTATION).
  RAW COCOA (RE-EXPORTATION).
  SUGAR (BOARDING SCHOOLS).
  SUGAR (BOARDING SCHOOLS).
  IMPORTED WHEAT (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  IMPORTED WHEAT (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  FLOUR (QUALITY).
  FLOUR (QUALITY).
  BREAD SUBSIDY.
  BREAD SUBSIDY.
RUSSIA.
  GENERAL PILSUDSKI (OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS).
  GENERAL PILSUDSKI (OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS).
  UKRAINE.
  UKRAINE.
  PERSIA (RUSSIAN LOAN).
  PERSIA (RUSSIAN LOAN).
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT, YORK (PROMOTION).
  TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT, YORK (PROMOTION).
  WIRELESS SERVICE (STONEHAVEN AND SCANDINAVIA).
  WIRELESS SERVICE (STONEHAVEN AND SCANDINAVIA).
HOUSING.
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (FEES).
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (FEES).
  LABOUR (DIVERSION).
  LABOUR (DIVERSION).
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACTS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACTS.
  POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SALARIES).
IRELAND.
  PRISONS OFFICERS (PAY).
  PRISONS OFFICERS (PAY).
  MADDEN TRIAL, DUBLIN (MR. GILLIGAN'S EVIDENCE).
  MADDEN TRIAL, DUBLIN (MR. GILLIGAN'S EVIDENCE).
  POLICE FORCES (PENSIONS).
  POLICE FORCES (PENSIONS).
  LANDLORD AND TENANT ACTS.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT ACTS.
SCOTLAND.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORS (SPRING REGISTER, LANARK).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORS (SPRING REGISTER, LANARK).
  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS, EAST COAST, CAITHNESS.
  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS, EAST COAST, CAITHNESS.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CLEANERS).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CLEANERS).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION (FRAUDULENT CLAIMS).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION (FRAUDULENT CLAIMS).
  PROFITEERING ACT (BUILDING MATERIALS).
  PROFITEERING ACT (BUILDING MATERIALS).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES (RELEASE).
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES (RELEASE).
  SOUTH AMERICA (BRITISH TRADE).
  SOUTH AMERICA (BRITISH TRADE).
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (STAFF).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COOPER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill, intituled an Act to dissolve the marriage of Bryan Ricco Cooper, of Markree Castle, Collooney, in the County of Sligo, Major in His Majesty's Army, with Marion Dorothy Cooper, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on Petition), and a copy of the Proceedings in and the Decree of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division (Matrimonial): Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER -SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill relating to air navigation, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
CORPORATION OF LONDON (RATING OF RECLAIMED LANDS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WHITE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CARBERY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES (CAPITAL ISSUES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Powers under provisions of special Acts and Orders as to capital issues.
1.—(1) Where a company are authorised by special Act to raise capital by the issue of stock or the borrowing of money for the purpose of carrying on any undertaking to which this Act applies, or where the powers of a company to raise capital or borrow money for the purpose of carrying on such an undertaking are limited by the special Act, the company may, if they think fit, notwithstanding anything in the special Act, with the consent of the appropriate Government department, which consent may be given subject

61
to such terms and conditions as appear to the department to be expedient—

(a) offer for subscription by the public any such stock and at a fixed price lower than the nominal amount of the stock, and all allotments in respect of such stock shall be made as nearly as possible pro rata:

Provided that if in any case, where the amount of money to be raised does not exceed twenty thousand pounds, it is proved to the satisfaction of the appropriate department that the observance of any of the limitations so imposed on the offering for subscription or allotment of stock would prejudice the success of the issue or the realisation of the best price obtainable, the department may dispense with such limitation;

(b) where the special Act authorises the creation and issue of ordinary stock, create and issue redeemable or irredeemable preference stock in lieu thereof;

(c) where the special Act authorises the creation and issue of irredeemable preference or debenture stock, create and issue redeemable preference or debenture stock;

(d) where the special Act authorises the creation and issue of debenture stock or the borrowing of money to a limited extent, create and issue debenture stock or borrow money to an extent not exceeding half the share capital for the time being issued and paid up;

(e) pay a higher rate of dividend or interest on preference stock or debenture stock or money borrowed than that authorised by the special Act:

Provided that—

(i) preference stock, whether redeemable or otherwise, shall not be issued under the authority of this Act to a greater extent than shall be sufficient to produce, including any premium which may be obtained on the sale thereof, an amount equal to the nominal amount of the stock authorised to be issued by the special Act or, as the case may be, the amount authorised to be raised by the special Act; and

ii) no consent given by a department in pursuance of this Act shall have effect until a report of the circumstances of the case has been presented to Parliament by the department and has lain upon the table of each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-one days during which the House has sat, and if either House during that period presents an address to His Majesty praying that consent may be withheld, no such consent shall be given; and

(iii) the provisions contained in the Schedule to this Act shall apply in respect of redeemable preference or debenture stock issued in pursuance of this Act; and

62

(iv) preference stock issued under the authority of this Act shall not affect any preference or priority as to the payment of dividends or capital enjoyed by any preference stock existing at the date of such issue, except with the sanction of three-fourths of the votes of the holders of that stock present (personally or by proxy) at a meeting of those stockholders specially convened for the purpose; and

(v) debenture stock issued under the authority of this Act shall not affect any priority as to the payment of interest or capital enjoyed by any debenture stock existing at the date of that issue except with the sanction of three-fourths of the votes of holders of such stock.

(2) The undertakings to which this Act applies are undertakings for the supply of gas, water, hydraulic power, and electricity, and tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public. roads.
(3) For the purposes of this Act—
The expressions "stock" and "stockholder" include shares and shareholder;
The expression "special Act" includes Provisional Orders and orders having the force of an Act of Parliament;
The expression "appropriate Government department" means in relation to gas, water, and hydraulic power undertakings the Board of Trade, and in relation to electricity and tramway undertakings the Minister of Transport.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): I move the insertion of the following proviso—
(i) The Department shall require a company making application to them for their consent under this Act to give notice of the application in writing to the council of each county, borough, or urban or rural district within which any part of the undertaking or limits of supply of the company is situate and of the manner in which and the time within which representation may be made with respect to the application, and the department shall consider any representations which may be duly made.
I had tabled an Amendment on this clause, but since it was put down the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has been good enough to meet me and to suggest that it should be moved in its present form, in which it covers one of the points mentioned in my Amendment and meets the point upon which I was anxious to have the Bill amended. I am obliged to the noble Lord for meeting me, and I will not explain the thing at length unless your Lordships desire that I should do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I think that this Amendment as now moved by my noble friend is perfectly in order, and will meet with the full approval of the Board of Trade.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. [H.L.]
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 15:
Powers of High Court where temporary separation orders have been made.
15.—(1) Where a temporary separation order under this Act, made either by the High Court or by a court of summary jurisdiction, has been in force for a period of two years, the person on whose application the order was made may—

(a) where the order was made on the ground of cruelty, apply to the High Court to have the order converted into a decree of divorce or of permanent judicial separation; and

(b) where the order was made on the ground of habitual drunkenness, apply to the High Court to continue the order for a further period of one year, and, if the order is so continued, may at the conclusion of that year make a further application to the High Court to have the order converted into a decree of divorce or of permanent judicial separation.

(2) Where an application is made under this section to the High Court to continue a temporary separation order made on the ground of habitual drunkenness, the court may continue the order for a period not exceeding one year, and where application is made under this section for the conversion of a temporary separation order into a decree of divorce or permanent judicial separation the court may proceed as though application had been made to it in the first instance for such a decree, and the provisions of this Act with respect to such applications shall apply accordingly.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL, on behalf of Lord SYDENHAM moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "drunkenness," to insert "or of venereal disease in a communicable form." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Sydenham has asked me to move the Amendments standing in his name, which he had put down on behalf of the National Council for Combating Venereal Diseases,
64
of which he is president. I might point out that the Amendment to this clause does not stand entirely by itself but is dependent upon the acceptance of the Amendment to Clause 22.
The purpose of the Amendment is to give some protection, which does not at present exist, to the many wives (of which we have evidence) who have infective husbands, and whose husbands insist upon living with them. At the present moment there is no remedy open to the wife, and it is felt that this Amendment would have the effect of inducing husbands to undergo treatment and thereby be cured. In the same way it would have the effect of bringing advantage to the wife who also could go and be cured; whereas at the present time, if she is liable to be infected again, she does not go. Since the Royal Commission on Divorce I think so much more knowledge has been given to the world by the Commission, of which my noble friend was chairman, and the ravages of these diseases, are much more fully known and appreciated.
I press this Amendment in the interests not only of the infective husband but of the wife, and, above all, of the children who may be born to that marriage. I think it would have the dual effect not only of lessening the incidence of disease by giving an inducement to the husband to go and be cured, but also of lessening the number of divorces. If the definition of "cruelty" in Clause 29 is accepted, a wife has only to wait to get infected and then she may claim the full remedy of divorce. But she may not wish to claim that whole remedy, and certainly one would desire that she should not have to undergo infection before she can have any protection. Therefore I strongly hope that the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, after ("drunkenness"), insert ("or of venereal disease in a communicable form").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have some difficulty in accepting this Amendment, for the reason that Clause 8 of the Bill defines the grounds upon which divorce can be obtained. Clause 15—which I think has been much misunderstood—provides that where a separation order has been obtained from a magistrate for two years, at the expiration of that time the person who has

65
obtained the separation order can apply to the High Court either for continuation of the order or for a decree of divorce if grounds exist. It was never intended by Clause 15 that there should be any larger and wider grounds of divorce introduced by implication than those expressly stated in Clause 8. Clause 8 enables divorce to be obtained for cruelty, and cruelty includes the knowing or careless infection of a woman or a man by venereal disease. If, therefore, the woman has obtained an order for separation on the ground that the husband has knowingly or carelessly infected her with venereal disease and at the expiration of two years reconciliation becomes out of the question, she can then get a divorce upon that ground.
I do not understand what it is that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment wants unless it be to provide that the mere fact that a man has a venereal disease should be, by itself, a ground for divorce. If that were intended I think it ought to have appeared in Clause 8, and I do not believe it ought to be made a ground for divorce. It may be answerable evidence of infidelity, and, if it were, then divorce could be granted. It would certainly be a ground of divorce if a man with this disease carelessly or negligently infected his wife. But to introduce into this clause, as the noble Lord suggests, special powers applicable only in the special cases where the order has been made on the ground of habitual drunkenness or, in his words, "of venereal disease in a communicable form," is I think to extend the Bill in a manner that is a little inconsistent with the main provisions upon which it rests. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD moved to leave out Clause 15. The noble Lord said: I am interested in the clause simply as an ordinary country J.P., and, as I understand, the clause in effect puts upon justices of the peace and stipendiary magistrates a responsibility which I am sure we should very much object to having put upon us, and which I cannot think was really intended. To save your Lordships' time I am going to deal simply with the clause so far as it relates to cruelty. I admit at once that I should have a somewhat harder case if I were to deal with that part relating to habitual drunkenness. I do not happen to be conversant with the
66
method of treatment of habitual drunkards and so forth, and I am confining my observations to the case of cruelty.
In this case the clause provides, where a temporary separation order has been made by the magistrates on the ground of cruelty, that after the lapse of a certain time that order can be enlarged into a decree of divorce by the intervention of the High Court; and I ask myself, What will the High Court in such a case really be able to do? Assuming that the separation order of the justices is rightly made in the first instance, a person who claims the benefit of the clause would apparently be entitled to a divorce on applying to the High Court. So far as I can see, no matter can be before the High Court beyond what was already before the justices. The parties will have been separated for two years and the original cruelty can have been neither aggravated nor diminished. Nothing fresh can be before the Court and so far as I can see, they have simply to ask themselves whether the order was properly made. I see that the intervention of the High Court may be a safeguard against possible great abuses, but in the ordinary case, supposing the justices to have proceeded on some evidence, the High Court apparently has to review the decisions of the justices upon evidence which by that time is two years old. I imagine that in this class of case evidence does not at all improve with keeping. The complainant will have been cooking his or her recollections during those two years, and the neighbours will have forgotten all about the circumstances.
It seems to me—I speak under the correction of many noble Lords who are far more competent to speak than I—that in the ordinary case the High Court will be bound automatically to make this separation order into a decree of divorce almost upon the penny-in-the-slot principle. That seems to me what must happen. It amounts to this, therefore, that justices of the peace are going to be called upon to give decisions which, in effect, will be decrees of divorce. If it had been proposed simply, and in so many words, in this new and very difficult question of cruelty, to make justices of the peace Divorce Judges, nobody would look at such a proposal. Yet it seems to me that that is, in effect, what has been done. Bodies of J.P.'s are notoriously very differently constituted, and it is a question whether the

67
Court on the day on which one of these cases is heard may not be a Court consisting of the least experienced of the local magistrates. The stipendary magistrates, of course, are much more highly skilled persons, but even they are hard-driven officials, and we have evidence of the variations of the way in which they do their work in these particular cases.
For instance, in the evidence before the Commissioners there was a case quoted by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury of a County Court Judge who adopted the method of generally adjourning the cases and asking the Police Court missioner to talk to the parties, with the result that he did not grant a separation order in so many as one-seventh of the cases in which application was made. There was also evidence that other magistrates granted these orders in a little less than one-half of the cases brought before them. It is obvious that in a great many instances separation orders are apt to be carelessly granted, and yet, unless the possibilities of the High Court digging up these cases anew and considering whether the decision is right two years after the event-unless that is a far more possible operation that I conceive it to be, the result of the clause must, in effect, bring about a great many divorces by Courts which we should be slow to trust with that authority and which would themselves, I am sure, be very averse to having that responsibility thrown upon them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 15.—(Lord Charnwood.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: As I said just now, the Bill has been the subject of strange misunderstanding. The object of the clause is this. At the present moment if this Bill stands in its present form, a woman will be able to apply to the magistrate either for divorce or for temporary separation and will not be compelled to apply for a divorce, and it is hoped that if there be any chance of reconciliation the two years may enable that reconciliation to be effected, and nothing more will be heard of the matter. If, on the other hand, that is impossible, if the man's conduct shows no sign whatever of improvement at the end of the time, this clause merely provides that the woman should be in no worse position than if she had insisted on the extreme right which the Bill gives her, and had demanded and obtained divorce in the first instance.
68
Your Lordships will see how carefully the clause is drawn, if you read it in that light. A temporary separation has to be for two years, and the magistrates have no further power. In the Bill, as your Lordships know, divorce cannot be obtained on the ground of drunkenness unless the separation has been for three years. At the expiration, therefore, of two years she is bound to apply to the High Court in order to obtain a further extension of one year, so that it shall be impossible to say that the woman has obtained divorce by virtue of the exercise of the authority of the police magistrates. So far as "cruelty" is concerned, she is entitled to go to the High Court and say that although she has been separated from her husband for two years reconciliation has become impossible, and ask for a divorce.
If it were not for this clause the result would be that the woman who had obtained temporary separation would be unable to obtain divorce. You would, in fact, force her to elect whether she would get a divorce or separation in the first instance. Am I to understand that the noble Lord and those who support him desire that that should be the position? If they desire that the Bill which we have prepared in the hope that divorce need not be forced upon people when there is an alternative remedy and providing that there should be a locus pœnitentice for the man and a chance of restoration for the home—if they desire that this opportunity should be taken away, then I beg them to support the Amendment, because that will be the result.
VISCOUNT CAVE: Notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord has said, I must say that the clause is unfortunately worded. Anyone who reads the clause would infer that the Court at the end of two years must found itself upon the order of the magistrates. I am confident that any Court would say that to some extent a magistrate's order is a foundation for a decree, and that they were entitled to have regard to the fact that it had been made. I think that would be very unfortunate. I yield to no one in my respect for the care and skill with which magistrates exercise their functions, but to make an order of a Court of petty sessions the foundation for a decree of divorce would, I think, be very unfortunate indeed. If the only purpose of the noble and learned Lord is

69
that which he has indicated—to provide that the making of a separation order shall not be a bar to proceedings for divorce—that is a wholly different matter, and the proper way to attain that end is to omit the present clause in its somewhat ambiguous form and insert a new clause giving effect to the purpose indicated.
LORD BUCKMASTER: This clause is misunderstood largely because people have not given attention to it. If looked at clearly it will be found that when application is made to the High Court for divorce the proceedings are begun as though the application is made in the first instance. The woman will be bound to prove cruelty. She will be able to prove that she has been separated because of the cruelty, and she will have to establish that there has been cruelty within the meaning of this Bill entitling her to divorce. I see no reason why the clause should not stand, unless there is to be no chance to the woman except that she must be bound to divorce the man in the first instance.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Power to order payments, etc., by parties to marriage.
16.—(1) Where the High Court grants a decree of divorce or permanent judicial separation, or of nullity of marriage, the court—

(a) may inquire into the existence of any ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements made on the parties to the marriage and may make such orders with reference to the application of the whole or a portion of the property settled, either for the benefit of the children of the marriage (if any) or of the parties to the marriage, as to the court may seem fit; or

(b) may order that the defendant shall, to the satisfaction of the court, secure to the applicant such gross sum of money or such annual sum of money for any term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the means (if any) of the applicant, the ability of the defendant, and the circumstances of the case generally, it may deem reasonable, and for that purpose may refer the matter to any one of the conveyancing counsel of the court to settle and approve of a proper deed or instrument to be, executed by all necessary parties, and the court may, if it thinks fit, suspend the pronouncing of its decree until such deed has been duly executed; or

70

(c) may make an order on the defendant for the payment to the applicant during their joint lives of such monthly or weekly sums for maintenance and support as the court thinks reasonable, and any such order may be made either in addition to or instead of an order under the last preceding subsection.

(2) The court may also where any proceedings for divorce or permanent judicial separation, or for a decree of nullity of marriage, have been instituted by a wife, make such orders as to the court may seem fit for the payment by the defendant to the applicant of alimony during the pending of the suit.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: The Amendments in my name all stand together. My reason for moving them is this, that as there is a power given to make the orders described in the subsection in the case of one party, I am not able to see why they should not extend to the other party. My Amendments, therefore, give the Court power to make orders for provision to be made for the other party, whether it is the defendant or the applicant.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("the defendant") and insert ("one party to the marriage")
Page 10, line 7, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("other party")
Page 10, line 9, leave out ("the applicant") and insert ("such other party")
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("the applicant") and insert ("such other party")
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("party upon whom the order is made")
Page 10, line 19, leave out ("the defendant") and insert ("one party to the marriage")
Page 10, line 20, leave out ("applicant") and insert ("other party").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not see any material objection to these Amendments. They merely extend the power of the Court, and do not affect the principle of the Bill as to the grounds on which divorce can be obtained.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Amendment on line 24 is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out ("last preceding subsection") and insert ("foregoing provisions of this section")—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph—

71
"(d) Where the Court has made any Order on the defendant for the payment to the applicant during their joint lives of any such monthly or weekly sum for maintenance and the Court is satisfied that the means of either of the parties have increased or decreased, the Court may from time to time vary such order in such manner as having regard to all the facts of the case the Court may deem just.
This power shall also apply to an Order for unsecured payments to be made by a defendant who has failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights."
The noble Earl said: The Amendment looks very long and formidable, but its only effect is to give the Court power to vary any order that has been made in accordance with the means of the parties. It is desirable, I think, that the Court should have this power.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am in entire sympathy with the noble Earl in this Amendment. The conditions may change. They have changed during the last two years, and it is right that the Court should retain power to vary orders according to the condition of the people.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Power to order payments by co-defendant.
17. Where in any proceedings for divorce or permanent judicial separation under this Act the court finds that the defendant has committed adultery, the court May order the co-defendant to pay any actual pecuniary loss sustained by the applicant, and to settle property on or to make or secure such payments to the parties of the marriage, or either of them, or the children of the marriage (if any), as the court, having regard to the means of the applicant, the ability of the codefendant, and the circumstances generally, thinks fit.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Amendment on lines 31 and 32 is purely formal.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("the defendant has committed adultery") and insert ("a co-defendant has committed adultery with the defendant").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Power to make orders as to custody of children.
18. In any proceedings for divorce or permanent judicial separation, or for a decree of nullity of marriage, the court may, either before or after granting a decree, make such interim or permanent orders as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance, and education of the children of the marriage (if any), and may, if it thinks fit, direct proper proceedings to be taken for placing those children or any of them under the direction of the High Court, and may require security to be given for any payments required to be made under such order.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after "marriage" where that word first occurs, to insert "or restitution of conjugal rights." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships have inserted "restitution" in the Bill as one of the grounds of divorce, and therefore it has to be inserted in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, after ("marriage") insert ("or restitution of conjugal rights").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am not so clear that this is simply a drafting Amendment. As the clause now stands, where proceedings are being taken for divorce or decree of nullity the Court may make an interim or permanent order. That is quite right. But a decree for "restitution" will no longer be necessary as part of the proceedings for obtaining divorce. It can only be necessary, if necessary at all, in rather unusual circumstances, where there may be a little ill-feeling between the parties. I see no reason why a woman Who is not seeking divorce or separation should take proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights in order that the Court may, while those proceedings are on foot, make interim orders for the custody, maintenance, and education of the children. I do not think they should be encouraged in these applications.
EARL RUSSELL: I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend. I do not think actions for restitution should be encouraged. But I should have thought that the Court should have the necessary power if such applications took place. I will leave the matter entirely to the judgment of the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: The Amendment on line 41 is merely drafting, and gives the Court power to reconsider orders in the light of altered circumstances.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 41, after ("decree") insert ("from time to time").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after "(if any)," to insert "up to 21 years of age." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary with regard to the children of the marriage up to 21 years of age, because it is presumed that the Court will not give directions after that age.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, after ("(if any)") insert ("up to 21 years of age").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is true that the Court of Chancery might not give directions with regard to children past that age, but if you have once got the whole relationships of the family before the Divorce Court, if you have children say at Oxford, I see no reason why the power of the Court to make Orders with regard to their maintenance should not be preserved. The Court will exercise its discretion having regard to the ages of the children, and what they are.
EARL RUSSELL: Surely it is rather contrary to the usual practice to make orders, say, with regard to children of five and-thirty. You want to make provision for the maintenance and custody of the children of the marriage, I suggest, up to 21 years of age. Is it in accordance with the usual practice to go beyond that age?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, before "High Court," to insert "Chancery Division of the." The noble Lord said: This is to insert the Chancery Division as being the proper Division.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 5, after ("the") insert ("Chancery Division of the").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
Further provisions as to orders under preceding sections.
19.—(1) Where the court has made an order under any of the three last preceding sections the
74
court may subsequently, on due cause being shown front time to time, revoke, suspend, or vary the order on the application of any person affected by the order.
(2) Any such order may require payments to be made notwithstanding any restraint on anticipation of income.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after "sections," to insert "or section 13, subsection (2)." The noble Earl said This is in order to include, in the sections with regard to which the Court may make orders, section 13, subsection (2). I think that is right.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, after ("sections") insert ("or section 13, subsecticn (2)").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Making decrees nisi absolute
20.—(1) A decree nisi under this Act shall not be made absolute until the expiration of six-months, or such shorter time (not being less than three months) as the court at the time of making the decree may direct.
(2) During that period any person shall be at liberty to show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute by reason of the same having been obtained by collusion or by reason of material facts not having been brought before the court, and on cause being so shown the court may deal with the case by reversing the decree nisi or by requiring further inquiry, or otherwise as justice may require.
(3) If during the said period cause is not shown to the satisfaction of the court why the decree nisi should not be made absolute, the court shall at the expiration of the period make the decree nisi absolute without further application.
(4) After the expiration of five years from the making of a decree absolute, the dce shall not be questioned, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or on any ground whatsoever.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out "subsection (4). The noble Earl said: This is not a drafting Amendment but a matter of some importance. Subsection (4) of this, clause says that after the expiration of five years from the making of a decree absolute, the degree shall not be questioned, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or on any ground whatsoever. I am in considerable doubt as to what is exactly the law on this subject at the present time. I am inclined to think that want of jurisdiction or fraud would always give rise to question as to the decree of any Court, whatever time had elapsed, but in practice it does not do so, and if you are going to legislate about it at all I think you had

75
better legislate to the effect that the decree shall not be questioned from the moment it has become absolute, because it is extremely undesirable then to question the status on re-marriage of the people who have been divorced, and the legitimacy of the children born during the period of five years. It is extremely undesirable that there should be any doubt about such matters for a long period like that. It is better to make the decree absolute and final, and say that it cannot be questioned. I have some doubt whether it could be questioned now, although I have an idea that lack of jurisdiction will invalidate any decree. I should be very glad if gentlemen learned in the taw in this House will consider the effect of this, and consider what on the whole will be most to the social advantage. The two questions which
suggest are involved in this matter are either certainty with an infinitesimal risk, the Court being very rarely misled, or on the other hand the risk of leaving the status uncertain in such important matters as re-marriage and the legitimacy of children.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 31 to 34, leave out subsection (4).—(Earl Russell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have no doubt that the reasons for this recommendation were in part a compromise. The difficulty at the present moment is this. Divorce depends upon domicile. Domicile is not always easy to ascertain exactly. Mistakes may arise. If a mistake is established the whole proceedings in a divorce fail, because the Court never had jurisdiction at all to entertain the proceedings. It was thought at first, I imagine, that it was not desirable to make the decree conclusive when it was made absolute; secondly, that it was not desirable to render it possible to have the decree challenged at any time in the future, and therefore five years was taken as the period which it was thought reasonable to fix as the time after which the decree should be incapable of being attacked. I am not prepared to suggest any difference from the finding of the Royal Commission on the matter, because I know quite well that they must have considered it, and I believe those are the reasons which urged them to their conclusion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Power to make temporary separation orders.
22.—(1) Any married person may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for a temporary separation order on the ground that the defendant—

(a) has since the marriage treated the applicant with cruelty; or

(b) is an habitual drunkard;

and the court, if satisfied as to the facts alleged, may make a temporary separation order, which shall, whilst in force, have the same effect as a decree of permanent judicial separation made under Part I of this Act:
Provided that the provisions of this Act with respect to the circumstances constituting defences to proceedings for divorce shall, so far as applicable, apply with the necessary modifications in the case of applications for temporary separation orders.
(2) A temporary separation order shall remain in force for such period, not exceeding two years, as may be specified in the order, but if originally made for a period of less than two years may be subsequently extended so as to cover in all a period not exceeding two years.
(3) At the conclusion of such period of two years the person on whose application the order was made may apply to the High Court in accordance with Part I of this Act, and the High Court may thereupon exercise any of the powers conferred upon it in that behalf by that Part of this Act.
LORD GORELL, on behalf of Lord SYDENHAM, moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "drunkard," to insert "or (c) is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form." The noble Lord said: I do not think that this Amendment is open to the same objections as were taken against the former Amendment on Clause 15 by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill. It is simply the case of giving protection, so that the wife need not suffer infection, in which case under the Bill she would be entitled to divorce. I do not think I need say anything more about it, and I hope the Amendment will be acceptable to the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, after ("drunkard") insert ("or (c) is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form").—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot help thinking that there is very strong ground for this Amendment. Clause 15 will not restore the effect of the Amendment moved before if these words are introduced, and it does appear to me that if a woman thinks, rightly, that her husband is suffering from venereal disease, she should have the right to ask that he should be kept separate from

77
her for the period of time. Speaking for myself, I feel inclined to accept the Amendment. I do not know what are the feelings of the House. It is certainly a cruel and horrible thing that a woman should be compelled to live under conditions of close intimacy with a man known to be suffering from a disease of this kind, from which she may not be able to escape.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Power to make maintenance orders.
23. In any of the following cases; that is to say—

(1) In any ease where a -court of summary jurisdiction makes or has power to make a temporary separation order under this Part of this Act; and

(2) In any case where a court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied on the application of any married person that the defendant—

(a) has deserted the applicant; or

(b) has wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, or, where the applicant is the wife, for her children whom the defendant is legally liable to maintain;

the court may make an order (in this Act referred to as a maintenance order) for the payment to the applicant of such weekly sum, not exceeding two pounds, as the court, having regard to the means of both parties to the marriage, and generally to the circumstances of the case, considers reasonable:
Provided that the court shall not make a maintenance order on the application of a husband unless he is incapable of earning a livelihood, and where the court makes a temporary separation order on the application of a husband it may make an order similar to a maintenance order for the payment of sums by the applicant to the defendant, which shall for the purposes of this Act have effect as though it were a maintenance order.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "not exceeding two pounds." The noble Lord said: The provision which I wish to direct attention is the limit of £2 which was put upon the subsection at a time when the value of money was very different from what it is now. If there is to be a limit I suggest that it should be something by no means so contractec as £2. My own opinion is that it would be better to omit the amount
78
altogether, and leave the Court, according to the circumstances of the person summoned, to say what the weekly sum shall be. I therefore move to omit the words altogether, but if there is objection to that I should hope that the noble and learned Lord would put in some higher sum than £2.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("not ex-exceeding two pounds").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the words are left out the clause will run, "the Court may make an order for the payment to the applicant of such weekly sum as the Court, having regard to the means of both parties to the marriage, and generally to the circumstances of the case, considers reasonable." I see no reason why the discretion of the magistrate should be fettered by a limit of £2, which in many cases to-day must be far below what ought to be provided; and if your Lordships are prepared to accept this Amendment I am anxious and willing that it should be inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
Further provisions as to separation and maintenance orders.
24.—(1) The power to make temporary separation orders or maintenance orders shall include power to make such provision as the court thinks reasonable with respect to costs.
(2) The power to make temporary separation orders shall include power to make orders with respect to the custody of any children of the marriage who are under the age of sixteen,
(3) Where the court makes a temporary separation order on the ground of habitual drunkenness it may in addition make an order that the defendant shall submit to such treatment as may be specified in the order, or may order the defendant to be committed to and detained in any retreat licensed under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, the licensee of which is willing to receive him or her, and such order shall have effect as if he or she had been admitted to the retreat under section ten of the habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, us amended by any subsequent enactment, and the court may order an officer of the court or a constable to remove him or her to the retreat accordingly.
(4) Where the court makes a temporary separation order it may further order that the defendant shall enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour for such period as may be specified in the recognisance.
(5) A temporary separation order shall entitle the person on whose application it is made to adequate police protection against access or molestation by the other party to the marriage.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the following new subsection—
"(1) The provisions of Part I of this Act with respect to the circumstances constituting defences to proceedings for divorce shall, so far as applicable, apply, with the necessary modifications, in the case of applications for temporary separation orders and maintenance orders."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is simply to provide that the provisions that are established in the earlier part of the Bill constituting defensive proceedings to divorce shall as far as possible be applicable to separation orders. I think your Lordships will agree that this is right.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, at beginning insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Power of Secretary of State to make rules under Part 11.
28. A Secretary of State may make rules with respect to the practice and procedure in courts of summary jurisdiction under this Part of this Act, and generally for carrying this Part of this Act into effect, and such rules may apply with the necessary modifications any of the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts or of the rules made thereunder.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out "A Secretary of State," and insert "The Lord Chancellor." The noble Lord said: Unless the practice is entirely different from that with which I was acquainted for 30 years, it is the Lord Chancellor who makes an Order under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and not the Secretary of State. Therefore I move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, leave out ("A Secretary of State") and insert ("The Lord Chancellor").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should be sorry indeed that a Secretary of State should usurp any of the duties or functions of the Lord Chanceller, and I willingly accept this Amendment. I am obliged to the noble Lord for having called my attention to the mistake.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29:
Interpretation.
29. For the purposes of this Act—
The expression "the applicant" means any party to a marriage applying for a decree, order, or other relief under this Act, and the expression "the defendant" means the other party to the marriage in any such case;
The expression "co-defendant" means any person who is found or is alleged to have committed adultery with a defendant;
The expression "desertion" means desertion without the consent or against the will of the other party to the marriage, and without reasonable cause, and wilful refusal to permit marital intercourse shall be treated as equivalent to desertion;
Any unnatural or grossly indecent offence shill be treated as equivalent to adultery;
The expression "cruelty" means such conduct by one married person to another as makes it unsafe, having regard to the risk of life, limb, or health, bodily or mental, for the latter to continue to live with the former, and the following facts—

(a) that one party to a marriage has knowingly or negligently infected the other with venereal disease; and

(b) that a husband has compelled his wife to submit herself to prostitution;

shall, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing definition of cruelty, be treated as equivalent to cruelty;
The expression "habitual drunkard" means a person who habitually takes or uses any intoxicant, and while under the influence or in consequence of the effects thereof is at times dangerous or the cause of terror to himself or others, or the cause of serious harm or suffering to the members of his family or others, or incapable of managing himself or his affairs, and the expression "habitual drunkenness" has a corresponding meaning;
The expression "intoxicant" includes any intoxicating liquor, and any sedative, narcotic, or stimulant drug or preparation;
The expression "officer of the court" includes a superintendent or inspector of police, or officer of police of superior or equal rank, and any probation officer or police court missionary;
Power to make orders as to the erstody of children shall include power to make orders as to access to children.
VISCOUNT CAVE VISCOUNT CAVE had on the Paper an Amendment, in the interprecation of "desertion," to delete "and wilful refusal to permit marital intercourse shall be treated as equivalent to desertion."
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: May I, in the absence of Lord Cave, be permitted to move this Amendment? It deals with a matter of considerable

81
importance—namely, the case where the refusal to permit marital intercourse is equivalent to desertion. Every one is familiar—indeed, there is nothing more flagrant in connection with divorce proceedings—with the way in which persons who no longer desire to live together arrange correspondence by which the one writes a letter to the other asking and pleading that he or she should return, and the person to whom it is addressed writes a letter of reply refusing to do so. If this part of the clause remains it will certainly afford the most open and potent opportunity for that collusion which admittedly now takes place in cases of desertion. This seems to me almost to invite the use of this particular method with which the Courts are so familiar of establishing desertion which cannot be described as wilful or malicious.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, leave out from ("cause") to the end of line 26.—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am much impressed by what the most rev. Prelate has said, and I think it may be that the words in this clause ought to be in some way altered so as to make their meaning a little more clear. It is not intended to cover such a case as that to which the most rev. Prelate refers, but I quite appreciate it is possible that the words might be taken to cover such a case.
I will tell your Lordships what it is intended to cover. It is intended to cover the case of a woman living at home with her husband, and persistently and continuously refusing to permit marital intercourse. Such a case came before us only the other day. For eight or nine years two people had been living together, and they had never really been husband and wife. The woman would not permit the man to come near her. She lived in the house, and did all the house work, but when he attempted to obtain any intimate relation she refused. This clause is intended to cover that case, because that case, I submit to your Lordships, is one of real desertion. It may well be said "Oh, but in such a case as that you can apply for a nullity on the ground that there is something physically wrong with the woman." But that is an extremely difficult thing to do. The woman is entitled to refuse, and does refuse, to submit herself to medical examination.
82
It may even be that at some very early stage of the marriage, on one or two isolated occasions, intercourse has been permitted; yet none the less the woman from that time has absolutely refused to permit it. That is a complete denial of marital rights which it is intended to include in the word "desertion." It is not intended to include what the most rev. Prelate referred to, and I should be glad to see how one can alter it. Of course, one could introduce the word "persistent" before "wilful." I think that word should be there and I am willing to insert it, but I do not quite see for the moment what other words could be added.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: If the noble and learned Lord is prepared to reconsider the point and to, bring up words more adequately expressing; what he has just said, I should be quite content to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am much obliged to the most rev. Prelate. I fore—see that I shall have some difficulty in carrying out my promise, but I will do my best to bring up suitable words. At least, I will promise to introduce the word "persistent."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to delete "any unnatural or grossly indecent offence shall be treated as equivalent to adultery," and insert "The expression 'adultery' shall be deemed to include bigamy, sodomy, bestiality, and other unnatural or grossly indecent offence."
The noble Earl said: The definition in lines 27 and 28 seems to be a little vague and does not" include definitely the words that are included in the Act of 1857. I think those words should not be excluded, and therefore put down the Amendment which turns it the other way round. I should in fairness draw your Lordships' attention, to one word I have included namely, "bigamy"—"the expression 'adultery'shall be deemed to include bigamy."
It is only right to point out that that is a slight extension of the present law, because bigamy is only useful now so far as it is some sort of presumption of adultery. But it was felt by many people, and I must say by myself, that on the ground of expense, where you have a bigamy proved, the Court might reasonably infer adultery

83
from that without having to have it proved separately.
But it would be fair to go further and to tell your Lordships also that the Royal Commission considered that point and, having considered it, they disagreed with the view which I am now expressing, and they thought it was not necessary. The advantage of including this particular word "bigamy" has nothing to do with merits, nothing to do with causes of divorce. It has merely the advantage in the case of poor people of cheapening it; to those who are not poor it does not matter. I will give an illustration of the sort of thing I mean. There was a woman in Sussex, whose husband had committed bigamy in Liverpool and was convicted of bigamy at the Liverpool Assizes. It would have been sufficient, under what I am suggesting, to prove the bigamy and to prove the conviction and the identity. But in addition to that, as the law stands now and as it would stand if your Lordships did not introduce this word, she would also have to bring witnesses to the adultery from Liverpool to London, the same witnesses who had given evidence at the trial at which he was convicted. Under this Bill there will be local trials, but she would still have to bring those witnesses to her local trial in Sussex or wherever it was. The object of the Amendment is not merely to change the law but to enable the Court by Statute to make that slight step and to say that, where people have committed bigamy, it is fair to infer adultery. If it saves expense in proving a case I think the change should be adopted. But that, in any case, does not alter the rest of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 27 and 28, and insert: ("The expression "adultery" shall be deemed to include bigamy, sodomy, bestiality, and other unnatural or grossly indecent offence").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: So far as the Amendment covers the clause as it now stands, I say quite frankly I prefer the clause. I have always objected to Parliamentary drafting that started off by saying that one word was deemed to include another. I think that the way it is done in the Bill is much better—"Any unnatural or grossly indecent offence shall be treated as equivalent to adultery." I do not think it is necessary to emphasise it any further. And, as far as this Amendment deals with all the matters excepting
84
bigamy, it is, as the noble Earl himself admitted, already covered by the words in the Bill, and I see no reason why it should be altered. As to bigamy, I am a little uneasy. I should have thought that proof of bigamy would have been sufficient for the purposes of the Divorce Court. But if it be not, and if there is any doubt about it I do not think your Lordships would object to adding "bigamy" to the words as they now stand in the Bill. It would then read—"Bigamy or any unnatural or grossly indecent offence shall be treated as equivalent to adultery."
EARL RUSSELL: I, of course, accept the Amendment in the form which the noble Lord suggests. He objects to the words "shall be deemed." I am bound to say I rather object to the words "shall be treated as equivalent to" in a Statute.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: I move the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 27, before ("Any") insert ("Bigamy or").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK moved, in the interpretation of "habitual drunkard," to delete "or the cause of serious harm or suffering to the members of his family or others." The most rev. Prelate said: This Amendment stands on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Cave, and in his absence I should like to move it. I have no particular objection to the words "cause of serious harm or suffering to the members of his family," but I think the additional words "or others" really carry the matter far too wide. Is it seriously proposed that a wife will be entitled to obtain a divorce from a husband because it is proved that the husband's conduct when under the influence of drink could be alleged to be a cause of harm or suffering, say to the persons with whom he was working, or to other persons quite outside the limits of the home? I cannot but think that that would not commend itself to the common sense of the House, and that you will realise that these words "or others" open out a sphere far wider than any of us, even those who are in favour of additional causes of divorce, contemplated.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, leave out from ("others") to the second ("or") in line 9.—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think there is much substance in this criticism. "Others" is a very wide phrase, and it might be taken to apply to anybody. I wonder whether the most rev. Prelate would be satisfied with the introduction of the words "wife or family" or "wife and children." I should be quite willing to limit it in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER then moved, after "himself," to delete "or others" and to insert "wife or children," and to delete "or others" where those words secondly occur.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("or others") and insert ("wife, or children").
Page 17, line 9, leave out ("or others").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Hearing of cases in private and limitation of reports.
32.—(1) The Court of Appeal or a judge of the High Court may, if in their or his opinion the interests of decency, morality, humanity, or justice so require—

(a) direct that any proceedings before them or him under this Act shall be heard in camera; or

(b) direct that the whole or any portion of any such proceedings shall be withdrawn from publication.

(2) It shall not be lawful to publish any report of any proceedings under this Act until the conclusion of the proceedings, or to publish any pictorial representation of or in connection with any such proceedings, or to publish any report of any proceedings heard in camera as aforesaid.
(3) Any person acting in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section, or any direction of the Court of Appeal or a judge thereunder, shall be guilty of contempt of court and punishable accordingly.
(4) For the purpose of this section "publication" means publication in a newspaper or periodical, and "publish" has a corresponding meaning.
(5) A court of summary jurisdiction may, if in its opinion the interests of decency, morality, humanity, or justice so require, direct that at any proceedings heard before it under Part II of this
86
Act no person other than the members and officers of the court, and the parties to the case, their solicitors and counsel, and other persons directly concerned in the case shall, except by leave of court, be allowed to attend:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the exclusion of bona tide representatives of a newspaper or news agency.
(6) Where a court or judge makes any direction under this section the reasons for the direction shall be distinctly stated at, the time that the direction in made.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "The Court of Appeal or a Judge of the High Court," to insert "or a Court of summary jurisdiction." The noble Lord said: I think it is undesirable that in a Bill for divorce you should deal with such a constitutional question as the suppression of publicity in these proceedings or interfere with the discretion of the Press. My Amendments would give the same power to a Court of summary jurisdiction as to High Courts; they would give the Judge in the lower Court discretion to turn out on certain occasions persons who might be in the Court for a prurient reason, or persons who might have come to gloat over the sufferings of others, to allow the Press to remain and so ensure that publicity which is so important to the administration of justice.
As many of your Lordships, who either practice in Court or sit on the Bench at Quarter Sessions or at Assizes, must know, the Press is always ready to accept a suggestion from the Court in regard to leaving out undesirable details. There is, of course, a section of the Press which does publish indecent things; but the evil of driving publicity underground altogether seems to me to be far greater than the occasional publicity which is given. It has been held by publicists and by jurists and by lawyers for many years that publicity is one of the most important things for the administration of justice. There is no doubt that the Royal Commission reported on the matter and suggested that there should be power in the presiding Judge to have control of the reporters; but the proposal made by them and the proposal made in this Bill go further than anything that has been done in the past. Subsequent to the Report of the Royal Commission, as late as 1913, in a suit before your Lordships, with all the Law Lords present, a unanimous and strong judgment was given in which they cited publicists and spoke of the importance of the freedom of reporters. The only

87
possible method of limitation that was made to that was by Lord Haldane when he said that in certain cases the issue of justice might be made impossible. He was at once caught up by Lord Halsbury, who said that although he would not controvert the noble and learned Viscount altogether, he should like to see the case in which justice could not be carried out before he came to any decision on the matter.
If I may, I would like to quote briefly Lord Haldane's words on this subject which show how different his view was at that time from the position which is laid before us by this clause. The noble and learned Viscount said—
"Whatever may have been the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts the power of an ordinary Court of Justice to hear in private cannot rest merely on the discretion of the Judge or on his individual view that it is desirable, for the sake of public decency or morality, that the hearing should take place in private. If there is any exception to the broad principle which requires the administration of justice to take place in open Court, that exception must be based on the application of some other and over-riding principle which defines the field of exception and does not leave its limits to the individual discretion of the Judge."
Every other Law Lord backed up Lord Haldane, and endorsed the view of Lord Bramwell, two years after the Matrimonial Causes Act had passed, where he said that the Divorce Court being a new Court was constituted with the ordinary incidents of other English Courts of Justice and, therefore, that the proceedings should be conducted in public. Lord Halsbury said, "I am of opinion that every Court of Justice is open to every subject of the King." He added that this was a broad, fixed rule. Lord Loreburn said, "The inveterate rule is that justice should be administered in open Court." Lord Shaw said, "To remit the maintenance of the constitutional right to the region of judicial discretion is to shift the foundations of freedom from the rock to the sand."
Those are very strong expressions; and the noble and learned Lords quoted two cases that had gone before as to the importance of this power of publicity. If you drive these things underground you are much more likely to have rumours spread about by one party or another, and possibly the bribing of officials to obtain information as to what occurred in Court. There are certain other cases where sus-
88
picion of a most grave character might easily arise. One occurs to me in the well known case of Crawford v. Crawford heard some years ago. From the evidence given I am sure that was the case which the Judge would have said should be heard in private, but if it had been heard in private and particulars had come out afterwards it might have wrecked the Government of the day or been at any rate of the most serious character by virtue of the suggestion that the particulars had been purposely kept concealed. I suggest that it is unwise to give Judges a discretion in this matter. I do not think it is advisable, when a Judge tries a case and says what according to his view is morality, or humanity, or decency, or justice (it should not be done) in secret without any of the restrictions which may occur by his knowing that anything of moment may be reported in pubic and that the public would have some control over it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 6, after ("court") insert ("or a court of summary jurisdiction").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF READING: I am to a certain extent in sympathy with some of the observations made by the noble Lord who has just sat down, but I cannot agree with the remedy that he suggests. I have put down Amendments on the Paper designed to give effect to the suggestion that I wish to made to your Lordships, and they are to be dealt with, it seems to me, in two categories. The first deals with the question of hearing cases in camera. Then there is the second which arises with regard to the publication to be allowed. That comes under paragraph (b). I cannot but think that it is desirable, if your Lordships will permit it, that some indication of my view should be given by me, as the mover of these Amendments, before you deal with that proposed by the noble Lord.
I agree entirely that it is undesirable that you should have trials in camera. Judges have again and again expressed their aversion from trial in camera. It is a safeguard to the public, and also to the Judges and generally to the administration of justice to have trials in public. Nevertheless, there are cases in which it may be, and indeed has been, thought to be impossible to administer justice in public. It has always been accepted, and certainly was so stated in your Lordships'

89
House in the case to which the noble Lord referred, that the paramount duty of a Court of Justice is to administer justice, and that there is a right in the Judge who is trying the case, if he should come to the conclusion that justice cannot be done because of the public being present—he has now under the law as it stands the right—to try that case in private. That was laid down in the case to which reference has been made. The view was accepted certainly by Lord Haldane, Lord Loreburn, Lord Halshury, with some limitation upon it, and I think in truth by all the noble Lords who sat to hear that case.
The practice of the Courts has really been limited. I think it may be stated very briefly; because I certainly do not wish to detain your Lordships with a discussion of legal principles or problems. Courts administer justice in camera in relation to wards of Court and lunatics, or where there is a question of a secret process under discussion and it may well be that in such a case the property which it is intended to preserve would be destroyed if the case were heard in public. That is a class of case which stands altogether by itself. The cases of wards and lunatics are really matters more of administration by the Courts than they are really matters involving principles of law to be laid down for the guidance of the general public.
Generally speaking, Courts have always set themselves against hearing trials in camera. I remember one case, when I was counsel at the Bar, in which the late Lord St. Helier ordered a case to be heard in camera. It was a divorce case. It was a case in which, appearing for a lady, I made the application to the Court, founded upon authority, on the ground that it would be impossible for the lady in the circumstances to state the facts with a number of persons present in Court, and that if the Court insisted that that must be done there would be a denial of justice, because the lady was absolutely incapable of giving her evidence except with just a very few persons in Court who were interested in the case. And the order was made in that case, and that part of the case into which the lady could not go in public—which involved going into detail of a character which can be imagined and certainly which I had never met before in any case—was taken in camera and the rest of the case was heard in public. That is an illustration of what is meant by hearing part of a case in camera where it is impossible to ad-
90
minster justice if the public is present. That is the general law.
If the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted it would be inserting in this Bill an enactment which is contrary to the general law. It would be limiting the general law, because it would do away with that which is really only declaratory in this case—that is that if the interests of justice require it a Judge may order that the proceedings be heard in camera. Your Lordships are aware, and it will not need any emphasis, that it is a right which is extremely rarely used, because every Judge sets his face against hearing cases in camera. Even recently, in the trial of a case of incest which was made punishable by the Statute of 1908 and which the Legislature decreed should be heard in camera, Judges have protested, and protested publicly, against hearing them in camera, not only because of their own dislike, but because they think the punishment does not become sufficiently public and many of the public (at least a number of them) may not be aware that it is a crime to commit incest.
I have, nevertheless, the greatest respect for the authority of the late Lord Gorell and those who were associated with him in this Royal Commission. I was a member of the Commission for some time, until I became a member of the Government, when I resigned. During my membership we did discuss, not formally, but we did discuss this question of publication in the Press and certainly the views expressed upon it were extremely varied. It was impossible to obtain unanimity except by means of a compromise. Having regard to the recommendations of the Commission, I would suggest that the better course would be to leave in the words "if in their or his opinion the interests of decency or justice so require," but to omit the words "morality, humanity." The effect of that would be that in such cases in which, as I have already explained, the Court had a jurisdiction you leave the Court the jurisdiction which exists. You are really only declaring the law. But by the addition of the word "decency" you are giving the Courts a power which hitherto they have not possessed. That is an innovation. I am not particularly enamoured of it, because I cannot but think that on the whole the Press does report with decency, though there are papers which go as far as they possibly can, and I very much doubt whether anything can stop it.

91
There are other cases of a similar character to which these provisions would not apply, and I am so anxious to give effect to the views of the Royal Commission who, with all the difficulties before them, having heard all the evidence, came to a conclusion which undoubtedly does represent a compromise, that I would support it so far as I possibly can in this respect. But I cannot support a Bill which says that if, in the Judge's opinion, "the interests of decency, morality, humanity or justice so require"; because I really do not know what the words "morality" "and humanity" there mean. One does understand "in the interests of justice," and, as I say, I understand and am prepared to go so far as to include the word "decency," but I cannot believe that Lord Gorell, if he had been spared to be present to-day, would have been in favour of inserting in a clause giving discretion to the Judge such wide language as "in the interests of … morality, humanity." The words cover every possible case that can be thought of. I cannot but think that what they had in mind was "decency," and when they were speaking of "morality and humanity" they were really wishing to restrict publication in the interests of "decency." There are many opinions as to what would be "morality" in particular cases, and "humanity" is even wider. It is because I think the clause would give such far-reaching discretion to the Court that I am moving in a later Amendment to omit the words "morality, humanity." If those words are left out I am prepared to support the clause with the words "in the interests of decency or justice."
May I add one further word, as I wish to make the position I am taking up quite clear as regards this clause? I do not believe in the second subsection so far as it seeks to restrict publication until the conclusion of the proceedings or to restrict pictorial representations in connection with such proceedings. I do not propose to discuss that at the moment as it travels into another category, and I prefer to make my few observations when we come to discuss that point.
What I am suggesting to the noble and learned Lord at present is that if we leave out the words "morality, humanity," and leave it "justice or decency" we are covering everything that can properly be asked for. We are not really adding to the
92
discretion of the Judges. We are only doing what the law requires, except that we are allowing the Judge, if he thinks it right and necessary in the interests of decency as well as justice, to order the proceedings to be in camera. It is for that reason that I am opposing the Amendment with the object of asking your Lordships to agree with the Amendment I have down later.
LORD ASKWITH: Does the noble and learned Lord say that he is not wedded to the word "decency" and that he would be content if the clause ran, "in their opinion the interests of justice so required"? Opinions vary as to what is "decency."
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: The publishers of this country, for whom I speak, and who have a right to be heard in this House on this Bill, take the strongest objection to this clause as it is drafted. They believe that it is reactionary in principle and would be wholly mischievous in working. They would not object to the clause as amended by Lord Askwith, because it is no concern of theirs, but I think that Lord Buckmaster, who has piloted this Bill with such consummate skill through all the shoals and quicksands of Committee stage, would be well advised to leave out a clause which seems to the publishers to be founded on an exploded order of ideas, and which I feel certain, if persisted in, would have a disastrous effect upon the future of the Bill.
In another place we used to hear talk of "wrecking Amendments." I suggest to Lord Buckmaster that this is a "wrecking Clause," and even if it passes your Lordships' House it is not likely to survive the ordeal to which it will be subjected in another place. It is wholly distinct and apart from the main purpose of the Bill and seems to have been thrown in by the Royal Commission, to which the noble and learned Lord apparently is bound hand and foot, as a sort, of make-weight. It was adopted unanimously without much connection logical or statutory with the rest of the Report. It is quite natural, as your Lordships will think, that the newspaper Press will not willingly accept this restriction on the right of publication. They wish to be left where they are under the general law of the land, amenable to the Courts if they publish what is indecent and obscene, and not specially fettered in this matter. Whether the Public Prosecutor takes action often enough is quite another thing, which I will not discuss.

93
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the resolution arrived at by a conference of the whole Press of the United Kingdom called to consider this clause. It is as follows—
The Conference desires to enter a strong protest against the proposals contained in this clause, and is of opinion: (1) That any such change in the law is unnecessary and undesirable in the public interest, calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice, and to lead to collusion and perjury and to false charges which could not well be made in a public Court; (2) that the open administration of justice is one of the guarantees of civil liberty, and one of the most effective safeguards against corruption and deception; (3) that it would be extremely dangerous that matrimonial causes should be dealt with in private, thus depriving the public and the Press of the opportunity of criticising the actions of litigants, Judges, magistrates, counsel, and witnesses, and the working of the divorce laws; (4) that the social questions involved are matters of public interest and do not alone affect the parties immediately concerned; (5) that the existing law provides ample safeguards for the purpose of preventing the publication of matter which should not be published.
The general law is well known to your Lordships, and I feel a little astonished that Lord Buckmaster, whom I have always looked upon as a stern and uncompromising guardian of the older ideas of Radicalism, should want to do away with the right of publication, which I think Hallam stated was the security of all securities for justice. I hardly think he is really of that mind. He may be prepared—he has not said so—to accept the Amendment, in which case I do not want to prolong the already long Committee stage of this Bill.
Every one admits that the right of publishing judicial proceedings has always the balance of advantages or of evils, and not only in matrimonial causes. Almost a hundred years ago this week the Lord Chief Justice of that day—Lord Chief Justice Abbott—pointed out what mischief had been done by the publication in the Observer of the judicial proceedings in the Cato-street Conspiracy. He fined the publisher of the Observer £500, and said that the publication had been productive of a great deal of civil trouble and ought never to have taken place. Every one must know that the suggestion of evil makes ill things done in many cases—not only in connection with sexual offences. At the present time, when there is such an outbreak all over the country of robbery under arms and house-breaking, nothing probably leads more to the propagation of the idea that
94
these things can be done with profit to weak and ill-balanced minds than the publication of proceedings taken in regard to robbery and violence. Yet I do not suppose that any of your Lordships would propose that the general right of publication of criminal proceedings should be fettered and limited. I suggest that it is not applicable in this case.
I do not know whether all your Lordships would regard Mr. Justice Darling as a Judge to be followed, but the other day in connection with another sort of moral offence he declared that—
"It was a great disadvantage that the public should not know that trials took place for incest, who were the accused, and what sentences were passed if they were found guilty. As such trials took place in secret by order of Parliament, these facts did not get known. I am certain myself that incest would be much less frequent if people knew that since 1908 it was a crime punishable in the ordinary Criminal Courts of this country."
That is the opinion of the senior Puisne Judge in the country, and was given only the other day in an analogous case coming before him; but I venture to point out from my own experience and knowledge that in these moral causes publicity is the real penalty. If you put an end to the right of publication you relieve the man who is guilty of some bestial and cruel act in his married life of the penalty which he most fears—the penalty of being shown up when he goes in the street or the market place. Monstrari digito prœtereuntium.
There is no doubt that publicity has another influence. I am told by solicitors who have most to do with these cases—I do not give their names for obvious reasons—that if reconciliation takes place between the parties it is in most cases due to the fear of publicity—what is called washing dirty linen in public. I dare say the noble and learned Earl, who has just spoken from his own experience in the Courts, can confirm what I am told by those who have every right to be heard; but I think your Lordships should think once, twice, and thrice before you interfere with the general law in the way which is proposed by this clause in the Bill. There are high authorities who have laid down that publicity is of the essence of the whole matter. If your Lordships will pardon me, I should like to quote what Bentham said—
"Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spurt to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial."

95
That is the point which I wish to make. I hardly think that this is a case in which you ought to leave the Judge to decide. In some cases I would rather go back to the old system and allow the most rev. Prelate opposite to decide than I would leave it to the Judges, who must very often be actuated by prejudice or preconceived ideas as to the nature of these moral causes.
In the old days a good deal more could be said for the censorship than most people suppose. Nobody suggests that we should restore the censorship, but I should greatly deplore if you are going to ask every Judge who tries a matrimonial case to say whether there shall be publicity or not. As to the proposal that there shall be delay in publication, that would reserve all the trials for the Sunday newspapers; and it is so absurd that I hardly think it can be persisted in. That would be class legislation of the worst kind, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not be in favour of that provision.
Generally, I suggest to your Lordships that public ignorance is a very feeble defence for private morality. If I were an opponent of the Bill I should support this clause through thick and thin, because it would prevent the Bill passing into law, but I happen to be a supporter of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships with great respect, on behalf of the publishers of the country, to pause before you do away with the cardinal principle of British justice, which has stood the trial of time and kept its reputation so high, and left our Courts with the greatest fame for fairness, and on the whole, I think, for decency, of any Courts in the civilised world.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I think, as a member of the Commission, I should say a word upon this very important matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord in this case will not yield to the appeal which has been made to him to alter his Bill. I have taken some part in the opposition to this Bill, but in spite of that I must resist the temptation offered by the noble Viscount, and as a member of the Commission ask that this part of the Bill should be retained, because it represents the practically unanimous opinion of the whole Commission. This was a matter to which we gave the most careful and constant attention, and we had the opportunity of hearing a vast amount of evidence from every part of the country and every interest concerned,
96
including the leading journals of the country, and it need scarcely be said that all the points which have been so forcibly urged by the noble Viscount were brought before us. It was after estimating them and giving them full consideration that we came to the conclusions which are embodied in Clause 32 of the Bill.
I do not for a moment say that the clause is not capable of verbal amendment. For instance, with regard to the Amendment which the noble Earl proposes to make in regard to the use of the word "humanity." I did not intervene in his speech, but the reason why the word "humanity" was used was that occasions sometimes arise when it seems desirable that part of the proceedings should be held in private, or should not be published, but which it would be difficult to bring under the heads of decency or justice. I mean particularly cases in which children are called to give evidence in open Court about the proceedings of their parents. That was an instance which largely dictated the use of the word "humanity." Nor am I specially concerned with the provision that the publication of the details of divorce proceedings is to be prohibited until the case is concluded. The object was to discourage the manufacture of sensation in the case of causes which attracted a great deal of social or public attention. As
regards the Sunday newspapers, the noble Viscount is perfectly right. The statistics showed that the quite overwhelming mass of details in these matters was published by the Sunday newspapers, but we were informed, perhaps wrongly, that the Sunday newspapers very largely derived their reports from the daily journals, and that if the daily journals were restricted in this matter there would be still less published in the Sunday newspapers.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: No, they would have special reports.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I do not discuss the point. But with regard to the main point of this clause we had, of course, before us all the time the argument that publicity is a great deterrent of the worst conduct which brings people within the Divorce Court, but we had to balance against that the admitted evil in all parts of the country of familiarising particularly young lads and girls with masses of undesirable and sexual detail.

97
It is extraordinarily difficult to lay down any criterion of decency in the matter. I think we were impressed with the fact that the Press most honourably suppressed matters which could really be described as indecent; but what we found—and the evidence showed it, as we think overwhelmingly—was that while nothing could be described as perhaps actually indecent, there was delivered and put upon the tables of the people of the country day by day masses of accumulated sexual suggestiveness. We had, for instance, die evidence of ninety-eight of the Chief Constables of the country who, with one exception, said they were satisfied that the provision of this stuff day after day was having the most evil effect, particularly upon boys and girls between fourteen and eighteen, and we had to balance the possible deterrent effect of publication against the amount of evil that was admittedly being done in the country. With regard to the effectiveness of the deterrent power of publication we had the evidence of the late Lord Alverstone, who was then Lord Chief Justice. His evidence, given with the greatest strength and force, was that he did not believe for a moment that publication acted as a deterrent in the worst cases, but that sometimes it ministered to a certain prurient love of notoriety, and that in any case any advantage could not be balanced against the disadvantage of circulating this immense mass of sexual suggestiveness amongst all sorts of people in the country, and especially among the young.
What I would like to say in reply to the noble Viscount who has just spoken is this. it seems to me that his speech, and the very weighty resolutions which he quoted, misunderstood the purpose of the recommendations of the Commission. We considered every kind of proposal, and we definitely ruled out any suggestion that these cases should be heard in camera. We believed that that was quite against the traditions of English justice, and that, especially in regard to these additional causes of divorce, in many cases it would be quite unnecessary. But there is all the difference in the world between a proposal that these cases should be heard in secret and that which is now proposed. The only proposal which justified a great deal of the vigorous eloquence of the noble Viscount was that pointed out by the noble Earl—namely, the permission of the Court to order a particular case or part of a case to be heard in secret. We deliberately
98
rejected the proposal that cases should be held in open Court but with the prohibition of publication. We believed that was against the whole tradition of the English Courts and the principle of English justice. We rejected the suggestion, which was much pressed upon us, that the cases should be held in open Court but that nothing should be published except a record of the name, the charge, and the result, because we felt that it would very often be most unjust that a man should be put down as having been accused of adultery, and that the case was heard and he was considered guilty, without any of the possible extenuating circumstances which might be revealed in cross-examination being published.
All that these proposals mean is that we should adhere to the principle of hearing these cases in open Court, and that we should not in any way insist upon a prohibition of publication, but simply that there should be power given more than is given now to the Judge in his discretion to restrain parts of time evidence, sometimes in very rare cases the whole of the case, from publication. The proposal as it is actually embodied in the clause of the Bill does not seem to me at all to warrant the language of the resolutions which the noble Viscount quoted. The division of the first subsection only enables the Judges to have definite statutory authority for what they already have in many cases felt able and open to do in the interests of justice. The second proposal I do not hesitate to say had the bulk of the evidence that was brought before us in its favour—namely, that the whole or portions of the proceedings should be sometimes withdrawn from publication. Certainly at the time of the Commission some of the leading journalists of the country seemed to say that they would welcome some restraint on publication which would assist them in their desire to publish nothing that was not in the public interest, and which would protect them from the extravagancies of unfair competition.
As to the second part of the clause I do not press, and I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is pressing, its details, but the object of it was to prevent giving to the proceedings in the Divorce Court that most undesirable flair of public notoriety and sensation which accompanies photographing and sketching and the like. Lord Gorell himself took strong action in

99
the matter of sketching, and this is only following the same line and preventing that most undesirable advertisement of these unsavoury details of the Divorce Court. My object in venturing to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time was simply to explain the grounds upon which, after very full consideration, the Commission unanimously came to the conclusion that these proposals would be for the public good, and that they do not in any way seriously interfere with the traditions of openness which belong to English justice.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, those of you who have followed the Amendment set down on the Paper must, I think, have been wondering how it could be that speeches of such importance could be delivered upon an Amendment of which I do not think there could be any possibility of difference, because the Amendment that is being discussed is simply as to whether after the word "Court" you should insert "a Court of summary jurisdiction." The questions as to what the Court of summary jurisdiction or the other Court should do are all the subject of the other Amendments. I do not mention that in any way by way of protest, but in order that we may get our minds clear when it comes to the question of voting, because your Lordships would certainly be astonished if you found that by voting upon an Amendment which is innocence itself you had failed to give expression to the strong opinions that are no doubt held upon both sides upon the real substance of the matter, which is one of great importance.
The truth is that as soon as you begin to discuss this clause you must discuss it in its entirety—I was going to say whether the Rules of the House permit you to do so or not. It is impossible to avoid it, and the speeches that we have heard have all been directed to the substance of the clause and not to small details. The result of these speeches, it seems to me, is that there is a good part of this clause at any rate upon which there is no difference at all. I do not think that the noble Viscount who spoke very earnestly on behalf of the newspapers would object to the clause if it merely directed that either the Court of Appeal or a Judge of the High Court or the Court of summary jurisdiction might direct that any proceedings could only be heard in the presence of the members and officers of the Court and the parties to the case and
100
their advisers, provided that the newspapers could not be excluded. He obviously would accept that, because it gives the newspapers a right which is denied to the rest of the world. I am not complaining but am only saying what is obvious, and when noble Lords put down, as some have, Amendments to leave out the whole clause I do not think they can have considered exactly what it is the clause provides and how much of it they object to. The real thing that was objected to was the power not to direct that proceeding shall be heard in camera but to direct that proceedings shall be withdrawn from publication, or that the proceedings shall not be published until after the case has been heard. Those are the two main substantive provisions of this clause that are open to controversy.
I find that misfortune dogs my steps wherever I move through this Bill, because here was a moment when I had hoped that I could find myself in close agreement with the most rev. Primate. He is supporting the Report, and I have always been anxious to do so. But when I come to this matter and discuss it and express my own views upon it, I am bound to tell your Lordships that my own view is that this clause is not going to do any good, and I think it may do harm. The idea that was at the back of the minds of every member of the Royal Commission and has been most fully expressed by the most rev. Primate, is that of the immense mischief that may be done by the wholesale dissemination of unclean matter, and divorce cases are necessarily associated with unclean incidents. Therefore it is urged that the publication of these divorce cases, and particularly clever and alluring references to some of the most marked incidents in the trials, must necessarily be productive of great mischief to the young.
That really means that you ought to stop all the reports of all the divorce cases. Because it really is not the case that you are reporting that matters; it is the way in which you report it. If you were to take two cases, one with details that would shock the public mind and which the Judge might well think ought to be excluded from public notice, and another case with an ordinary, common incident of adultery, it would be perfectly possible for the newspaper to take the simple case and so dress it up and so emphasise the unpleasant

101
parts of the evidence—which must always be there—that it could make the report of that infinitely worse than a properly controlled report of the case which the Judge would stop.
Since this matter has become prominent I have done what, I admit, is not my, usual habit—I have read these reports in the papers. I have read them in several papers in order to see what was the nature of the matter that was being published. Upon the whole I am bound to say, if you once accept that you are dealing with an unpleasant thing and that nobody suggests that there should be no publication of the unpleasant thing, it seems to me that the daily newspapers exercise a very decent reticence and discretion in the way in which they deal with it. It is perfectly true that enormous importance is given in the papers to these trials. You cannot help it. The truth of the matter is that the whole world always wants to know what the half-world is doing, and, however much you may desire to avoid it when such a case comes before the Court, the newspapers will publish it, and no doubt they will do it because it is going to sell their papers. I say quite frankly to the noble Viscount (Lord Burnham) I discount his views about the sense of public spirit. It is not that at all. Let us be frank about it. It is published because it will sell, and it is published because if paper A does not publish it paper B will, and the circulation of paper B will go up. But as far as the weekly papers are concerned, though one might feel that it is a little sad to find important matters shoved entirely on one side by the divorce cases which reveal the intimate details of two or, it may be, three utterly worthless lives, yet none the less they do their work on the whole so that it is impossible to bring against them the charge of publishing anything that is in its nature unclean.
But I quite agree with what has been suggested by the noble Viscount. If under this Bill you give power to the Court to suspend the publication till the case is over the only thing that you will do will be to flood the columns of the Sunday papers, some of which are already the very worst offenders in this matter. It is a most lamentable thing, but it appears that the most popular subject for Sunday reflection consists in the weaknesses and failings of human beings as recorded in the Divorce Court during the week. Nobody wants to
102
do that. If these matters are to be published they surely ought to be published as they occur day. by day, and then you may at least hope that when the Sunday paper comes out they will be stale and almost forgotten. I say, therefore, that this power to repress publication will not really effect anything at the present time. I do not think anybody can say that the present daily reports are bad, and if you leave 98 per cent. of the cases so that they can be published, whatever mischief you dread will be done then just as much by the 2 per cent. which the Judge may think it his duty to withhold from the world.
The next thing is this, that it is ineffectual for another reason. Among the cases with which I have made acquaintance in my recent examination I saw there had been a case about a lady who certainly has had unusual experiences, and nobody can doubt that opportunity was given to the newspapers to publish some extremely unpleasant things. It was not done. But supposing that the Judge, fearing that it might be done, had stopped it, what would the result have been? That woman is now indicted in a Criminal Court, and all these matters will come out again and the Judge could not stop it, and if you had stopped it in the first instance I cannot help thinking that you would have given a much stronger temptation and impulse to publish more undesirable matter in the second case, than you did when you trusted, as we do trust now, to the newspapers' sense of public duty and decency, and let them publish what they think right.
I think, however, few people can suggest that I have had any very intimate relations with the newspapers. Such relations as I have had frequently produced violent collision. But the best way to control the newspapers is to trust them. If you make them think that they are working under a sense of trust, and honour, and obligation they will obey. Try and escape from it, try and shut out the publication, try and prevent them getting news, and they will be up to every device that is known for the purpose of getting round you. I believe that this Bill will make a great mistake if it is carried through in its present form, although I am responsible for its introduction, because it is simply an attempt to stop the newspapers from having access to matter which they may or may not want to publish. I believe the right thing to do is to leave the whole of these words out excepting "decency"

103
and "justice" and to provide that the Judges in any of these Courts shall have power, if they think right, to direct that the cases shall be heard by no one excepting the persons named in the Bill and such members of the Press as think it right to stay. How these observations are to he reconciled with all those Amendments which have been moved I do not know, nor do I know what view your Lordships will take upon them. But as I have had some responsibility in connection with this matter I thought it right to explain in some detail what my view was.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: For your Lordships' convenience I will now put the first Amendment, moved by Lord Askwith—page 18, line 6, after "court" insert "or a court of summary jurisdiction."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Amendment differs very little in effect from that of Lord Burnham, and I shall not move.
THE EARL OF READING: I have already explained my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("morality, humanity").—(The Earl of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had the following Amendment on the Paper: "Page 18, line 8, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 25."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In case the noble Lord's Amendment is not agreed to, I suggest that I should put the question, That lines 8 and 9 stand part of the clause. If that is not agreed to, the rest can follow as consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Consequential upon that I will now put lines 10 to 25.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 10, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 25.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH: My Amendment in lines 26 and 27 is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("it under Part II of this Act") and insert ("them or him").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause—
"The marriage of a person whose previous marriage has been dissolved under the provisions of this Act, and whose former husband or wife is still living, shall not be solemnised in any church or chapel of the Church of England."
The most rev. Primate said: We have come to a grave matter somewhat different from the subjects which have been hitherto under discussion. We have dealt now with 33 clauses of this Bill, and some of the changes we have made in our English matrimonial law are, I am willing to believe, fair and even right. We have agreed to an equality of the conditions on which divorce can be asked for as between the two sexes. We have agreed to the relief of those who are excluded by great poverty from what the rich can have; and we have agreed to an enlargement of the grounds for a decree of nullity. All of those I and the others who sit by me have agreed to or supported. But there are others which we have opposed on the general lines of what we believe to be the public welfare, respect for the marriage bond, and a general steadiness in regard to the whole subject of matrimonial life and permanence. In all that we, voting here because we are present as bishops, have been acting (so to speak) as citizens. We have been looking at it as such and not especially as ecclesiastics, although, of course, I need not say that our citizenship, like that of most of your Lordships, is based on a belief in Christianity and Christian principles. We believe the English people to be with us in the votes we have given, and that this will ultimately be proved. Well, we have been beaten on clause after clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has had his way; but he has treated us with perfect considerateness and courtesy at every turn. I venture to urge upon him now not to press the victory too far, but to treat with reasonableness and fairness and consideration even those of us from whom he differs most widely.
We have come now to an entirely new branch of the subject. The question that arises is, How ought the Church, as such, to regard the new plan? How do the new conditions concern our responsibility as clergy of the National Church? To that there can be for nearly all of us, or, perhaps, for all of us, but one answer. Some of the new enactments can by no stretch of language be brought within our Lord's own words. I do not apologise for quoting these words once more, for they lie at the root of what I have to say. The words on which we rely are these—
"But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Those who accept the theory of divorce which this Bill, so far as now agreed to, embodies, must disregard those words. They either repudiate their allegiance to that standard, or they interpret the words not as a direction or as a rule but merely as asserting a general principle.
It would be out of place for me to attempt here and now to dwell in detail upon the explanation of that passage except to say that for those who, like myself, take these words of St. Matthew which I have quoted—with the exception I have mentioned—as our basis, a great deal turns upon the introduction of the exception. For the exception, and the statement of it, shows it to be probably something more of a rule and something less than a mere assertion of a general principle. That, I imagine, is the kind of proposition that every lawyer would accept. I suppose that is the real significance of the phrase that "the exception proves the rule." Our Lord's words have always been regarded as the basis for the permanent sanctity of the marriage vow, and we have rested thereon; and in the West, at least, the Church of Christ has enacted its law from the very first. It is not a question of "mediæval subtlety," or of
"æsthetic phantasy," or other phrases which have been used. It is on the strength of the words of our Lord himself which we believe make marriage indissoluble, save (it may be) on grounds of adultery; and that exception has been a matter of individual opinion and of individual counsel but never of the Western Church's enacted law. When the ground of dissolution a vinculo was adultery the Church has been looser—shall I say?—in dealing with in
106
dividual cases than when framing general statements about the law; or, to put it otherwise, the Church's law for its own members has been quite clear, but it has been rather imperfectly carried into execution.
In recent years in England we have taken a perfectly clear line on the larger principles concerned. It is not a mere question of the English traditional law, or what we retain of former canon law and the rest, but in the great gatherings which take place decennially of our Church authorities—one is to take place next month when 270 Bishops will be there—we have twice recorded the words I am about to quote—
"That inasmuch as our Lord's words expressly forbid divorce, except in the case of fornication, or adultery, the Christian Church cannot recognise divorce in any other than the excepted case, or give any sanction to the marriage of any person who has been divorced contrary to this law, during the lifetime of the other party."
And again—
"That in no circumstances ought the guilty party, in the case of a divorce for fornication or adultery, to be regarded, during the life time of the innocent party, as a fit recipient of the blessing of the Church on marriage."
Then as regards the re-marriage of the innocent party—the other being absolutely and totally forbidden by us, so far as we can forbid it—we have steadily, during many years now, discouraged it. We have given no licences (licences being a facility for it), and we have always advised resort to the civil authority.
Now a wholly new thing is introduced. The State changes its law on the ground of what you believe to be a wide desire for change on the part of those who do not regard Christ's word, which I have quoted, as authoritative or binding. If the Bill becomes law, the State will allow divorce for causes which the whole Church of the West has quite invariably repudiated. Will you really come to us now and say that because the State has made that change the Church must change its law and make it permissible for a priest to marry such persons, in the teeth of the words which I have quoted, the old words and the new? The demand is, to my mind, so unreasonable and so unfair that I do not believe the noble and learned Lord opposite will actually press it upon us, considering what the consequences may be.
Let me take examples to show the kind of difficulty to which I refer. A country parson may find a man coming to him and saying, "I want re-marriage because

107
my wife, whom I married years ago for better for worse, is mentally afflicted and has long been under restraint. I want to take another wife and the Court of Law says I may. Please marry me." Or, a wife comes and says, "I want re-marriage. My husband has gone away. I do not hear from him, or what I do hear is bad. This has gone on for years, so I want to take another husband and the Court says I may. Please marry me." Or cases are even possible in which the guilty party has obtained freedom against the will of the innocent party—an innocent wife whom he has deserted or misused—and he wants to marry another woman and to leave the innocent wife divorced against her will. "Please marry me." These are cases which may occur in any parish in the land if the Bill becomes law in the form in which it now stands.
Is it contended that in order to meet these eases which you have decided against our strong protest to be, as you think, for the public good, that the Church trust alter its law; that a parson must be made free to celebrate such a marriage if he chooses to do so, and that the Bishop has been forbidden to censure him ecclesiastically for so doing, in the teeth of the resolutions which I have quoted from the whole body of the Episcopate, not in England alone but in America, and the colonies throughout the world? You may answer, "We do not compel anybody against his conscience; we only give him leave." That is to say the Church, as such, must abrogate its right to have any rule or discipline and leave each case to the individual parson to decide. Do you really want that? Do you want the system to vary up and down England and to make the Bishops powerless to interfere? Is that fair I venture to ask the House—and I appeal to the fairness of the noble and learned Lord—is that fair to the parson, is it fair to his parishioners generally, is it fair to the whole Church as a body?
Is it fair to the parson? How can that man rightly decide, when a case like that comes before him, what are the rights and wrongs of the details of what the Court decrees in the matter? Putting him aside, is it fair to the parishioners who, whatever their parson's opinion or perhaps his eccentricity—I can give you strange examples of that—detest these marriages and who would yet be helpless to prevent their
108
clergyman, their parish priest, from so using the Church that is theirs? Is it fair to the Church as a body, the Church whose power to make and to keep any corporate rule you are simply scouting and putting a Parliamentary rule in its place? I do not believe that you will so act. Anyhow, I say with all gravity and with a full sense of responsibility that it is a quite impossible position for us to accept. If any of your Lordships think that the mere connection of the Church and the State, or the application of the system which we call "establishment," carries with it that, I utterly and entirely repudiate it.
You may say there has long been a discretion exercised by the clergy, one able to be exercised legally. Yes, and our difficulties have thereby been enormous, though we have tried to act as fairly as we possibly could. Of course, from the nature of the case, down to now the raising of these questions has been more or less improbable, because a guilty adulterer coming for remarriage does not want to have his case thrashed out in public and the story told. It would be an entirely different thing if, as the noble Lord believes, there are going to be large numbers of such marriages on other grounds altogether, of illness, or desertion, and the rest. You will find that you have multiplied the problems quite infinitely which will be laid before those who have to try to exercise some discretion in the matter. You have introduced new conditions altogether, and you tell us you believe the cases are going to be innumerable. Again, you may say, "We do not want Church rule over the State in England: people in these matters must judge now differently from of old." I quite agree: You say, "We want to be free now from ecclesiastical dominance or command over the nation." We are absolutely anxious that you should be.
You have made these changes. They go far. Lord Buckmaster told us that they did not go as far as he would have liked them and the time may come when lie may introduce more. You make your own rules. People are perfectly free to go to the authority which the State has provided for their marriage. It is a special form which anyone can use if he desires. We are not trying to impose Christian rules by Church authority on the State. What we want, and what we firmly claim, is that we may as a body be allowed to be

109
loyal to Christ's teaching as we understand it. You must not say to the Church, "We have changed your rules for you; your parsons may now do as they please in these matters." That is, I repeat, unfair to the parson himself, unfair to the parishioners to whom the church belongs, and unfair to the Church as a body. We claim the right to say that if people demand this sort of marriage they must seek the solemnisation of it outside the Church.
If your Lordships refuse us this you will be inflicting intolerable wrong on us as a body which has corporate life and rules. We heard a great deal, and rightly, about the hard cases which are really the justification for these proposals. What position will you have created for a bishop whose duty it is by solemn promise to control and guide the Church? It is a position which, without the least intention of acting harshly, we cannot assent to. I honestly believe that a civil marriage for those who are to come under this Bill will work out with perfect fairness. We protest against the claim to ignore our rules and force us into a new groove which we believe to be undesirable on social grounds—we have voted on that and been beaten—unhallowed, and definitely wrong.
To leave it to the clergy would be chaotic, to enforce it would be intolerable tyranny, and the only alternative, and the true one, is to keep it outside the Church whose rules you have decided to ignore or reverse. With all gravity I entreat you in the name of those moral and religious forces for which we bishops are among, the spokesmen, but by no means the only spokesmen, not to force upon us a situation intolerable to ourselves as a Christian Church and intensely hurtful to the peace and well being of what is at least one of the best and most thoughtful sections of the English people.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
".The marriage of a person whose previous marriage has been dissolved under the provisions of this Act, and whose former husband or wife is still living, shall not be solemnised in any church or chapel of the Church of England."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am very grateful for the kind and generous things which the most rev. Primate has said about me, and I wish that I could at once say in answer to his appeal that I could accept the Amendment. But I think even the most rev. Primate will see that, the Amendment,
110
as it stands, is one that it is hard to ask anyone to accept, because it provides that the marriage of a person whose previous marriage has been dissolved under the Statute shall not be solemnised in any church. Under the Statute a person is entitled to divorce himself for adultery and, as I understand it, the Church has accepted that.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No, no.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I did not say that the noble and learned Lord has accepted it. I certainly understood that. the Church had accepted it, and there is abundant evidence in this Blue Book that they have accepted it as a lawful ground of divorce as an exception to the general rule of the indissolubility of marriage. Supposing divorce is obtained in those circumstances, and assuming I am right in thinking that it would not be contrary to Church doctrine to obtain a divorce for that cause (and that the husband who obtained the divorce was an innocent person), this Amendment would prevent him marrying again in any church.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am anxious not to have controversy on technical points, but I want to make perfectly clear that the Church's law has never sanctioned the marriage of an innocent divorcee. An Act was passed through Parliament which a certain number of Bishops supported on very arguable grounds and the Church has since then in this country abstained from pressing, with any rigidity, control against the re-marriage of such innocent person. But my contention is that there has never been any such rule. What we have done is to allow a certain relaxation in the application or enforcement of the indisputable rule, but when you bring in new conditions we say that what we have tried to do is now thrown to the winds and we must ask for the right to insist upon what has been our written law all along.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The most rev. Primate admits that this Amendment asks the House to introduce into the Bill something far ahead in practice of what has been generally recognised up to the present moment. From the time when Henry VIII. was divorced until now people have been divorced and re-married in church, and except in very rare cases it

111
certainly has not been the practice for the Church to refuse their church as a place where the marriage may take place of an innocent person, woman or man.
This Amendment admittedly goes far beyond that, and seeks to provide that if any person avails himself of the provisions of this Bill and obtains a divorce, which the law says he is entitled to, he is not entitled to be married in any church though there may be found one or even more ordained priests who are ready to perform the ceremony. That does seem to me to be an extraordinarily strong thing to ask this House to accept. I am anxious to avoid causing any offence to the conscience of any man in Holy Orders, and I would be prepared myself to accept an Amendment to this effect, "Provided that the marriage of a person who has been divorced as a defendant under the provisions of this Act, and whose former husband or wife is still living, shall not be solemnised.
…" Now, that gives you something which is more than has ever been stated before in an Act of Parliament. It provides that the re-marriage of the guilty person cannot take place in the church, and as far as that I am willing and ready to go. But to accept such an Amendment as this is something that I submit respectfully is far ahead of anything that has been accepted and practised by the Church of England since the days of the Reformation.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Who is the defendant under that part of the proposal where the reason is insanity?
LORD BUCKMASTER: The defendant is the person against whom the proceedings are taken, but I do not think there is much fear of any such insane person being married again. I hope that I quite attempted to meet the most rev. Primate.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY: I should like to say, in a very few sentences, why I give my most earnest support, speaking for the rank and file, to the Amendment proposed by the most rev. Primate. First of all I would earnestly ask your Lordships to disabuse yourselves of the idea that the opposition which some of us have felt bound to offer to this measure has been the outcome of mediæval or even ecclesiastical views. Our opposition is primarily based upon our loyalty to Christ and to the words of Christ. The great majority of Christians, I believe, are convinced
112
that our Lord delivered a judgment on the matter of divorce; and our belief in that judgment of Christ is, I need not tell you, reinforced by our own considered opinions as to social expediency in regard to divorce. Of course, there are elements of uncertainty as to the qualifying cause, but I would ask your Lordships' attention to this, that beyond all doubt no version and no interpretation of Christ's teaching allows divorce except for the one and only ground of adultery.
In regard to a point which was raised by the noble and learned Lord just now, I will simply say this, that the case of the innocent party with regard to divorce has always been a difficulty in the Church, about which the Church has felt uncertainty; and speaking for myself, in every case brought before me during the fifteen years that I have been a Bishop, I have always urged clergymen who have consulted me to use all their influence on the innocent party to induce him or her to be married by civil rites alone. It has always been a matter of difficulty and uncertainty in the Church, because no one can say positively that these words are not the words rather of the Evangelist than of Christ.
In no technical sense do we claim that our Lord was legislating, but we insist that He gave His judgment, and therefore as individuals and citizens, so far as we can exercise any influence upon legislation, we are bound to give effect to His judgment. I quite allow that among our fellow citizens there are those who are not Christians, and who therefore do not own allegiance to Christ or the words of Christ. I quite allow there are those among our fellow citizens who being Christians do not share or wholly share the convictions of, I believe, the great majority of Christians, as to the validity, the decisiveness, and I think I may say the peremptoriness of Christ's teaching. We do not question their rights or their conscientious exercise of those rights. The point upon which I beg your Lordships to fix your mind is that no words can, I believe, exaggerate the divergence between the extension of the grounds of divorce and the conviction which I believe the great majority of Christians entertain as to our Lord's judgment in the matter. Therefore to a very large proportion of earnest Christian people it would be a matter of the keenest distress if the marriages now made for the first time legal by this Bill were solemnised by the

113
service of the Church—surely that service is absolutely inappropriate—by the ministers of the Church or in the churches. Therefore it is a matter of fairness and justice that the Christian Church should be wholly exempt from any complicity in giving effect to legislation which most Christians are compelled to regard as in fundamental contradiction to the recorded judgment of the Divine Founder of Christianity.
The clause proposed by the most rev. Primate does not in any way impede the carrying out of what the majority of your Lordships desire. These hard cases which have been spoken of with such eloquence and sympathy will gee that relief which your Lordships desire they should get, without the parties being married in church. They can be re-married by civil rites. Therefore I implore your Lordships to be generous to the deep and abiding scruples of the Church, and accept the Amendment, which I believe is in accordance with the convictions of a large proportion—I think the vast majority—of the Christian people in England.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Amendment of the most rev. Primate and the answer of the noble and learned Lord have really brought us face to face with some tremendous questions. We are brought absolutely in face of first principles. Let mine, in supporting the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, remind this House very briefly that the origin of the Church has no connection whatever with the State. The Church was founded on what was believed to be the doctrine, the teaching, and the intentions of our Lord and the Apostles who listened to Him. As years went on and the world became Christian for the first time was raised the question which has been acute ever since of the relations between the Church and the State. In England we have hitherto managed to live under a compromise, and a happy compromise, as I think, beneficial to the State certainly and I think also on the whole to the Church; but the question now raised goes absolutely to the root of this compromise.
If the Bill is passed in its present form I venture respectfully but most earnestly to tell your Lordships that you are raising the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment. I have for the whole of my life been an opponent of Disestablishment and Disendowment. It is hereditary in my family. My father taught me the
114
opinions which I hold; but those of us who have been most keen and most earnest on this question always had this limitation in our minds, that whatever the consequences might be to the State or the cause of Christianity for the time being, we never could make ourselves a party to the continued connection if the State were to ask the Church to be untrue to a law which she believed she had received from Christ.
This, my Lords, whether you realise it or not—and I am sure, you will not intend it—is, and no less than that is, the Question now raised. The most rev. Primate has told you, in very moderate but very earnest words, what the position of the Church in this matter is. It is not a question whether that provision is right or wrong. You who disagree with us, I am quite sure, give us credit—the same credit that you demand for yourselves—for deep, conscientious convictions in this matter. What you are asking us to do is to connive at the continued connection of Church and State under conditions in which we believe the Church will be untrue to the mission she has received from her Master.
On what grounds does the noble and learned Lord behind me object to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate? He says that if this Amendment is carried a certain class of marriages which have taken place in Church ever since the Reformation will no longer be able to claim the Church as the place of their celebration, and he says what a tremendous new question you raise by this Amendment and this claim. Who is it that has raised this question? Not the Church, not the Archbishop, but my noble friend behind me and those who support this Bill. It is they who have disturbed the existing relations. It is they who, for reasons that seem to them wholly adequate, have asked for this enormous change in the marriage law of the country. It is not our fault if, as the consequence of this change, this question is now raised. The one thing is carried with the other. We have not asked that this question, the remarriage of innocent people in the case of divorce for adultery, should be raised. It raises itself inevitably, because of the new causes which the noble Lord has induced your Lordships to add to the causes of divorce in the law of the land.
It is not possible, if you come to look at the matter closely and to consider it, to

115
classify the cases where the Church can be asked to agree to remarriages in Church and the cases where she can not. Nor are you entitled—I say so with the utmost respect—to lay down a law for the Church. You may lay down the law for the State. You cannot lay down the law for the Church. You may say "These are the conditions on which we will allow the connection of Church and State to continue." That is within your power and province, but if you do lay down such conditions you cannot quarrel with the Church and those holding the views we do if we say that under those circumstances we prefer the connection of Church and State to cease. I say that because I do not think you realise how tremendous are the issues which are being raised by the Amendment, and the answer which the noble Lord has given you.
I say, in the first place, that the issues are tremendous, and that they go far beyond this Bill. In the second place, I say that the issues are being raised not by the most rev. Primate or those who agree with him, but by the noble and learned Lord, because he has introduced this Bill. I ask you again to give credit to us for the same intense convictions in this matter that you yourselves hold. I ask you, whichever side you take in this great controversy, Is it to the interests of any of us that the passing of this Bill should be the beginning of a bitter controversy? Is it for the smooth working of this Bill? Is it in the interests of those who desire these changes in the law that through the length and breadth of the land you should have bitter controversies in parish after parish between the parish priest who has conscientious convictions and who will endure any penalties rather than give way—
LORD BUCKMASTER: He is not bound under this Bill to marry anybody.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: He has to lend his church.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is not this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As the noble and learned Lord himself said on the last Amendment, the whole of this big question is involved in the issue that the Archbishop has raised. Is it in the interest of the State that the whole question of the jurisdiction of the Bishops should be
116
raised; that the power they have had conferred upon them for centuries, indeed all through the ages of the Church, of giving directions to priests in these matters should be abrogated by an accidental clause in an Act of Parliament? I protest once again that the issues that are being raised are of the very first importance. If you decide against this Amendment you are only beginning a trouble which will last till it is settled either by the passing of an Act in accordance with the Archbishop's Amendment, or, as I should most deeply regret, by the severance of the present connection of Church and State. But do not vote in the belief that the point you are voting on is a technical one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I only rise for a very brief moment. I have taken no part in the Committee discussions upon this Bill that could be avoided, because others were in charge of it, and I was anxious not to consume time unnecessarily. I rise to make an observation upon the Amendment which is now under discussion, because two points occur to me, one of which at least may have some importance. I do not agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down that the responsibility involved in the Amendment of the most rev. Primate in its present form is a responsibility which can be imposed upon the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill. It would have been perfectly possible to attempt to give effect to the object of the most rev. Primate without altering the practice in which the Church, willingly or unwillingly, has acquiesced for so long in relation to the existing grounds for a dissolution of marriage. Such a course could be adopted, if it were thought proper, as the matter of very easy amendment upon the Report stage of this Bill.
In the second place, it occurs to me that no adequate consideration has been given to the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord in indicating the Amendment to which he would agree. I certainly think that the noble and learned Lord went a great length—a length to which many would be unwilling to follow him, though myself should on the whole, I think, decide so to do, if such an Amendment were placed upon the Paper before the Report stage of this Bill.
As to the larger questions that arise I ask leave to make, I hope without offence to

117
any one, a very guarded observation. I think that the Church would be taking a deep responsibility if it were to ask your Lordships to forbid a priest, who found himself able in his conscience to do so, to do that which your Lordships, on this hypothesis, will have pronounced in your consciences to be right and therefore to have made the law of the land. It is not as if those who had supported this Bill were proposing to impose upon the conscience of any bishop or any ecclesiastic a burden which affronts it in the view which as a Christian Man he holds, but are we not entitled to say to the most rev. the Primate and to the very rev. Prelates who are here to counsel us in these matters, "There are others who, like yourself, though occupying positions less exalted, owe duties to their flocks, who perhaps are able within the compass of their individual responsibility—which is the only question— to arrive at a conclusion for themselves upon these points." And if there be such a man, bound by the same vows as the very rev Prelates who are here, who has reached the conclusion that we are right, and that they are wrong in the fundamentals which we have discussed in the progress of this measure, why the Legislature to say to such a clergyman who believes that we are right in that which we also profoundly believe to be right, that we forbid him to carry out the wish of the Legislature and from lending his church. And when the noble Earl speaks of the Church as being his Church, that is, I think, a little startling language. I assent to no such claim. The Church is the Church of the parishioners.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I entirely agree that the parishioners are quite as entitled to protest as the Church.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that the noble Earl has been given a power of attorney by any general body of parishioners all over the country, and I would take leave, with the utmost friendliness to him, to say that many who have given great time to exploring these matters believe that a large number, perhaps a majority, of parishioners take a different view from him. But these speculations are always unwelcome, and very seldom valuable. But the pronoun was unhappily chosen.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, I agree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The most rev. Primate and the noble Earl have both spoken with impressive gravity upon the risks that the discussion and the controversy now invited may bring to the theory and the practice of Establishment in this country. If the deliberate views of the leaders of the Church in this country were that their religious convictions made it necessary for them to visit with public censure a member of their Church, a priest in Holy Orders, who, in obedience to what he regarded as the dictates of his conscience, and acting within the declared limits of the policy of the Legislature—I say, if the view taken of their religion by the leaders of the Church rendered a conclusion so melancholy and so much to be regretted indispensable, I, for one, think that there are many who at this moment are profound believers and supporters of the policy of Establishment who would find it necessary to reconsider the basis upon which their belief depends.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I feel that I ought to say a word after the speech which has just been delivered by the Lord Chancellor. No words are needed now to bring home to your Lordships the gravity of the issues which we have reached. Would it be an exaggeration to say that your Lordships witnessed this evening the lifting of the curtain on the first scenes of a great drama, a struggle between Church and State in this country. And doubtless it will be with that possibility in view that your Lordships will consider these issues which are now before us, affected by the very different positions taken up by the majority of your Lordships and that which has been consistently upheld by the Church in this land.
The difficulties in this matter, since the time when the State, for reasons of its own, adopted a marriage law other titan that of the declared moral law of the Church, have been extremely great. It has only been possible to avoid bitter collision by straining that sense of equity which certainly ought always to be strong in the mind and judgment of a Church of Christ. But if these difficulties have always been great—and it is perhaps only those who sit upon these benches who realise how great and pressing they have been, and constantly are—they are, of course, immensely aggravated by

119
the new provisions which the majority of your Lordships have seen fit to place on the Statute Book of this Realm. After all, it could be argued that the Act of 1857 had the protection of one interpretation of our Lord's words. The supporters of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Act might have claimed that at least the marriages which were allowed by it were not directly prohibited by any word of our Lord. But, as my right rev. brother, the Bishop of Ely has pointed out, we have now reached a point where it cannot possibly be said that the additional causes which the majority of your Lordships have assented to are in any way consistent with any interpretation of the words of Christ which does not plainly involve that they only express a general ideal which it is impossible for human nature to fulfil.
Let me put these words once again before your Lordships in the form in which I believe, in common with the most recent and most accurate scholarship, our Lord actually laid His guiding principle—
"What God firth joined together let no man put asunder. Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her, and if she herself have put away her husband -and marry another she committeth adultery."
Whatever the authority these words have upon modern society, to some of us they are supreme. They are at least on a different level from the principle, the only admitted principle, which lies behind the provisions inserted in this Whenever the main objects of marriage—which would include, remember, those inward and emotional and spiritual objects of which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, spoke so eloquently—have been frustrated, these marriages may be dissolved and the parties are free to marry again.
It may be perfectly true, as the most rev. Primate pouted out, that, having regard to the admitted difference of interpretation which has arisen with regard to one record of the words of our Lord, the Church in this country, at least within the last one hundred years and earlier, has admitted a very large measure of equity in dealing with those who dissolve their marriage because of the adultery of one or other of the spouses. But it is important to emphasise that this has been in the way of considerateness and equity, not in the way of any change of declared public principle or law of the Church. That is sufficiently expressed in the Prayer Book which is used at every
120
marriage, and whose language, with which all of us are familiar, reflects and embodies the unchanged principle which in this country, as largely in the West, the Church of Christ has adopted for centuries. We must not be supposed to have abandoned in any way the fundamental principle of the Church because, in this matter of admitted difficulty of interpretation, there has been rightly or wrongly a very large equity and charity of administration. Therefore the position which we have now reached is something which has never been reached before.
The difficulty that has arisen over that merciful and equitable administration of the principles laid down in the Prayer Book has always been extremely great. Your Lordships are well aware how exceedingly difficult it is, even in regard to a matter which ought to be so easily capable of proof as adultery, to determine who is or who is not the innocent party. The noble and learned Lord himself in an earlier speech gave us a most incisive picture of the kind of collusion that exists in suits of that kind; but although we have done all that was possible —perhaps too much—in this spirit of equity to acknowledge the position of the innocent party, the matter is now entirely changed by the introduction of all these other causes; for in the case of many of them the party who desires re-marriage will be apparently, from the point of view of State morality, innocent; and it is necessary, therefore, even in regard to the innocent party in suits for divorce for adultery—these conditions have compelled the change —to reconsider the whole matter and to put it on the basis of fundamental principle. I appreciate most fully, if I may say so, the concession which the noble and learned Lord has signified his willingness to make, and I think it may be of great value—
LORD BUCKMASTER: Is it accepted?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: but it is impossible for us to accept it as a substitute for the clause which the Archbishop of Canterbury has moved. If I may occupy your Lordships' time for one or two minutes more I will give the reasons for that inability. He says that he is willing to provide by Statute that the guilty party shall never be married in a church or chapel of the Church of England; but that does not touch the question of how you are to determine who is the guilty

121
party and who is the innocent party. It does not affect the question that while persons may be innocent in the sense of not violating any of the standards of right and wrong which the State or average public opinion may allow, yet they have deliberately set at naught the expressed and formulated principles of the Church whose ministrations and whose blessing they desire in marriage to receive. In the case of these other causes of divorce which have now been introduced, who is to say that the man who leaves his wife in the asylum—in which she is confined through no fault of her own—and desires to marry someone else, is innocent. He is innocent in one sense. He is doing something which the law allows him to do, and something which average public opinion will condone; but he is not, and cannot be, innocent in the eyes of the Church which has a fundamental principle for the meaning of marriage, which principle he has set at naught. Therefore for that reason it still leaves the main issue unsettled if you were to be content with the concession which the noble and learned Lord is willing to make.
The value of the clause which the Archbishop of Canterbury has moved is that it brings the matter to an issue and provides what will be found ultimately to be the only possible remedy; for I invite your Lordships very shortly again to consider the consequences which would Follow even if the concession of the noble and learned Lord were accepted. Look at them from the point of view of the clergyman in the parish. There will be, let us remember, an immense increase of divorces throughout the country; we have been assured that there are thousands and tens of thousands of people eagerly awaiting the relief which the majority of your Lordships desire to give them. Therefore the position of the clergymen in hundreds of parishes in the country—already very difficult in regard to these divorce matters—will be a thousand times increased. Supposing he is a man of strong conviction, upheld by his conscience, and he decides that he will not marry one of the parties in a divorce suit who seeks re-marriage in his Church. It is true that his refusal by the provision of this Bill will involve him in no civil suit or penalty; but, after all, he is only human, and he has the odium still left upon him, even after the concession of the noble and learned Lord, of telling one of his parishioners," I cannot
122
marry you, although it is perfectly true that the law permits you to be married." Even if he has the protection of his Bishop, he has still to live with some one, perhaps his nearest neighbour, it may be one of most influential parishioners, in any case one of the flock with whom he desires to live in amity and to whom he desires to administer the best that is in him—he has the odium of refusing that man slat the law permits and what another clergyman in another parish might be perfectly willing to give to him. Or these parties leave the parish and go elsewhere; they come up to London, live in an hotel, manage somehow to be married by some accommodating clergyman and return to the parish. It is a position in which no conscientious man ought really to be placed.
Supposing he is one of those who do not wish to take what the noble and learned Lord would call a stiff and exacting attitude. He has still to satisfy himself that it is right for him to do what he knows, by virtue of all these resolutions which have been quoted already in this House, to be against the will and desire at least of the authorities of his Church, and he is placed in the almost intolerable position of having to decide for himself what is the right thing for him to do. And if he has to ask himself, even morally, what is the position of the party who asks for this re-marriage, how is he, how is any Bishop whom he consults, to be able to discriminate and sift when he has not the whole evidence before him? Even if the concession made by the noble and learned Lord were granted, there would still be the position that the Bishop was forbidden to censure any of his clergy for any marriage, except the marriage of parties admittedly guilty in an adulterous suit. I am bound to say for myself that I should find it exceedingly difficult to give way on a matter of that kind to the attempted compulsion of the State, and on a matter purely moral and spiritual I should claim the right to deal as my conscience dictates with any of the clergy in my charge. These difficulties being so, the suggestion of this new clause is, Why not remove at once all this uncertainty and difficulty and almost intolerable strain from the Bishops and clergy of the Church?
Then you must consider the parishioners. They are not all members of the Church of England, but many of them are, and of those who are there are certain to be some

123
who will be greatly offended if the Church is used for marriages of this kind, or if the clergy celebrate marriages of this kind within it. Surely it is far better at once to remove what must be, and will be if this Bill passes in its present form, even with the concession of the noble and learned Lord, a constant source of controversy and offence and scandal throughout the country. Finally, I would ask your Lordships to consider it from the point of view of the parties themselves. Many will certainly desire a religious service, but there will be always a doubt and uncertainty whether that will be granted or not. Is it not much better in their interests to say definitely and at once, so that there can be no room for uncertainty or for so painfully moving about from place to place in an attempt to get a religious marriage, that all these marriages, without distinction, are on the same level; they are civil marriages and they ought to be celebrated entirely under civil sanction. Quite apart from questions of fundamental principle, it seems to me reasonable to say, Put all these marriages in the same position and people will know exactly where they stand about them, so that there is no room for uncertainty, and remove once for all what is, and will be increasingly if the Bill passes, a great source of irritation and of heartburning.
I would urge one final consideration, and that is whether this is not wise in the interests of the State itself. I am sure there is a common desire among us all that the union of marriage should be lifelong and that we value a religious ceremony because it helps to impress that ideal upon those who are married. I believe most of us desire that in the majority of marriages there should still be a religious service, but the object which the State surely has in the desire that marriages should be religious in their character, would be manifestly defeated if, in an increasing degree, persons are permitted to go through a ceremony which must be to them entirely unreal. Listen to the old words—
"I take thee to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth."
A man comes and professes to use those words when the woman to whom he has already plighted his troth is still alive, perhaps in a home or an asylum, maybe,
124
by some arrangement, separated from him, or even driven by his own sin to set him free to marry the woman who is now standing by his side.
In all cases, if this Bill passes, these marriages which use this form must be unreal; in some cases they would be a mockery. What would be the effect on others? Will it not be that everyone will take it for granted that these solemn words are looked upon merely as a form? If the State wishes that these words in normal cases should be regarded as serious and true, it ought not to encourage their use in other cases when they must be at best strained, or at worse flouted. I would submit that the public value of this religious ceremony, which is great, depends upon the public recognition of its sincerity and its reality.
But I turn from argument to appeal. I venture to say, having regard to the immense difficulty in which what you have thought fit to do will place the Bishops and clergy of the Church, and the pain it will give to multitudes not only of Churchmen but of your fellow-citizens, I would say to you—You have won your point; you wish to relieve what you feel to be hardships. You have secured the relief that you desire. If this Bill passes, I these unions will be sanctioned by law, the children who are their offspring will be legitimate. You have realised that your success involves deep pain to multitudes of your fellow-citizens. Would it not be generous to do your utmost to mitigate that pain? Do not heedlessly force the strain, it may be to breaking point, of the long association of the Church and State in this realm. These marriages have their origin in civil law. Keep them there. Keep them to the source from which they sprang. Do not obtrude the consideration of them into the very different sphere of the religious sanction of the Church. Let the Church be free from any responsibility for them, and let them remain within the sphere of that civil sanction which you desire to give them. I think that is an appeal which may commend itself to the instincts of fairness, considerateness, and justice.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I do not wish to detain the House more than a minute, to say that I have been busy abroad and have not been able to take part in the debates on this Bill, and that

125
I was somewhat perplexed as to how I should act on the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. As is well known, the Catholic Church entertains the strongest possible objection to this Bill, and it may be thought that on this particular Amendment I have no right to speak. It is not one which concerns me, but as a protest against the Bill, a Bill which I regard as most pernicious and extremely harmful, I intend to go into the Lobby in support of the most rev, Primate.
NOBLE LORDS: Divide! Divide!
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am sure your Lordships will bear with me while I make two observations. The reason why the concession which Lord Buckmaster offered or suggested does not meet the point is this. We do not want to punish the guilty party. Marriage is not denied to him because he is guilty. What we say is that a marriage cannot be renewed because it has not
according to the Church's law been dissolved. It is just as wrong to marry an innocent party as it is to marry a guilty party. It is not a question of punishment; it is a question of the obligation not having ceased.
The other observation is with regard to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and that of Lord Buckmaster. We who are opposing this Bill—we of the laity—are not relying upon our own opinions. We are relying upon the law of our Church which says that marriage cannot be dissolved. The proof of this is that wherever a marriage is sought to be dissolved it had to be done by a private Act of Parliament superseding the law of the land. The law of the Church of England allows no divorce for adultery or anything else.
On Question, whether the proposed new clause shall stand part?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 51,

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Chilston, V.

Addington, L.

York, L. Abp.

Cross, V.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Falkland, V.

Armaghdale, L.

Newcastle, D.

Hambleden, V.

Chalmers, L.

Northumberland, D.

Hood, V.

Charnwood, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Forester, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Islington, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Denbigh, E.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Methuen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Morris, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, L. Bp.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Harewood, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Phillimore, L.

Mayo, E.

Gloucester, L. Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Ipswich, L. Bp.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Plymouth, E.

London, L. Bp.

Shandon, L.

Sandwich, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Stafford, L.

Selborne, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Thurlow, L.

Stanhope, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaplin, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Churchill, V.

Lambourne, L.

Wellington, D.

Knollys, V.

Lawrence, L.

Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)

Crewe, M.

Atkinson, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (Lord Great Chamberlain.)

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Cawley, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Linlithgow, M.

Clwyd, L.

Ponsonby, L. (Bessborough.)

Colebrooke, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bradford, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Riddell, L.

Devon, E.

Denham, L.

Rothernham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Forteviot, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Russell, E.

Gainford, L.

Strachie, L.

Strafford, E.

Glenconner, L.

Stauart of Wortley, L.

Harris, L.

Sudeley, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain)

Hemphill, L.

Whitburgh, L.

Burnham, V.

Hothfield, L.

Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 34:
Saving for rights of clergymen of the Church of England.
34.—(1) A clergyman in holy orders of the Church of England shall not be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any person whose previous marriage has been dissolved either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and whose former husband or wife is still living, and shall not be liable to any suit, penalty or censure for solemnising or refusing to solemnise the marriage of any such person.
(2) If any minister of any church or chapel of the Church of England refuses to solemnise the marriage of any persons who but for such refusal would have been entitled to have their marriage solemnised in the church or chapel, the minister shall permit any other clergyman in holy orders of the Church of England entitled to officiate within the diocese within which the church or chapel is situate to solemnise the marriage in the church or chapel.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH rose to move Amendments to Clause 34.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am prepared to accept these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 15, after ("to") insert ("publish the banns of marriage of or to").
Page 19, line 19, after ("for") insert ("publishing the banns of marriage or for refusing to publish the banns of marriage of, or for").—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), after "solemnising or refusing to solemnise the marriage of," to insert "or for refusing to admit to communion." The noble Earl said: I want to draw your Lordships' attention in the first place to the fact that I have slightly altered the wording of the Amendment from what has been on the Paper during the last fortnight. As I understood it, the present state of the law was that a parish priest who admitted one of these persons to Holy Communion could not be liable to any penalty or suit but that the person who refused could. I did not wish to make any change in the existing law as regards the admission to communion, but I did wish to change the law by which the parish priest had no discretion about refusing, and I put it down, following the words as nearly as I could of the existing clause, for "admitting or for refusing to admit to communion." I found out that as the Bill
128
stood no change was made in the existing law about admission, and therefore those words were not necessary. I therefore omitted them, as I did not want any change in the existing law in that respect, and I concentrate upon that part of the law which I suggest ought to be changed. I suggest that in the circumstances of this Bill, and of the changes in the law being made by it, the conscience of the priest ought to be considered, and that a man who believed with all his heart and conscience that the people who are asking to come to the Sacrament are living in sin, should not be compelled to admit them, or be liable for a suit if he refuses to administer the sacrament. I ask for perfect liberty of conscience for the priest in both ways. At the present moment he has it in respect of admission, and I ask for it in respect of refusal.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 20, after ("of") insert ("or for refusing to admit to communion").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I hope that a very little reflection will show your Lordships how impossible it is for me to accept this Amendment. The right to receive Holy Communion is established by Act of Parliament, passed in the first year of the reign of Edward VI, and from that time until now by the law of this country every inhabitant of this country, without regard to his religious faith, is at liberty, if he presents himself reverently in Church, to be admitted to Holy Communion, unless he is an open, unrepentant, and notorious evil-liver. How is it possible to ask us, when we have assented to the provisions of a Bill which we believe is passed to meet the urgent necessities of human life, to assent to the view that the people who avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill are open, notorious, and unrepentant evil livers?
Supposing the Amendment were passed, could anything be more cruel for the Church? What is the position they would take up? Supposing a man did refuse to admit to Holy Communion a person who had lawfully re-married, after divorce under the provisions of this Bill. Is he going to refuse on the ground that that person is living in sin, and if so, is repentance impossible? Or would they say, "If you will desert this woman, who in the eyes of the law is your lawful wife, you can then be admitted to the consolations of Holy Communion, but not until then." I

129
cannot believe that the Church would desire to have any such power as this, for it is intolerable to think that a zealot and, as I think, a misguided zealot, might be at liberty to condemn to a sentence of complete excommunication a person who was a law-abiding citizen, and deny him not only the consolations of religion but of what to some people is the hope of salvation.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I have heard some extraordinary law laid down in the course of the debate, but I never expected to hear the noble and learned Lord say what he has said to-night. He talks about everybody, notwithstanding any principle of the Church, having a right under the Statute to be admitted to Holy Communion. Does he not know that it is part of the common law that baptism is the door of the sacrament, and that no unbaptised person has any claim to Holy Communion? Does he forget that the Statute says that they must humbly and heartily desire it?
LORD BUCKMASTER: The Statute says "shall not without lawful cause deny the same to any person that will devoutly and humbly desire it, any law, custom, or authority of Parliament notwithstanding."
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am well aware of the words of the Statute. He has "lawful cause," because they are not baptised. They do not "heartily and humbly desire it," because they cannot desire it according to the rules of the Church. The Sacraments of the Church can only be desired by those people who believe in the rules of the Church. I have heard, as I have said, some very extraordinary things said about the law of the Church and about marriage, but I never expected to hear this.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I think your Lordships will agree that the speeches which have just been made raise issues of such importance and gravity that it is hardly possible to discuss them adequately at this hour. I know that the patience of the noble and learned Lord is very greatly strained by the time which is being taken to deal with all these Amendments in Committee, but I hope he will feel with me that it would be very undesirable to force the Bill through at the end when the only matters that at present remain are those which go to the root of some of the most cherished beliefs and convictions of the Church. Therefore I should wish the debate to be adjourned.
LORD BUCKMASTER: This is really the only Amendment of any consequence that is left. Everything else is consequential.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I have an Amendment after this.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: The question of the use of the church still remains.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not wish, of course, to ask your Lordships to prolong a debate that has become tiresome and fatiguing to any of you, but I cannot help greatly regretting that it has not been possible to complete the Committee stage of this Bill to-day. However, if the most rev. Prelate asks mile to adjourn the debate, I cannot refuse his request, and it must be adjourned.
On Question, further consideration of the Bill in Committee adjourned.

FIREARMS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HERTFORD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Hertford—Was presented by Viscount Astor; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTERFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Chesterfield—Was presented by Viscount Astor; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WINDNES EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Windnes—Was presented by Viscount Astor; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills had been complied with:

Bristol Corporation.

Seaham Harbour Dock.

Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre Rural District Councils.

Penllwyn Railway (Abandonment).

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill:

Sheffield Corporation.

132
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PONTYPRIDD STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL. [H.L.]
  FARMERS LAND PURCHASE COMPANY BILL.
    LANDS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY BILL.
    Committees to meet on Thursday next.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills

Liverpool Copper Wharf Company (Delivery Warrants)

Uxbridge and Wycombe District Gas

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bills.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for Additional Provisions in the

Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.]

Derwent Valley Water Board Bill

ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committees on the Bills to insert the Additional Provisions:
Read, and agreed to.

LIVERPOOL COPPER WHARF COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL. [H.L.]
  UXBRIDGE AND WYCOMBE DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on the 23rd of March last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Earl of Courtown be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of Lord O'Hagan; read, and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
TORPOINT FERRY BILL. [H.L.]
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
ROCHESTER, CHATHAM AND GILLINGHAM GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

LLANELLY CORPORATION WATER.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Llanelly under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to confer further powers on them in relation to their waterworks undertaking, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK.
Petition of the Workington Harbour and Dock Board under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower them to construct a dock extension and other works, to confer upon them additional financial and other powers, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDONDERRY BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS.
Petition of the Londonderry Bridge Commissioners under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to increase the tolls, rates, and charges authorised by the Londonderry Bridge Acts, 1859 and 1877, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
SAUNDERS' NATURALISATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to naturalise David Jack Saunders —Was presented (on petition), and read 1a.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
The Orders of Thursday last to be printed, and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.