Sitting of 30 November 1920

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  PEACE TREATIES.

    TURKEY.
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any intention of modifying the Turkish Treaty as a result of developments in Greece?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I cannot at present do more than refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 18th November.

    BRITISH PROPERTY IN GERMANY.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a British subject resident in Germany at the outbreak of the War and whose furniture and personal effects in Germany have disappeared during his internment, is entitled to reparation under the Treaty of Versailles?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have been asked to reply. If the property in question was sold or disposed of by the German Authorities during the War under exceptional war measures, the owner would be entitled to claim compensation from Germany under Article 297 of the Treaty of Versailles. The Reparation Part of the Treaty does not appear to apply to the particular kind of case referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ATKEY: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest what course this unfortunate man
    1086
    can adopt in order to obtain either compensation or reparation?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am afraid I cannot. I have gone into it carefully, and, as far as I can see, the particular kind of case my hon. Friend has put down does not come under either Section 232 or Section 297. It is not due to the action of Germany, but to some undetermined cause. If my hon. Friend could give me the facts privately afterwards of any particular case, I will do my best to see whether a claim can be made under any of the Sections under which reparation will be payable.

    ARMENIA.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the policy of this country and of the Entente with regard to the present position of Armenia; whether the Department has received any information indicating co-operation between the Bolshevists and the Turkish Nationalists; and how the latter are supposed to be supplied with munitions?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the present position of Armenia is necessarily dependent, to a large extent, on discussions now taking place at Geneva, and I cannot, therefore, make a statement at this moment. Information has been received of negotiations and agreements for co-operation between the Bolsheviks and Turkish Nationalists, and it is believed that the former have supplied the latter with arms and munitions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that a statement will be made in this House, before any fresh commitments in Armenia are embarked upon?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not in a position to give that undertaking, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows.

  RUSSIA.

    ATTACKS ON POLAND.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

    1087
    whether the Foreign Office has received any information indicating that the Soviet Government is planning further aggression against Poland; and whether in any case we shall continue to negotiate trade if such an attack materialises?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

  HUNGARY.
  Mr. C. WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the quantity of arms and ammunition at present in Hungary?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am informed that the quantity of arms and ammunition at present in Hungary is not considerable. It will be the function of the Military Mission of Control, set up under the Treaty, to keep Hungary's armament down to the scale fixed by the Treaty.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now ascertained from our representative at Budapest the number of men under arms in Hungary?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. In my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 2nd November, I stated that the present forces in Hungary number about 36,000. According to reports since furnished by the Allied generals at Budapest, the number of the National Army does not greatly exceed the 35,000 men authorised by the Peace Treaty. There is an armed police force of 20,000 men.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if we are to understand from his answer that that includes all the trained men who are in possession of arms, and who would at any moment be drafted in to increase the total of the forces?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I did not say that at all.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any information about that?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is supposed that there is a sufficient number of armed men to fill out the Hungarian army to about 100,000, but according to our information they would lack much of the necessary matériel of war.
  Sir T. BRAMSDON: Does that include the police?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think not.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what steps are being taken to reduce the Hungarian Army in accordance with the Peace Treaty?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that until the Hungarian Peace Treaty has become effective the Military Commission of Control cannot be set up.

  ATHOLL HIGHLANDERS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Duke of Atholl has a private army of his own; whether such army is paid for out of public funds and is under the control of the War Office; for what purpose it exists; and how many men it comprises?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I presume the hon. Member is referring to the body of men known as the "Atholl Highlanders," which consists, I am informed, of some 200 tenants and employés of the Duke of Atholl and is maintained by him entirely for ceremonial purposes. I understand that similar bodies of clansmen exist elsewhere in the Highlands of Scotland, and are looked upon as picturesque and popular relics of by-gone days. No public funds have been spent upon them, and they are not under the control of the War Office.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether any of these gallant forces served in the War?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice, but I should think most of them.
  Dr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause information to be sent to the hon. Member as to the example of the dignity of a Highland chief that requires an army of this sort to maintain that dignity, especially the chief of the principal clan in Scotland, the Clan Murray?
  Mr. KILEY: Are they permitted to carry firearms?
  Dr. MURRAY: They do not need any.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    VOLUNTEER CORPS (DISBANDMENT).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether an Army Order has recently been issued disbanding between 400 and 500 scheduled Volunteer Corps; and, if so, how many men have thus been discouraged from offering their services to the Empire in case of emergency?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir; Army Order 455 of 1920 contains a list of Volunteer Corps which have been disbanded. These corps were raised in 1916 as a war measure, and when the emergency was clearly at an end instructions were given for the units to be disbanded. It is not considered that the disbandment of the Volunteer Force in any way discourages members from offering their services to the Empire in case of emergency. All Volunteers of the present military age may, if they are physically fit, join the Territorial Force, and efficient Volunteers with six months' service are encouraged to do so by a special condition (common to them and other members of His Majesty's Services who have served for a similar period during the War) under which they may enlist for a shorter period than other recruits, namely, for one year (with extensions) instead of four years.

    SEPARATION AND SPECIAL PARENTS' ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War what is the nature of the reserved right under which soldiers' dependants' separation allowance or special parents' allowance can continue to be paid after 28th September, 1920; and what is the number of the Army Order which provides for this?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A soldier who re-enlisted with a promise of the continuance of dependants' allowance to his dependants for the period for which he re-enlisted may secure the continuance of that allowance if he elect to continue at the old rates of pay. The conditions under which he can do this are laid down in Army Order 357 of 1920, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is the case that a soldier who had previously been in the Army during the War, and who enlisted again after the peace on the terms of receiving a certain separation allowance, is debarred from further increases of pay if he continue to receive that separation allowance?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like notice of that question.

    TROOPS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of British, Indian, and Imperial service troops and Air Force personnel stationed or employed outside the British Empire at the present time, and where they are stationed or employed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): This return would be a complicated one to prepare, and I do not think it necessary to add to the information given in the Estimates and in my speeches from time to time.

    STORES, AINTREE.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of the Government store at Aintree; what is the value of the material stored there; and whether equipment of all kinds is being stored in this country sufficient for 40 divisions?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think under the present conditions it is undesirable to publish the figures asked for in the first two parts of the Noble Lord's question, but I shall be pleased to let him see them privately. The answer to the last part of his question is in the negative.

    MILITARY MEDAL (SERGEANT H. CAMM).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sergeant Harry

    1091
    Camm, Royal Army Service Corps, who was awarded the Military Medal, received from the Records Office, Woolwich Dockyard, a letter, dated 18th November, 1920, which stated that no particulars of the deed for which this award was made wore given, and that it was probably issued with the rations; whether he will explain why such a communication was addressed to a man who has received a decoration for services to his country; and whether he will state for what deed Sergeant Camm was awarded the medal?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The award of the Military Medal No. M.2/177616 Sergeant Harry Camm, Royal Army Service Corps, was announced in the "London Gazette," dated 20th August, 1920. Particulars of the deed for which it was awarded were not published, but I am sending the Noble Lord a copy of the official record. I am informed that no statement, such as suggested, or anything similar to it, was made in the reply to Sergeant Camm from the Officer-in-Charge of Records.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I assure my right hon. Friend that I saw the communication myself in which the statement was made that the medal was issued with the rations?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In view of the statement of the Noble Lord, I will ask for the original.

    TROOPS (AT HOME AND ABROAD).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War how many British soldiers there are in France at present?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of British troops at present in France and Flanders is approximately 3,400. These troops are engaged on work connected with graves registration, the disposal of surplus stores, and the transportation and disposal of railway wagons and locomotives.
    Captain TERRELL: Are any of these men engaged in guarding dumps in which barbed wire is stored in large quantities?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know, but if my hon. and gallant Friend knows of
    1092
    any convenient place in which large quantities of barbed wire can be found which can be used at practically no undue expense, I can assure him there are plenty of uses to which it can be put.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will furnish a return showing the numbers and distribution of the British Army throughout the world?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The approximate numbers and distribution of the British Army throughout the world are as follow:

    Home

    153,000

    Rhine

    13,100

    Danzig (troops en route to United Kingdom)

    1,000

    Egypt

    *43,400

    Palestine

    Black Sea

    Mesopotamia and North-West Persia

    Colonies

    9,600

    France and Flanders

    3,400

    India and Aden

    64,000

    Miscellaneous

    7,500

    Total

    295,000

    * It is not considered desirable to specify exactly what troops we have in Egypt, Palestine, the Black Sea and Mesopotamia, and North-West Persia, and accordingly I give the total for those areas.

    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Could my right hon. Friend say when he is going to take the Supplementary Army Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entirely in the hands of my superiors.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many of the troops at home are in Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I gave that the other day. There are nearly 50,000 men in Ireland.

    APPLICATION FOR GRATUITY (PRIVATE P. PENNY).
    Mr. HURDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Private Percy Penny, No. 201960, 14th Hants Regiment, who enlisted in the Somerset Light Infantry on 14th April, 1915, and was demobilised on 21st November, 1919,

    1093
    after serving in Mesopotamia and India, is unable to obtain any satisfactory reply in regard to his gratuity and back pay, although he has made repeated applications to the Army Pay Office at Exeter; and what measures are being taken to remove the grievance created by the inefficiency of the present methods of dealing with cases of this kind?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A Report has been asked for and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as it is received.
    Mr. HURD: May I ask whether it is really possible to devise some more direct means of dealing with these grievances of ex-soldiers, so that they need not be banded about from office to office month after month?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I know of no more direct means than that of asking for a Report.
    Mr. HURD: This Report was asked for months ago.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. Member has more information about it than I have.
    Mr. HURD: I have.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon Gentleman will tell me the date on which he asked for it, I shall be obliged.
    Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I did communicate with him, he did not even answer my letter?

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    BARRACKS AND CANTONMENTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the acquisition of land for permanent barracks and cantonments and the building of permanent barracks and cantonments is still proceeding in Mesopotamia; how much money will be expended on these undertakings for the current year; how long is it estimated the building programme will take; what is the estimated total cost for land and buildings; and what will be the approximate housing capacity of these barracks and cantonments when completed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No purchases of land for cantonments in Mesopotamia have so far been authorised. As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question in the House on 23rd inst., he anticipates that about £1,000,000 will be spent this year on the provision of accommodation for the troops. Part of this sum is being spent on accommodation of a permanent character for two infantry battalions, a divisional headquarters, and a hospital. I can say nothing at present as to the programme for the future.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he anticipates any saving in this building programme, in view of the recent statement of His Majesty's Government of the instructions given to Sir Percy Cox to set up an Arab State in Mesopotamia?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot say as to a future which is unknown to any of us, but there is certain work which must be done. The climate there is very trying, and the troops ought to be adequately protected.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be a great saving of money if the troops were withdrawn altogether, and the defence of Mesopotamia handed over to the Arab levies?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

    BARBED WIRE.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order was recently placed with a Warrington firm for 1,000 tons of barbed wire for Mesopotamia at £60 a ton; whether, if these are not the exact amounts and price, he will state the actual amount ordered and the exact price paid; whether the order has been executed; and whether, as Mesopotamia is to become an Arab state, it is necessary for the Government to place such a large order for war material with the firm in question?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No order corresponding to the particulars given in the question has been recently placed with a Warrington firm, but about the latter half of September, orders, which are now in course of completion, were given for some 2,600 tons of barbed wire at an average price of about £36 per ton. As stated in the reply to similar questions

    1095
    on the 15th inst., there are objections on grounds of public policy to stating the actual prices quoted to the War Office by manufacturers. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, I would point out that barbed wire is used in other localities besides Mesopotamia, and is also expended in the normal peace training of the troops at home and abroad.
    Captain TERRELL: May I ask why the Secretary of State for War should order new barbed wire, when the Disposal Board has a large amount of barbed wire for sale to-day?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. and gallant Member must, I think, be misinformed, because inquiries were made of the Disposal Board, and they had no galvanised wire to dispose of.
    Captain TERRELL: Am I to take it from that that the Disposal Board have no barbed wire for sale to-day?
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that as regards the Continent, but I believe in this country they have not—at any rate, no adequate amount.
    Mr. C. WHITE: Will the details of this particular order be placed on the Army Supplementary Estimates?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No; details are not given. It appears under a heading.

    RUPEE (EXCHANGE RATE).
    Mr. WILLIAM SHAWasked the Secretary of State for War on what rate of exchange for the rupee his Estimate for this year's expenditure in Mesopotamia was based; if the fall in the rupee has resulted in a saving under this head; and if he will state what he estimates the saving at?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the original Estimates of the year the rupee was taken at 2s. 6d. I am now taking it at 2s. on the average throughout the year. The fall represents a saving of about three and a half million pounds on the original Estimates; of this saving about £2,750,000 relates to Mesopotamia. But this saving is far outweighed by other increases.

  IRELAND.

    OFFICERS' QUARTERS.
    Major Sir K. FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War who is responsible for married officers quartered in Ireland being allowed to live out of barracks, seeing that these officers either have been or are liable to be employed on Courts-Martial of civilians and on duties in aid of the civil power; whether the administration branch Irish Command is responsible; and what action does he propose to take in the matter
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, is responsible for the accommodation of officers in Ireland. I understand that there were special reasons for the arrangements which were made for the officers referred to, owing to the nature of their duties. These arrangements have required revision in the light of recent development of the rebels' murder campaign; and the General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, will continue to have full discretion as to the measures to be adopted.

    MILITARY EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any expenditure arising out of the military operations in Ireland which falls on any Vote other than that of the War Office; and, if so, what is the expenditure in question and on what Vote it falls?
    Mr. KILEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Ireland which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?
    Mr. KENYONasked the Secretary of State for War whether there has been any increase or diminution in the rate of military expenditure in Ireland since he estimated the monthly rate at £1,150,000?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know of no reason to amend the estimated rate of expenditure given on 26th October. That rate included capital expenditure. The military activities involve charges also on the Votes of the Air Ministry, the amount of which is being given in answer to a

    1097
    later question (No. 33). As regards any consequential or incidental charges on Civil Votes, I must refer the hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    MURDER OF LIEUTENANT A. AMES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Lieutenant A. Ames, who was murdered in Dublin on Sunday, 21st November, was born at Titusville, Pennsylvania, and educated at Stevens University, United States of America; and will he cause a message to be sent to America expressing regret that an American-born officer should have shared the fate of his British fellow officers at the hands of Sinn Fein assassins?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am informed that the facts regarding Lieutenant Ames are as described, but I do not feel that any confirmation of the country's sympathy is required in the loss of this gallant officer.

    CHIEF SECRETARY'S SPEECH (PUBLICATION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the possibility of arranging for the Chief Secretary's speech on the Irish question delivered in this House on 24th November to be printed in pamphlet form for distribution here and abroad, in view of the gross calumnies on the conduct of the Army and police force in Ireland which are being circulated for political purposes, particularly in this country and the United States?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The speech of my right hon. Friend was very fully reported throughout the United Kingdom, and the Government have endeavoured to cause the real facts to be known abroad, and particularly in the United States, but it is not considered that the specific suggestion of my hon. Friend could be usefully adopted.

    ARMOURED CARS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any armoured protection was afforded on the cars or lorries ambushed near Macroom on Sunday last, resulting in the murder of 16 members of the Auxiliary Police; and, if not, will he again urge upon those responsible for
    1098
    such matters that the best possible protection which can be improvised should be at once provided for cars or lorries used by police patrols in disturbed districts in Ireland?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I cannot say at the moment, as I have no information, whether the two lorries in this case were armoured or protected; but I can say that all cars used for patrol purposes are being armoured as rapidly as possible.

    REBEL ORGANISATIONS.
    Sir J. BUTCHER(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether it is the intention of the Irish Government, under the powers vested in them by the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920, or otherwise, to arrest and to keep in confinement members of the so-called Irish Republican Army and whether he can give an assurance that the persons so confined will not be given the honourable status of prisoners of war, and that no excuse will be furnished for justifying murder and acts of war.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. It is intended to intern those persons who the authorities have reason to believe are prominently connected with rebel organisations. While interned they will be accorded treatment similar to that normally given to prisoners of war. This fact does not, however, in any way imply the recognition of these men as prisoners of war or the grant to them of that status.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Baronet be careful that no questions shall arise at the Court-Martial as to whether these men are to be looked upon as belligerents rather than as murderers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered that.

    "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL" OFFICES (FIRE).
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary if he can give the House any confirmation or denial of the rumour in the papers late yesterday that a portion of the premises of the "Freeman's Journal" have been set on fire?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The following is a summary of the police report on the

    1099
    burning of the "Freeman's Journal" offices:
    "Freeman's offices in Westmoreland Street were set on fire shortly before 12 midnight. Police were notified and immediately informed the fire brigade. Entrance to Freeman office obtained by forcing upright iron of double-barred gate out of sockets in front of building. Bottom portion of building almost completely burned down. Fire was extinguished by fire brigade in about three-quarters of an hour. Caretaker and two daughters rescued from top front room of building by means of fire-escape. Empty petrol tin found on premises taken possession of by police. No clue as to perpetrators."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the theory of the Government as to the outrage?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the statement which appears in the papers that the editor of the "Irish Times" was held up by armed men also true?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I believe the office of the "Irish Times" was entered by armed men. Whether the editor was held up or not I do not know.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Did the petrol tin which was found in the "Freeman" office belong to any Government Department? [Interruption.] Yes, it did.

    AMBUSH, MACROOM.
    Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Baronet give the House any further information about the ambush at Macroom beyond what he gave last night?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have no further information as to the details, but I have circulated to the Press the names of the gallant officers who were victims of the assassination.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS (EXAMINATION).
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Sub-section of the Air Ministry, known as R.D. 4, has the responsibility of examining, considering, and advising the acceptance or rejection of certain highly technical drawings and specifications submitted to the Air Ministry by manufacturers of aircraft; and how many people are employed in this Sec-
    1100
    tion, their names, date of appointment, and their technical and practical experience, and qualifications, if any?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Section referred to in the question is responsible for advice on the matters referred to, but decisions as to acceptance or rejection do not rest with it. The Section is staffed with officials of suitable technical qualifications and experience, and its services are supplemented by those of a special consultant. The qualifications of individual members of the staff cannot conveniently be discussed by means of question and answer in this House.

    ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OFFICIALS.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on the 11th March, 1920, the Air Council came to the conclusion that there existed a primâ facie case for appointing a Committee to inquire into the allegations of a certain aircraft firm to the effect that certain Government officials who by reason of their office received technical information from the company concerned had made improper use of that information in connection with patents subsequently taken out by them, and that they used their position to hinder the development of the company's work for other than reasons of public policy; and whether he will suggest to the Committee that their inquiry should be open to the public and the Press, and that such witnesses as the Committee may see fit to call should be allowed the assistance of counsel or solicitor if they so desire?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The object of the Air Ministry has been to ascertain in the simplest and most direct manner, not whether certain Government servants had acted illegally, because there was no question of this, but whether they had acted in such a way as to prejudice the interests of a private firm. For this purpose, a Committee was set by agreement, consisting of representatives of the Air Ministry and the commercial interests concerned under an independent chairman; and it was further agreed that their inquiry was to be without prejudice to the legal rights of any of the parties. Such a body was evidently never intended to exercise

    1101
    judicial functions, and I do not see my way to ask the Committee to change the character of the inquiry which has been entrusted to them.
    The Controller of Patents, after a lengthy public hearing under the Patent Acts, has just decided that Mr. Mooney's patent was not infringed by the Government officer (Major Wylie), who took out a subsequent patent. It may be anticipated that the Committee at their next meeting will hold that this decision disposed of the first of the two terms of reference.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the fact that all these allegations are made against officers of the Air Force, would it not be better in the interests of the officers themselves, as well as those who make the complaint, that the matter should be discussed publicly?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not quite see any sufficient reason to depart from the regular procedure we are adopting. If you were to have a public inquiry in every case where allegations are made against British officers, there would be hardly any means of getting through the business.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the allegations here were made by the Society of Aircraft Constructors, who alleged that there was a primâ facie case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They have their legal rights, and if they choose to make allegations of that character which infringe the law, they will be themselves liable to have these allegations tested in the courts.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the larger airships of this country are to be turned over to private concerns, whether, before any changes of policy with regard to the Air Force take place, he will undertake that Parliament will have an opportunity of debating the matter; what work has recently been carried out by our large rigid or semi-rigid airships; and whether all these airships are to be considered as being in full commission and in a state of complete readiness for use in all respects at short notice?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Department of Civil Aviation will temporarily take over, as from 1st December, all airships, bases and material, surplus to service requirements, in order to carry out experimental work of an operational character, such as mooring-mast tests and flights of primary importance, to gauge the ships' capacity for commercial operation. This arrangement involves no modification of policy in regard to the Air Force. The work on which rigid airships have been engaged is that of training Royal Air Force and American personnel, and routine work with the Navy. With regard to the last part of the question, these airships cannot all be considered as being in full commission.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that a proper force of airships to co-operate with the Navy will not be available in future, but will belong to the Department of Civil Aviation instead?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; we are keeping as many airships as we can possibly afford for work with the Navy, but we have more airships than we can afford to man and staff in the Air Force, and these are being used experimentally by the Civil Department, and we should be very glad if commercial firms would come forward and take them over.

    EX-GERMAN AIRSHIPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air how many flights have so far been carried out by the ex-German airships handed over to this country; whether any experiments have so far been carried out with them; and to what use is it intended to put them in the future?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No flights have been carried out so far with ex-German airships. The experiments conducted with them have taken the form of investigating German methods of design and construction. These airships are surplus to Royal Air Force requirements, and will be dealt with in the same way as surplus British airships.

  ALIEN BEQUESTS.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an English woman who has

  1103
  married a German and lives in Germany with her husband, and is accordingly a German subject, has no right to receive moneys left her in England under her mother's will; whether such moneys are payable by the executors to the Public Trustee; if so, on whose behalf and for how long does he hold them; and is he aware that the Government of the United States of America is allowing bequests to former United States subjects made German subjects by marriage only to be paid to them?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. The property of German nationals which is situated in this country is charged as security for the payment by Germany of the debts and claims of various classes of British creditors. Accordingly, an English woman who has acquired German nationality in the circumstances referred to in the question would have no right to receive moneys left her in this country by will if the testator died before 10th January, 1920, the date of the ratification of the Peace Treaty. When moneys have been so left by will, the executors must notify the custodian, and the moneys cannot be transferred or in any way dealt in without his consent. I understand that legislation enacted in the United States empowers the President, in certain circumstances, to release the property of United States born women married to German subjects.
  Mr. RENDALL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think there is any hope of any change in favour of the persons interested in this matter?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; I see no reason whatever to give preferential treatment to a German subject at the expense of British creditors to whom his assets in this country are charged.
  Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this also applies to the widow of a German, a British-born woman, and the Public Trustee will not give anything to her, and she is starving, not having enough money to go on with?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I believe it is notorious that hard cases certainly make bad law. I do not think a case of that sort alters the principle I have laid
  1104
  down. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently announced the appointment of a Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Younger, to deal with any especially hard cases of the kind.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it open as an act of grace, in a hard case, to allow some benefit to British women who happened to be married to Germans?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Any hard case would be referred to Justice Younger's Committee. That Committee will scrutinise very closely applications that are made to them.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MANDATES (DRAFTS).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prome Minister who is drafting the mandates for Tanganyika territory, ex-German South-West Africa, ex-German New Guinea, and Samoa; and whether these drafts will be presented seriatim to the Council of the League of Nations as and when they are completed, or whether it is proposed to wait until the French Government have finished their drafts for Togo-land and Cameroons, so that all drafts of B and C mandates may be presented together for comparison?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Drafts of a B type mandate and a C type mandate were prepared by an inter-Allied Commission over which Lord Milner presided last year. Mandates in respect of each of the territories in question, based on these drafts, have been prepared, but certain questions are still unsettled. The procedure as to the presentation of the mandates to the League of Nations is under consideration.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that all the mandates are drafted here by the British Government, and that the Dominion Governments have not been consulted since Lord Milner's Commission in Paris broke up a year ago?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Dominion Governments were consulted on general principles. I do not think they have been consulted as to details.

    RAW MATERIALS (CONTROL).
    Mr. W. CARTERasked the Prime Minister what is the attitude of the British Government as to the control of raw materials by the League of Nations; and what instructions were given to the British delegates on this question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the distribution of raw materials is not formally before the present Assembly of the League of Nations as the matter had previously been referred by the Council of the League to the temporary Economic and Financial Committee for examination, with a view to its consideration at the Economic and Financial Conference of the League at some date next year; and the question of the instructions to be given to the British Delegates to that Conference will be considered in due course.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS.
    Mr. W. CARTERasked the Prime Minister whether the League of Nations has decided against holding meetings in public; whether the Chief British dele gate, or the British delegates on the Commissions, voted on this subject; if so, how did they vote; and what were the instructions of the British Government in the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, subject to an Amendment whereby it was agreed that Committees should keep a public register of their discussions and Minutes. There was no vote taken on the subject.

  EX-CROWN PRINCE OF PRUSSIA.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the report that the ex-Crown Prince of Prussia has for some time been in communication from his retreat in Holland with the leaders of the monarchial party in Prussia, with the object of overthrowing the present governmental system of Germany and restoring the Hohenzollerns to power; if this intrigue has been carried on with the knowledge of the Dutch Government; whether the Allies have sent any protest to that Government on the subject; will he state if any application has been addressed to Holland for the surrender of the ex-Crown Prince for offences committed by him during the War; and if, in the face of this recent
  1106
  development, the matter will be taken up again with the Dutch Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that rumours to the effect indicated have been in circulation for some time past, but much importance is not attached to them, and I have no doubt that the Netherlands Government interpret their responsibilities as regards the ex-Crown Prince very seriously. The answer to the third and fourth parts of the question is in the negative.

  LEASE, BUCKINGHAM PALACE ROAD.
  Mr. CAIRNSasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that, for a piece of land in Buckingham Palace Road £4,000 a year is paid as ground rent and £395 as old rent, and the leaseholder has to hand over at the end of the lease a building which cost him £50,000, and pays all the rates; whether he is aware that it cost £50,000 to get the lease renewed; and whether, in view of the discontent among the working classes caused by such incidents, he will bring in a Bill to nationalise such lands and use the money realised for pensions for soldiers and sailors, some of whom have to live on the local rates?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I have no information as to the case referred to in this question.

  EXPENDITURE (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES).
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent figures of expenditure other than war, war expenditure, and deficit, respectively, in the Budgets of European countries?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend has been published by the League of Nations in Paper No. IV., presented to the Brussels Financial Conference.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Where might we obtain a copy?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The publishers in this country are Messrs. Harrison and Sons, St. Martin's Lane.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman lay copies in the Library of these official documents emanating from the League of Nations?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I think that is quite a reasonable request, and I shall look into it.

  FACTORIES (ACCIDENTS).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the percentage of accidents reported by His Majesty's inspectors of factories in 1919 as due to the cleaning of machinery in motion; and whether, in view of the fact that this practice has for years been a prolific source of accidents, he will deal with it in the amending Factory and Workshop Bill by a Clause forbidding such cleaning for all workers?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The last year for which complete statistics are available is 1914. In that year there were 1,757 accidents due to cleaning machinery in motion, a little over 1 per cent, of the total number of accidents from all causes, and over 4 per cent, of the total number of machinery accidents. It would not, I am advised, be practicable to prohibit all cleaning of machinery in motion, but the question will be carefully considered in connection with the amending Bill. The bulk of the accidents from this cause occur to women and young persons, and the restrictions at present imposed in the case of these workers by Section 13 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, are clearly inadequate.

  TRAFALGAR SQUARE (SPEECHES)
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that all who are interested in our Navy and revere its gallant deeds and the memory of our naval heroes strongly object to the plinth of the great national memorial to Nelson in Trafalgar Square being used as a platform for revolutionary and seditious speeches against the Crown and Commonwealth, and often outraging national sentiment, as was the case on
  1108
  Armistice Sunday, when the solemn pilgrimage then in progress to the Cenotaph and the unknown warrior's grave in Westminster Abbey was held up to ridicule; and will he take such steps as may be necessary to secure our national monuments from being desecrated in the manner complained of?
  Mr. SHORTT: Public meetings are held in Trafalgar Square under Regulations made by the Commissioners of Works. I do not think it necessary that those Regulations should be altered on account of such speeches as the hon. Member describes.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is a clear distinction between ordinary gas and poison gas, and that, while it is desirable that the utmost freedom of speech should be given to persons who desire to alter the Constitution in a constitutional manner, this freedom of speech should not be extended to persons who urge revolution, especially under the shadow of our national monuments?
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not think the speeches are of sufficient importance to warrant interference.
  Mr. STANTON: You may wake up by-and-by!

  POLICE SEARCHES.
  Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Home Secretary whether he will give instructions that documents and property shall not be removed from a private house by the police except in the presence of the occupier, his representative, or some witness unconnected with the Government service, and except after a form has been signed by such occupier, representative, or witness stating that each document or piece of property so removed has been removed in his presence?
  Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. I cannot give these instructions. As a general rule, the police conduct searches while the owner or occupier is on the premises; but if he is absent, it may be impossible to defer the search till he returns.
  Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that quite recently the house of a demobilised officer who was

  1109
  undergoing medical treatment, the result of War service, was visited, and certain things taken away, and he has been unable to obtain their return from the Home Office, nor can he discover the name of the officer who took the things away? In a case of this kind could not the police officer be instructed to leave some sort of a note?
  Mr. SHORTT: I must ask for notice of any particular instance.
  Mr. KILEY: It is the principle, not the case!
  Mr. KILEYasked the Home Secretary if he will state by what statute the police are empowered to search private houses and to remove property and documents there from in the absence of the occupier or his representative?
  Mr. SHORTT: Under various statutes and under No. 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations the police have powers of search in the absence of the occupier or his representative.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In such a case is it just to produce substantial articles found as evidence; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Continent this cannot be done unless the occupier is present?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of that. The question of evidence is one for the Court to consider.

  POWER ALCOHOL
  Lieut.-Colonel BELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to remove the duty on mixed alcohol spirits, such as natalite, intended for power purposes, so as to enable such fuels to be imported into this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given on the 4th and 11th instant to the hon. Member for Walthamstow on the same subject.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MALE CLERKS (GOVERNMENT OFFICES).
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the
    1110
    temporary male clerks under 21 who served in the War were represented on the staff associations who came to an agreement as to the rate of pay of clerks under 21; and why men under 21 who were considered fit to serve their country in the fighting line when under 21 are not fit to receive the same rate of pay for the same work as those who have attained the age of 21 and never served in the Army at all?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I have no specific information with regard to the number and age of ex-service constituents of the various staff associations with whom the agreement to which the hon. Member refers was concluded, but there is no doubt that temporary male clerks who served in the Forces during the War were represented as well as other temporary male staff. The arrangement under which the pay of temporary clerks increases progressively at certain age-points is common to the Civil Service, and is based upon general considerations which are as applicable to ex-service men as to men who did not serve with the Forces.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have already explained that it is quite impossible to draw any distinction of that kind. If we give a clerk more money owing to the fact that he is an ex-service man, it would be impossible to limit the payment to men under 21 years of age.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as an act of grace, he will give orders that the pension of Richard Owen, of Pentraeth, Anglesey, aged 79, a man of blameless life and an excellent worker, shall be immediately restored to him in view of the fact that his whole fault lies in illiteracy and inability to understand the Regulations as set out to him by an officer addressing him in an unknown tongue?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that I cannot accede to the hon. and gallant Member's request, as a sum of £14 13s. is still out-

  1111
  standing in respect of the Old Age Pension money improperly obtained by Owen by false declaration as to his means.
  Sir O. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this old man of 80 years of age is a monoglot Welshman, and that the pensions officer was unable, and is unable, to understand a word of Welsh?
  Mr. HINDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of officials being appointed who understand the language of the people?
  Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the second supplementary question, my right hon. Friend has been dealing with that matter. With regard to the first supplementary question, I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that the matter was looked into a year ago at his request, and the explanation which I provided him at that time satisfied him. If the hon. Member has any further information to give me I shall be pleased to receive it, but I have examined the files again this morning, and, while it is a fact that the old man is a monoglot Welshman, the Old Age Pensions officer is understood to have a sufficient knowledge of Welsh to understand questions and answers, and the old man was accompanied by his daughter, who is a fluent speaker of English. In my experience a blameless life has never prevented people making a wrong return in matters of assessment.
  Sir O. THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Old Age Pension officers are employed in Anglesey and Carnarvonshire who are unable to speak Welsh?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Of the 12 Old Age Pension officers in the area in question, five speak the Welsh language fluently, and six others have a working knowledge of the language.
  Sir O. THOMAS: What about the deaf and dumb?
  Mr. BALDWIN: There are other languages besides Welsh.
  Major EDWARDS: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by having a "working knowledge" of the Welsh
  1112
  language? Does it mean being able to say "Good morning" or "Good night," or does it mean having an intimate acquaintance with the literary works of Dafydd ap Gwilym or the forgeries of "Iolo Morganwgs"?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should say that a "working knowledge" means such knowledge as enables a man to do his work in that language.
  Sir O. THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared forthwith to direct that all Regulations relating to Old Age Pensions be issued in Welsh as well as in English and to provide that every monoglot pensioner shall have access to an official able to explain to him the conditions attaching to the receipt of Old Age Pension in his own language?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The relevant Old Age Pension forms, including the forms of declaration containing particulars of the statutory conditions and disqualifications, have always been provided in Welsh for use where necessary. All requisite facilities are provided for monoglot pensioners.
  Dr. MURRAY: Will the same principle be applied in the Highlands where the oldest language in the world is spoken?
  Sir O. THOMAS: Owing to the unsatisfactory reply which has been given to this question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House this evening.

  PAPER CURRENCY (EUROPEAN COUNTRIES).
  Mr. SWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of paper currency in the chief European countries on 30th June, 1914, and at the latest available date, respectively?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find substantially the particulars desired in the "Monthly Bulletin of Statistics" issued by the Supreme Economic Council, which is published by the Stationery Office.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  Sir WILLIAM PEARCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the

  1113
  sum of £40,000,000 proposed to be issued for the purpose of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners will be a 3 per cent, stock; and, if so, will it be issued at a discount of at least 50 per cent.?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figure of £40,000,000 is the maximum sum which can be lent in cash by the Public Works Loan Commissioners during the period covered by the Public Works Loan Bill. The cash actually required in respect of this maximum sum is advanced to the Commissioners from the local loans fund, which is fed in the first place from the capital sums repaid in respect of past loans, and in the second place, if necessary, by the issue of 3 per cent, local loans stock, either to Government funds, such as the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, or to the public. The extent to which it may be necessary to make further issues to the public cannot at present be foreseen, and the terms of such an issue clearly depend on market conditions at the time.

  MOTOR CARS (POLICE CONTROLS).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary how many controls were instituted for detection of offences against the speed limit in the Metropolitan police area between a.m on 27th November, 1920, and p.m. on 29th November, 1920 how many police officers were employed, and with what result; whether any control was instituted for the detection of driving to the common danger in the same period; how many police officers were employed, and with what result; whether any case of dangerous driving was reported by police employed on ordinary or point duty during the same period; and were any police employed mounted on motor cycles during the same period?
  Mr. SHORTT: During the period a.m. 27th November to p.m. 29th November, six controls were instituted to detect offences against the speed limit, three officers were employed and six cases reported for prosecution. Two controls were operated to detect cases of dangerous driving, two officers being employed, and three such cases were reported. Two cases of dangerous driving were reported by police on ordinary duty, and two by police on point duty. A number of police were employed mounted on motor cycles, but not on traffic duties.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND CULTIVATION ORDER (GLENORCHY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the compulsory order issued by the Board of Agriculture under the Defence of the Realm Act for the cultivation of land at Tom-na-qualin, Glenorchy, occupied by Dugald Cameron, has yet been withdrawn or cancelled; what is the estimate of the total expense incurred by the Board in this matter; whether any part has been incurred since Whit Sunday, 1920; whether the Mar quess of Bredalbane has intimated to the Board that he has now no objection to the constitution of a small holding here and has asked that an officer of the Board discuss proposals; whether this offer has been acknowledged by the Board; and whether, in the whole circumstances, he is now prepared to instruct that the consultation be now pushed forward with a view to a settlement of this case?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): On 12th April the Board of Agriculture for Scotland gave Mr. Cameron notice to quit occupation at 2nd May, 1920. Formal withdrawal of the order was in the Board's view not necessary, as the proprietor took action to eject Mr. Cameron after that date, and obtained a decree of ejection in the Sheriff Court. The total expenses so far incurred by the Board amount to £262, no part of which sum has been incurred since Whit Sunday last. The Marquis of Bredalbane made a qualified offer in the sense stated, which was acknowledged by the Board. In reply to the last part of the question, I am in communication with the Board regarding my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    CINEMA BUILDINGS, GLASGOW.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether nine cinemas are being built in Glasgow in spite of protest by the Corporation?
    Mr. PRATT(Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland): I am aware that the Corporation of Glasgow, in terms of Section 5 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, passed Orders prohibiting the erection of nine cinemas, but on appeal, in terms of the Act, the Appeal Tribunal quashed the Orders. I have no power to review the decisions of the Tribunal.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these luxury buildings are making progress in Scotland, whilst housing schemes are being held up for want of bricks and cement?
    Mr. PRATT: Yes, I am aware of it.
    Mr. R. McLAREN: If these cinemas have to be built would it not be possible to build them with sandstone instead of bricks, which might then be used for housing purposes.
    Mr. PRATT: I will look into that matter.

    BRICKS, LANARKSHIRE.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Director of Building Materials Supply has refused permission to the Middle Ward Committee of Lanarkshire to purchase bricks locally at a price 13s. in excess of the regulation price, but has caused them to accept others from distant sources of supply, so that the cost of freight entailed a gross price considerably in excess of the local price?
    Mr. PRATT: The Director of Building Materials Supply has no power to authorise local authorities to purchase bricks, and can only supply bricks as available through his own organisation. I am advised, however, that on the case in question being brought to the notice of the Scottish Board of Health they authorised the local authority to purchase bricks locally at a price in excess of the Building Materials Supply Department rate.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that bricks are being sent to Scotland from London and Barrow-in-Furness for building purposes in Glasgow, whilst bricks made in Scotland are being sent to England?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Does that not show that the Building Materials Supply Department is working successfully with regard to the supply of bricks for housing in Scotland?
    Mr. PRATT: The Scottish Board of Health and the Government quite realise that. The difficulties of the last few weeks are under consideration now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland and the Minister of Health.
    Sir J. HOPE: Can the hon. Member say when a settlement will be arrived at so that we can get on with housing?
    Mr. PRATT: Quite speedily.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the Scottish Board of Health any control over, the Building Materials Supply Department?
    Mr. PRATT: That Department is under the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that mean that building materials in Scotland are under the control of the English Minister of Health?
    Mr. PRATT: So far as building materials come within that Department that is the case.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Are there any schemes for concrete buildings?
    Mr. PRATT: Yes, Sir. There are several schemes being built in concrete at the present time.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Are there many houses being built at all in Scotland?
    Mr. PRATT: Yes: some hundreds of them.

    POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Police Pensions (Scotland) Bill will be introduced; and if he proposes to pass it through all its stages before Christmas?
    Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I hope to introduce the Police Pensions Bill—which will apply both to England and Scotland—without delay. Every effort will be made to proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is there any possibility of our getting the Bill before Christmas?
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope so.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Post-master-General whether he is aware that there are well over 100 persons in Bourne mouth who, having applied for telephones

    1117
    over a year ago, have not yet got them; that the delay in Branksome Park, Bournemouth, has been ascribed by the Post Office to there being no more room on the exchange switch, but that the erection of a telephone exchange at Can-ford Cliffs would relieve the difficulty; whether a switch has just been erected at Canford Cliffs which will only take 100 subscribers, still leaving many applicants unsatisfied; and can he hold out any hope that his questioner will possess a telephone at an early date?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am informed that there are only twenty applications for telephones at Bournemouth which have been outstanding for twelve months. Most of these can be met soon by rearrangements at Bournemouth consequent on the opening of the new exchange at Canford Cliffs. An extension of the switchboard at Canford Cliffs has been authorised. I hope that a circuit can be provided for my hon. Friend at an early date.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Postmaster-General what is the average time that elapses between an application for the installation of a telephone in the London area and its approval and fulfilment by his Department?
    Mr. PEASE: No average figure is available. Where there are spare wires in the undeground cables and spare equipment at the Exchange, the installation should be completed within two or three weeks of the signing of the agreement. But in many parts of the London area there is still a shortage of underground cables and Exchange plant which must necessarily take a considerable time to make good. No order is accepted unless there is a possibility of completing the work within three months.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the tremendous impediment to business through delays in installation will my right hon. Friend ask the Postmaster-General, who is absent from causes which we all regret, to look into the matter and see if it is not possible to make a further acceleration of telephone installations to something like a week instead of six months as at present?
    Mr. PEASE: I will put before my right hon. Friend what the Noble Lord has said. May I say that, having had some
    1118
    experience during the last five years in this position, one must realise, seeing that practically no work was done for five years, there is now a great accumulation, and it can only be done rather slowly in consequence.

    TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (REVISION).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether it is the duty of any official of his Department to check the final proofs of the Telephone Directory before it goes to press; if not, in view of the errors in the current issue of the Directory, he will, in future, impose this duty on an official of his Department;
    (2) who are the printers of the Telephone Directory; and whether, in the contract of his Department with them, any penalty is exacted for mistakes in printing the Telephone Directory?
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he can inform the House of the name of the firm which printed the current Telephone Directory; whether there are in the Department officials responsible for passing printers' proofs before publication; if so, how in the current Telephone Guide the admitted error, which is causing inconvenience to thousands of subscribers, was passed; and what provision has been made to see that no repetition of the kind is possible?
    Mr. PEASE: I will answer these questions together. The current Telephone Directory was printed by the Stationery Office Press at Harrow. The final proofs are checked by the Post Office staff in galley slip form, but alterations and additions are necessarily made after the final proofs have been dispatched to press. For the present issue the type had to be set up afresh, and the risk of error was increased. The next issue will be printed to a large extent from standing type. The mistake as to the position of the index letters arose from an instruction to place the page numbers on the outside corner being interpreted as an instruction to transpose the page numbers and the index letters. The attention of the printers has been drawn to the error.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question—whether any penalty is exacted for mistakes in printing the Directory?
    Mr. PEASE: The printing is done by the Stationery Office. I cannot attempt to say it was anything but a very unfortunate error that when the proof was sent to the Post Office, and the instruction was given that the page number should be placed on the outside corner of the page, it was interpreted as an instruction to transpose the page number and the index letters. Both Departments, as the Noble Lord is aware, are Departments of the State.
    Sir C KINLOCH-COOKE: Were any proofs submitted?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is there any official of the Post Office responsible for seeing the books in their final form before they are issued to the public?
    Mr. PEASE: I have endeavoured to answer that question. I have stated that the final proof was sent to the Post Office, and when they received it they examined it and gave the direction I have stated. The covers had been put on the books when the instruction was sent. The Stationery Office made the mistake I have mentioned in my answer.
    Mr. MOLES: When this contract was taken from the former printers and turned over to the office at Harrow, was the standing type also taken over from the printers, or was this voluminous work set up ab initio and the cost there from added?
    Mr. PEASE: I cannot answer that question without notice. I will try and send the information privately to the hon. Member.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Postmaster-General whether the buff book recently forwarded to all subscribers to the London Telephone Exchange system was issued with his authority; and will he explain the statement on the title-page of the book that it is a list of subscribers to the London Post Office telephone system classified under their trades and professions, having regard to the fact that several trades and professions are represented by a single name and many others by only two or three names?
    Mr. PEASE: The right of issuing a "Trades Directory" for the London telephone area, for which there appears to be a demand, was granted to the present publishers, after competitive tenders,
    1120
    in return for a substantial royalty. The publishers in a preface explain the incompleteness of the book on the ground that time did not permit them to bring the book to the notice of all subscribers concerned.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the fact that on the front page of the book it is stated to be a "List of Subscribers to the London Post Office Telephone System classified in their trades and professions"? Is not the ordinary meaning of that that if you take the book you will find a list of all the persons in certain trades and professions whose names are in the Telephone Directory? Is it not the fact, however, that when you turn to the list only one, two, or three of the names there appear? Is not that most misleading?
    Mr. PEASE: I quite agree that it is most misleading. My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman on the matter to-day.

  WHISKY CONTROL (PRICE).
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that the retailer under the present fixed prices only gets 1s. 0½d. profit on a bottle of whisky retailed at 12s. 6d., i.e., 8 per cent., which is not enough to cover his working expenses; and whether, in view of the above, he will now take off the control from the price of whisky?
  Colonel GIBBS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 4th May to the hon. Member for East Grinstead. The last adjustment of the prices of spirits was determined by the increased duty as set forth in the Budget. In the answer which the Food Controller gave on 4th May he stated that if any readjustment of the inter-trade prices were put forward and agreed to by the trade, he would be willing to consider the advisability of any amendment of the intermediary scales of prices, but he has received no reply to this offer.
  Captain TERRELL: When does the Minister for Food intend to remove the control price from whisky?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better give notice of that question.
  Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order. That is the last part of the question on the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not stop the hon. and gallant Member giving notice of it, in the absence of the Minister.

  EDUCATION.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS, FEES.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the greatly increased cost of tuition and boarding in secondary schools, the Board will consider favourably all reasonable proposals by the governing bodies of these schools for increasing the fees, with a view to meeting the increased cost?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr.Herbert Lewis): The Board have always been ready to consider favourably proposals for a moderate increase in boarding fees to meet the increased cost. The question of tuition fees stands on a somewhat different footing. Each case must be considered on its merits, and the Board recognise that a good case may be made out for a moderate increase of tuition fees, particularly where adequate provision is made to meet the needs of children of parents who have small means.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has recently refused a most reasonable request from the county council of the East Riding of Yorkshire on this very subject?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware that the Department has refused any reasonable request.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the information.

  DYESTUFFS.
  Sir W. BARTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a memorandum issued by Mr. Vernon Clay, in his capacity as chairman of the Dye Users' Association, from which it would appear that the Government has been negotiating with him for an agreement
  1122
  for the prohibition of foreign dyestuffs unless under licence, and that the said negotiations broke down not on any basis of principle but on the inability to agree as to the composition of the licensing body; and will he say if it may now be inferred that prohibition and licensing are the basis of policy in this regard?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have received the memorandum to which the hon. Member refers. The Government have on several occasions announced their intention of protecting the British dye industry for a period of years by a system of prohibition of import of foreign dyestuffs except under licence. Discussions as to the best method of carrying out this policy are proceeding with the interests concerned.
  Sir W. BARTON: Is it the intention, at the same time, to prohibit the importation of textiles in which foreign colours have been used?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that my hon. Friend is under a complete misapprehension. The object of this measure is to protect the dye industry; it is not to prohibit the importation of textiles into this country.
  Sir W. BARTON: But is it not importation of foreign dyestuffs in another form if they are imported as a part of textile goods?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I really think that there is all the difference as between day and night between importing a dyestuff and importing the finished goods.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is it the policy of the Government to prevent users of dyes in the textile industry from having access to the best and cheapest dyes possible in the world?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is really almost impossible to discuss a broad proposition of that kind by means of question and answer, but, as I think my right hon. Friend knows, all the interests concerned have been consulted in this measure, and they will all be considered when the measure is being introduced.
  Major-General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Have the interests of the public been consulted in this matter?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The interests of the public are always considered by His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether, if British manufacturers are to be restricted as to the number of dyes which they use, and forced to use more expensive dyes, they are to be subjected without protection to the competition of foreign stuffs which have been dyed abroad, with the advantage of cheaper dyes and a larger selection?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That subject can be discussed again when the Bill is introduced.
  Sir W. BARTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dye users in this country are in very few cases owners and distributors of the cloth in which they work either as dyers or calico printers; whether he is aware that in the vast majority of cases they receive the unfinished cloth and operate upon it to the instructions of merchants in Manchester and elsewhere, who undertake all the risk of obtaining orders abroad, allotting the different parts of the work to the different producers, financing and distributing the goods throughout the world; and whether he will take the opinion of these people as to the effect on trade of any system of licensing that can be devised for part of the raw material of the finished product?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member. The question of the measure to be taken for the safeguarding of the dye industry have been before the country now for a very considerable time, and all the various interests affected have had full opportunity of giving expression to their views, and they will, of course, have further opportunities when the definite proposals are brought before this House.
  Sir W. BARTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the largest firm of dye users in this country is wholly oposed to licensing and prohibition?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir, I am not in the least aware of any such proposition. I am, on the contrary, aware that the system of prohibition and licensing has the approval of certainly the vast majority of the users of dye-stuffs. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]
  Sir W. BARTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in pre-War days there was a constant flow of novelties in colouring matter from foreign laboratories; and whether these would continue to be submitted to users in this country if it became the law that before purchase they had first to be submitted to a licensing body with a view to analysis to see if they could be produced in this country?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part appears to be based on assumptions as to the procedure of any licensing authority to be set up, which I cannot accept; and I have no reason to suppose that the introduction of new classes of dyestuffs which cannot be produced in this country would be impeded, even if there was a licensing body controlling the import of dyestuffs.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do these answers mean that we have given up all hope of Germany paying for the War?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir; we have not given up all hope of securing the fulfilment of all the pledges which the Government have given.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the prohibition of the import of dyestuffs has not the approval of the people in Scotland who use them?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have no reason for supposing that the people of Scotland think otherwise, in the matter of His Majesty's Government fulfilling its pledges, than the people of England.

  BUNKER COAL.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the effect upon food supplies, raw material, exports, and employment in Liverpool which would ensue from the new Order relating to the supply of bunker coal proposed to come into force to-morrow; and can he make any statement in regard to the matter?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The Order in question is new only in the sense that it is embodied in the new Directions issued under the

  1125
  Mining Industry Act. But, in fact, it is merely a re-statement of the existing practice, which has now been in force for nearly 18 months. I met yesterday a deputation from the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association regarding this matter, and am considering very carefully the representations put before me.

  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping how many officials are now employed by his Department and the amount of their salaries?
  Colonel WILSON: The number is 849 at headquarters and 122 at outports, and their salaries £162,220 and £46,800 a year respectively. These amounts do not include the substantive pay and bonus of permanent Civil Servants loaned from other Departments, which are borne on the Votes of their own Departments.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate when this Department will be finally closed down?
  Colonel WILSON: That is a question which has been asked on several occasions. I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal about a fortnight ago.
  Mr. ROSE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us to which other Departments all the salaried officials of this Department are to be transferred?
  Colonel WILSON: I would remind my hon. Friend that a considerable number of the officials working in the Ministry of Shipping have come from the Admiralty, and will, under ordinary circumstances, be returned to the Admiralty. I am, however, laying a White Paper on the Table of the House at a very early date—either to-day or to-morrow—explaining all the duties carried out by the Ministry of Shipping at the present time, and if any hon. Member has any question on which I can give him information I shall be glad to answer it.

  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of
  1126
  Labour if he has received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Employment Exchange system, and if he can say whether he will now publish the Report?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir, I have received the Report, and it is being printed and will be laid.
  Mr. THOMSON: At once?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Report itself will be laid at the earliest possible opportunity. The evidence is, naturally, as my hon. Friend knows, much more lengthy, and that will come later; but the Report will be laid as soon as possible.

  COUNTING THE HOUSE.
  Captain REDMOND: May I ask, on a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the customary practice for a Member of the House to call your attention to the number of those present and immediately to withdraw himself? That occurred here last night, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford called your attention to the numbers present in the House, and then immediately withdrew himself.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I presume the reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to this matter is in order to refer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford. That in itself is unusual, and is not the custom. The custom is never to refer to an hon. Member who rises to call attention to the fact that 40 Members are not present. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I am sorry to say that I have known the practice pursued of hon. Members coming in, calling my attention to the shortage of Members, and then, so far from assisting in making up the House, they have withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. HOGGE: May I ask what business is to be taken to-night?
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury):The first nine Orders.

BILL PRESENTED.
  REGISTRAR-GENERAL (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to amend the Law relating to the appointment of a Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords], CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [Lords], and SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [Lords](JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Report and Special Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords], the Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill [Lords], and the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read, with Minutes of Evidence;
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 222.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and to continue certain bye-laws." [Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill [Lords].

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN: The Clause which was re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House yesterday now stands as Clause 2 in the reprinted Bill.

  WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Employment of women and young persons and shifts.)
    (1) The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this Section, make Orders authorising the employment of women and young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards in any factory or workshop at any time between the hours of six in the morning and ten in the evening on any weekday except Saturday, and between the hours of six in the morning and two in the afternoon on Saturday, in shifts averaging for each shift not more than eight hours per day.
    (2) An Order under this Section may be made in respect of any specified factory or workshop, or in respect of any class or group of factories or workshops, and shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed in pursuance of the Order, and shall include a condition empowering the Secretary of State to revoke the Order in the event of noncompliance with the conditions thereof, or in the event of it appearing to the Secretary of State that abuses of any description have arisen out of the employment of any persons in pursuance of the Order.
    (3) The Secretary of State may by Order direct that such conditions as he may consider necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed shall apply to the employment in day shifts of young persons who may lawfully be so employed under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1911.
    (4) Notwithstanding anything in this Section an Order under this Section may permit the employment in any factory or workshop in such shifts as aforesaid of young persons under the age of sixteen years who are at the commencement of this Act so employed in that factory or workshop.
    (5) If the conditions imposed by any Order made under this Section are not complied with the factory or workshop shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
    (6) This Section shall remain in force for a period of five years from the commencement of this Act and no longer, and any Order made under this Section shall, unless previously revoked by the Secretary of
    1158
    State in pursuance of his powers under this Section, remain in force for a like period.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["The Secretary of State may"], to insert the words "on the joint application of the employer or employers of any factory or group of factories, and the majority of the workpeople concerned in such factory or group of factories."
    The Amendments in my name are now on the Paper so that hon. Members will understand what I am proposing, whether they agree with it or not. The proposal I am moving now is that before an Order is made in respect of any factory or group of factories there should be a joint application from those who are concerned in that factory or group of factories. It would be idle, of course, for the employers to come and ask for an Order authorising the two-shift system if the workers in that factory or group of factories were determined that they would not have anything to do with it. The whole thing would be futile, and therefore it meets the full intention of the promoters of the Bill that before an Order is made you should have the complete assent both of the employers and the workpeople. Then in subsequent Amendments there will be provision for the industry as a whole stepping in, but with regard to the first step I think it is essential that there should be power to make an Order in the first place on the requisition of all those concerned in the factory. It is not only a question of the industry. There are many factories which will want an Order temporarily because they simply cannot make arrangements to extend their premises and extend their machinery. There are numberless cases of that sort and other cases where there are temporary or even permanent individual circumstances. Those must be dealt with. Therefore I have put down this Amendment in this form rather than an Amendment which would enable the whole trade to deal in the first place with any individual factory's application. I ask the Committee to agree with me that it is essential that there should be power on the application of any individual factory or group of factories to make these Orders, and on subsequent Amendments I shall propose provisions by which the whole trade can, if it thinks it is right in the interests of the industry, interfere.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "of any factory or group of factories," and to insert instead thereof the words "in any industry."
    4.0 P.M.
    I do not like the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment at all. We believe he has been dealing with the matter from the wrong standpoint. Before making an Order giving a firm or group of firms power to work the two-shift system you ought to get, in some way or other, the opinions and views of the industry as a whole. That would save the right hon. Gentleman trouble, and would save any industry which might be inclined to adopt the system trouble as well. We can see in his Amendment the germs of industrial trouble, and with the object of avoiding industrial trouble I move my Amendment. If these words are inserted they will make the position quite clear. There will be no complications, no meetings of the industry concerned, after it has once decided whether the two-shift system should be adopted or not. The Amendment of the Home Secretary will mean that if one factory out of 100, or, if you like, one factory out of 1,000, agrees that the two-shift system may be worked, it can apply for an Order. The Home Secretary then makes the Order. As soon as it becomes known that the Order has been made, and that a certain factory is working the two-shift system, the workmen's and employers' associations meet and discuss the matter. They pass a resolution and they send a deputation to the Home Secretary to point out that the right hon. Gentleman ought to treat the industry as a whole in the same way. My Amendment would avoid all that trouble. I hope that at the eleventh hour the right hon. Gentleman will accept this suggestion.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I want to appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment to the Amendment. It is surely not his intention to introduce into a large number of industries the two-shift system where that system does not now obtain. If that be his intention, he had better say so quite frankly, and let us know where we are going. If that be not his intention he can have no objection whatever to the Amendment to the Amendment. What we propose does not hurt the right hon. Gentleman in any way. Let us see
    1160
    what the right hon. Gentleman's statement really means. It means that in a big industry, if a man has taken orders that he cannot complete, he will have the right to apply to the Home Secretary, provided his workmen agree with him, for permission to work the two-shift system, and the Home Secretary has power to make an Order that the two-shift system should be introduced. That would upset the whole of the trade, because it would put the other employers in that trade at a very grave disadvantage. What we propose is, that before any Order is made, an industry, through its workers and through its employers, must have given consent. Our Amendment would give the Home Secretary every power which he now possesses to deal with exceptional cases, and in no way would it prevent him from continuing the two-shift system in those trades where the system is now in operation, provided there has been obtained the consent of the employers and the employed. The proposal of the Home Secretary might easily be the thin edge of the wedge whereby individual firms and the force of competition could compel an extension of the system.
    Mr. SEDDON: I want to join in the appeal of the last speaker. My fears are all gone now. I had in mind a possibility in the glass trade, in reference to which I was speaking last night. In their own particular union the glass workers are locally very strong and are overwhelmingly in favour of the two-shift system, but they are allied to a larger trade union, and I believe that the other section of that trade union is opposed to the two-shift system in other industries, and the glass workers might be overshadowed or over-voted. Personally, I see no danger whatever if the question is confined to the industry. I think the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) is reasonable, and that it will assist in giving to those trades which want the two-shift system that which they desire. I do not think the textile trade would ever be touched, for the organisation on both sides is so strong that no Government Department would interfere.
    Mr. SUGDEN: It can be done by Orders in Council.
    Mr. SEDDON: I am not going to argue that point. I think the fear is based on

    1161
    a wrong foundation, but if the Amendment to the Amendment were accepted, it would remove the fear entirely.
    Captain BOWYER: I feel diffident in putting forward my view, because I have not had the years of practical experience which many hon. Members can claim. I do not hold the view so far expressed by hon. Members. I agree wholly with the Home Secretary, and I think that the safeguards provided under the further Amendments which the Home Secretary is to propose are ample. Will not the proposed Amendment to the Amendment have this effect—that if from any individual factory there is a move on the part of employers and employed to start a two-shift system, be the object what it may, and if the matter has to come before the industry as a whole before the system can be adopted, weeks and months and possibly years may be wasted? The main point of the Government Amendment is that if you get the consent of the two sections of people mainly interested, you have the safeguard that if the industry objects to the system, its representatives can come to the Home Office and say that they wish the system to be stopped. Automatically, it would be stopped, with as little delay as may be. Under that scheme, at least, you have got the fact that the industry has shown in a certain factory that employers and employed are of one mind. That, surely, is for the benefit of the industry as a whole, and the fact that there is such agreement surely eliminates any such objections as the objection on medical grounds and of discomfort in the home, about which we heard so much when the Clause was discussed.
    Mr. SUGDEN: I am not quite sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend realises the extent and the importance of the Amendment. If the Home Secretary's Amendment be adopted it means that the employers and the employed in any industry may be exploited by some greedy or selfish section in that industry. It does not necessarily mean only the exploitation of the employer. It means that the employed will be exploited as much as the employer. It has been suggested that we in Lancashire and Yorkshire are particularly desirous of protecting our own industries. In spite of all the tremendous strength that the Treasury Bench possesses, we in
    1162
    Lancashire are able to protect our own interests. We are not speaking now necessarily in our own particular interests. We are speaking in the interests of trade generally, and on the question of whether or not two shifts are good for the employed and for the country. The Amendment moved by the Home Secretary means that a little group of the employed in two or three mills, per haps guided or prejudiced by a certain employer who may have good business to offer, may dominate the whole group of the employed in that trade. That is not good business and it is not proper. We detest the two shift system because of its injurious effect on home, health, and well being of the workers. Those hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Home Secretary are speaking from the academic and theoretical standpoint. The Government has no practical support from manufacturers in this case. I suggest that if the Home Secretary will consider the facts and the figures which arose from the employment of women on night shifts during the War, and will compare those results, medically, with the results of the employment of women during pre-War days—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is beyond the scope of the Amendment. We are dealing now only with the persons or bodies who may make application to the Home Secretary.
    Mr. SUGDEN: I will content myself with saying that the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary clearly gives the opportunity for exploitation of both employer and employed. Whilst the Amendment suggested might to a certain extent give the protection necessary, yet even that is a dangerous position, remembering the Orders in Council which have been thrust upon different industries. We are prepared to give full opportunities for the safeguarding of employés in our trades, but if this is passed it will be possible for the Home Secretary, under powers which he now possesses to expand his power to a greater degree even than is anticipated by my gallant Friend (Captain Bowyer), to the detriment of trade, of health, and of the position of the employés. For that reason I object, and I shall vote against the proposal.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not seeking to impose the two-shift system upon anyone.

    1163
    I am relying upon the advice of Mr. Appleton and Miss Julia Varley, who can hardly be called theorists. I am proposing that the industries themselves, the people concerned, and not the Home Office, should have the power to try the two-shift system, to see how it works, and what they think of it. The power which the Home Office has reserved to itself is the power to impose such conditions as will ensure that these experiments are not carried out in a way unnecessarily detrimental to the women and young persons. The Bill does not give the Home Office any other power than that of protecting the women and young persons in the course of these experiments. The whole thing lies with the people concerned in the industries. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the dispute between us is this: whether you are to allow an individual factory or group of factories to take the initiative themselves or whether, however urgent it may be that they wish to do so, they must get the consent of the majority of both sides of the industry in which they are concerned. So long as you safeguard the industry, as will be done by succeeding Amendments if the House accepts them, you ought to give each individual group or entity the power to initiate for itself. It can only be done by agreement. I am told that if we do it in one case, if we allow one mill on its own initiative to act, we compel all the others at once to follow suit. An ounce of experience is worth a great deal of theory. There are to-day in the cotton-doubling and warp-dressing industry five such Orders. That is not a case of one in a thousand, and I have not seen any sign or any indication of compulsion en the rest of the industry. In the wool-carding and worsted-weaving industry there are three such Orders; silk-spinning, two; hemp-spinning and rope and twine and jute-weaving, three; print-bleaching and dyeing works industry, five. This experience shows that the system can be tried in individual cases without putting undue compulsion upon the whole industry. For these reasons, I hope the House will accept the Amendment as I have moved it. It is essential to give a fair trial in the temporary experimental condition of things which have been strongly advocated by the Departmental Committee.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The Home Secretary has put the issue with complete clarity to the Committee, and we are obliged to him for that. So far as I am concerned, I am very much indebted to him for the unvarying courtesy with which he has met us. It is quite obvious that he is moved simply by a desire to do what he considers to be best for the industries as a whole; but after listening very carefully to what he said, and what other speakers have said, and also looking at the Amendments, after considerable doubt I am inclined on the whole to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. For whatever my opinion may be worth, I still think that the better way to begin would be by the industry as a whole rather than by an individual factory taking the initial steps. I am moved very largely by considerations of the recommendations which were made by the Industrial Councils, which are better known as the Whitley Councils. It is through such councils, representing the industry as a whole, that the best representations can be made. That is in strict accord with the Industrial Councils (No. 1) Report, published by the Ministry of Labour. That Report says:
    "Such Councils, obviously, would be suitable bodies to make representations to the Government as to legislation which they think would be to the advantage of their industry. … In order, therefore, that the Councils can fulfil the duties that they would be asked to undertake, and that they may have the requisite status for doing so, the Government desire it to be understood that the Councils will be recognised as the official standing consultative committees of the Government on all future questions affecting the industries which they represent, and that they will be the normal channel through which the opinion and experience of industry would be sought on all questions with which the industry is concerned."
    I cannot imagine a better opportunity for such a Council as that, looking at the industry as a whole, to be the first voice which the Home Office would hear and consider on so very important a matter as this. If you leave it to an individual factory there may be only a minor works committee there, and obviously it would not carry very much weight; at any rate, I think it would not. It is a matter for the Joint Consultative Committee, the Whitley Council, viewing the industry as a whole, and their representation should be the first one which should reach my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in deciding whether this Order should be

    1165
    applied or not. It is on that broad point that I think the Amendment leads to a better consideration of the problem as a whole, after very careful consideration and discussion by the employers and the workmen and the experts who would no doubt be called to their assistance before such an application is made.
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I do not think the. Amendment would have any material effect in practice, because if it is desirable and necessary that the Home Secretary first of all should consult and secure the acquiescence of the Joint Industrial Council in the industry, it seems to follow that if that Joint Industrial Council is strong enough to influence the Home Secretary, its various bodies will have an indirect influence on the matter, and subsequently be able to determine it. In an industry where we have a Joint Industrial Council it follows that you will have a District Council and the Works' Committee, and in a case where the representative of the Works' Committee in the factory or workshop is approached, the Works' Committee would not give its acquiescence until such time as it had consulted the District Council, and if the matter is felt to involve a doubtful point of principle the District Council would have in turn to refer it to the Central Body, the National Joint Industrial Council. Therefore I do not think the Amendment would have any material effect. The Amendment which has been put down by my right hon. Friend will very well meet the situation. This is not purely a textile question. There are many Members who are impressed with the position of the textile industry. The strength of its organisation renders it immune from any attack, however insidious it may be. If it was proposed by the employer in the textile industry to establish the two-shift system it is almost certain that it would fail because of the splendid understanding that exists between the employers and the workpeople in that industry, which is as perfectly organised as it is possible for us to conceive. There is, however, some justification for allowing sufficient elasticity for experiments to be made, and my hon. Friends are not entitled to view the whole of national industry simply through the spectacles of the textile industry. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the hon. Member for Royton (Mr.
    1166
    Sugden) are prone, as many of us are, to look at matters from the standpoint of the conditions that they particularly understand.
    Mr. T. SHAW: I never mentioned the textile industry.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not speaking disrespectfully, but I say that my hon. Friend's conceptions are coloured through and through with his knowledge of the textile industry. At the International Labour Conference at Washington it was recognised that ideals as yet cannot rule the world, and that we ought to have regard to actualities. That Conference recommended certain exemptions. We are prepared to accept those recommendations, even those departures from the principle, but the hon. Member for Roy-ton throughout is fighting the underlying principle. Therefore he is not quite an impartial judge in the matter. We want to get a little beyond that, and to regard industry as a whole, and not separate industries. Because this International Conference recognised that there should be, because of world actualities, departures from the principle, I am not prepared to contend that that body or this House is able to compile an exhaustive list of industries in which modifications or exemptions ought to be made. I prefer on the whole that the matter should be left to these national organisations, these Joint Industrial Councils, and, therefore, I find myself in agreement with the purpose of my right hon. Friend. I do not think the Amendment would have any effect, because if it were sought to apply it, the applicants must first of all approach the works committee, and that committee would not sanction a departure from principle without consultation with its national body. Therefore the difference between the Home Secretary and the Opposition is very small, and I think that in practice we might very well agree to accept the proposals made by the Home Secretary.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Until I saw the Amendment of the Home Secretary I was rather in doubt about this new Clause, but this removed all my doubts, and the Amendment from the Front Opposition Bench is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary. I am going to speak from practical experience of women in a factory and I am speaking for the women. I believe that a vast number of them will

    1167
    welcome this now Clause if this Amendment is incorporated. During the War we in Glasgow started a shell factory, which was run entirely by young women. I am not dealing with married women, because they are only a very small percentage of the women employed. It is the young women who are ready and eligible for work, not only anxious to take up new trades, such as engineering, but would gladly do such work under a two-shift system, as is proposed. At the end of the War this shop, which had been running two years with women, aided by one or two skilled men, had to cease work because there was no further demand for the shells they were making. We endeavoured to find new work for these women, and we found it in small metal valve-gear, and the women were put on to it at once. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers' trade union in the district immediately took exception, and said that if we pursued this work by women they would call out their men, and that would compel the shop being closed down. The women were up in arms about this, and they went so far as to persuade the specialised men in the shop to disregard the order of their trade union. I am happy to say that the men did disregard their trade union order to come out, and the shop is running to-day. But my point is this: Only half the girls are working in that shop who might be working if we had two shifts, and with this Amendment I strongly advocate the now Clause on behalf of the women.
    Major HILLS: I hope that the Home Secretary will stick to his amended Amendment. I do not agree that this is a small point. It is a very fundamental one. The effect of the Amendment moved from the Front Bench opposite will be that unless the whole of an industry asks for the introduction of the two-shift system in a factory or group of factories the Home Secretary is powerless to move. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in a thoughtful well-reasoned speech said he had come to the conclusion that on the whole the Amendment moved from the front Opposition Bench was the best because it enabled the Home' Secretary to know the opinion of the whole of the industry from headquarters. It does more than that. It prevents an experiment being made in a group or locality
    1168
    or section unless the whole of the industry calls for that experiment. There is some misapprehension as to what an industry is. Members talk sometimes of an industry as if it were a clear finite unit cut and dried. It is something quite different. It is a collection of units often with very conflicting interests. Take the great engineering industry; I believe that there are engaged in that industry unions who number 77 on one computation and 111 on another. So you have vastly different groups of interests inside an industry. There are many conflicts of interests and wishes between a group and a section and the headquarters of this collection of different industries. In that case, surely the Homo Secretary is in the right when he acts on the wishes of the factory or group of factories, and it is not right that he should be prevented from acting unless called upon by the industry as a whole.
    May I refer to the example which the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) mentioned last night—the glass industry? He told us that the glass blowers formed part of the larger aggregation, and that the interests of the larger unit were not the same as those of the glass blowers. The glass blowers were anxious for the two-shift system, yet this large unit might turn them down. That is an excellent case in point. I submit that it is quite fair on every ground in the interests of the parties concerned that the experiment should be made. The Home Secretary is perfectly impartial in these matters. He is not the nominee either of the employer or the trade union, and he is there to do what is best. I fear very much that if the Amendment moved opposite is accepted it will be almost impossible to get the experiment tried, although a large majority of the House, judging by the Division yesterday, want it tried. Hon. Members opposite are afraid that the employment of women means throwing men out of work. I believe that to be a common fallacy. I believe that the more employment you give the more employment you make. Take the example which the Home Secretary gave, in which the employment of a few hundred women putting cotton covers on telephone wires meant the employment of thousands of men. I believe that that principle runs all through industry. I often notice that hon. Members opposite seem to think that

    1169
    employment is a finite thing, and that if one man gets a certain job another man is thrown out. There is ample room for women as well as men in work. I have always supported, and shall always support, the principle of equal pay, so if the Labour party are afraid of any inequality—a fear which I quite appreciate—so far as my powers go I shall always support the principle of equal pay. I hope that they will allow the experiment to be made. We are doing something for women which is simply in consonance with their improved position. The old restrictions are not altogether now required, and led by the Convention at Washington we shall do wisely in allowing the Home Secretary to relax them. I appeal to the Committee to make the experiment on the best terms possible, and I believe that those terms are found within the Amendment of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that I cannot agree with many of the reasons which have been advanced by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hills). I regret this all the more, because they come from one of undoubted social and industrial sympathy in these affairs. The narrow question which is before the Committee has been, in my judgment, stated clearly by the Home Secretary. It appears to me to boil down to this proposition, whether the initiative in the experiment which is suggested in this Clause is to lie with the Works Committee—because that in practice is what it will mean in many cases—or with the Joint Industrial Council of the industry. I take the view that the attitude of the Home Secretary is inconsistent with what many of us understand to be the industrial programme of the Government in these matters, and it is certainly inconsistent with the industrial programme advocted by many of us on this side of the House. The other day it was made plain on the Lead Processes Bill that we were trying to establish first of all an international standard in industrial conditions, and it follows from that that we must try to lay down a standard which is broadly consistent with industries as a whole. I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend that if you look at the structure of British industry to-day it is loose, incomplete, and not properly federated. A great deal of individual practice still survives, but the overriding consideration, to my mind, on
    1170
    that point is whether in the experiment affecting the two-shift system you have a question which is so small and relatively so negligible from many points of view that it can be entrusted in its initial application to the works committee, or whether it is large enough to form an appropriate matter for the Joint Industrial Council. In a highly-organised industry there is the Joint Industrial Council, in a less well-organised industry the Trade Board, and then in a humble little workshop unit what we call the works committee.
    The whole principle which is underlying our activity at this moment is that we are determined if we can internationally, and the Government itself has prescribed the principle, to lay down a common standard, especially in dangerous processes of trade, and then within a State to lay down uniform conditions, as far as we can establish them, upon which industries will compete as long as competition exists. If you take a large and important question, like the two-shift system, and leave it in its application to the chance of a factory or group of factories here and there, we are taking a step which is not consistent with that programme for industrial conditions. That appears to me to be an adequate ground for opposing the attitude of the Home Secretary. But even if I did not oppose it on the broad grounds which I have just described, I would still oppose it as a bad method of trying the business. We have a small Clause on one page and then turning over we find on the other that the Home Secretary proposes that, if the majority of the people in an industry think that these orders should not be granted, they will cease to have effect and will be withdrawn. It comes to this, that an individual group of factories may ask for this and may have it, and afterwards, if the industry as a whole think that it is not desirable, it will be withdrawn. Look at the chaos in that state of affairs in British industry.
    There seems to be an assumption in some parts of the House that a Whitley Council or organisation in any trade or calling can only move slowly and after a great deal of negotiation. I take the view that we have got to give as much power as we can to the Joint Industrial Council and we have got to make these bodies work and work rapidly, and you will never get any people to serve on

    1171
    them and you will never work them rapidly unless you entrust them with adequate power and responsibility. If that is our principle there is no reason in the world why this should not be submitted at its start to a Joint Industrial Council when it will be considered without delay, and by which you will achieve a settlement of the industry on a very important problem, and you will avoid the difficulties which will spread inevitably from the adoption of the Homo. Secretary's proposal for the introduction of this scheme by groups of factories and then its rejection afterwards by the industry as a whole, if the industry by a majority thought it was not desirable. I hope that the Home Secretary will not regard us on these Benches as actuated by other than the best motives. We have got to do our best under existing conditions in this country, and I oppose this proposal because I believe it is not one which is consistent with the best industrial practice in this country.
    Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I have listened very carefully to the discussion on this Clause, the general principle of which was settled last night. It seems to me that there is only a difference of method between those of us who oppose this new Clause and the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary's method is to make the Order first and consult the industry afterwards. Our position is to consult the industry first before you introduce this system into an industry, or before you extend it in any industry in which it is now operating. I thought this over very carefully, and I prepared an Amendment to follow on at the end of the new Clause. I suggest that in the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. T. Wilson) the words "any industry" should be changed to "any industry or section of industry. "An industry does not consist as a rule of one unit, but is composed of various units more or less relying on one another Perhaps the hon. Member for West Houghton might accept that as an addition to his Amendment. The principle is the question of method, and whether you should begin with granting permission to a single factory or group of factories, or begin by consulting the whole industry as to whether the principle
    1172
    should be admitted at all. The Amendment which I suggest is:
    "Provided that no further Order shall be made in any industry or section of industry if the Secretary of State is satisfied, after full inquiry, that the introduction or extension of the two-shift system in that industry or section of industry is contrary to the will of the majority of the employers or of the workpeople engaged in such industry or section of industry."
    That is putting the industry first, and the individual mills or factories which have to be licensed second. I cannot move my Amendment now and it may be as a result of Amendments carried that it may be out of order for me to move when the Amendment is reached. I submit my Amendment is putting the horse in front of the cart, while the Home Secretary's is putting the cart in front of the horse. That is roughly the difference between us. An hon. Gentleman complained that we always look at these matters through the spectacles of the textile industry. May I say that one must look through the spectacles of the industry with which he is most intimately acquainted? There are very few hon. Members who are intimately acquainted with more than one or two industries and we use the one we know as an illustration. The Home Secretary told us that there were five of these Orders in the cotton trade I am told that those five Orders are, for one set of mills under the dominance of one man who is not himself a manufacturer, and that a profit of 100 per cent, is being made in those mills. I do not know if that is true and it may not be true; but if it is there is the very objection to this two-shift system being introduced gradually to factories or groups of factories. You have 100 per cent, profit by one man not a manufacturer getting into his hands shares in five mills, applying for orders, working double shifts and competing unfairly with his fellows. Hon. Members all round say let us have an experiment. I hope there will not be any experiments in the cotton trade. It is too important a trade to be experimented with. It forms, as we all know, one-third of the export trade of the whole of this country, and it ought not to be injured on interfered with unless it is absolutely necessary. Having put down the Amendment which I have read, I am naturally in favour of the Amendment which has been put down by the hon. Member for West Houghton with the addition of the words

    1173
    "any industry or section of industry." If the second Amendment of the Home Secretary is going to be carried then I admit his Amendment is a good Amendment; but if the second one will not be carried in the form in which it is, I would much rather my Amendment allowing the industry first of all to decide for itself whether it would introduce the two-shift system. That would be in place of the second Amendment of the Home Secrtary.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: If I read aright the result of the Amendment of the Labour party, it would compel more and more each industry to come under the domination and the rule of the great combinations either of capital or labour. That is the road along which we are undoubtedly travelling very fast today. The Labour party are certainly right from their point of view in forcing the pace along that particular road, which, in my view, must eventually lead to nationalisation. They are consistent in their attitude; but, looking at the matter from the widest point of view, and if we are to improve our present industrial system and get labour and capital closer together, then I submit we must resist this Amendment of the Labour party and stand by the position of the Government and allow experiments to be made. May I give two instances where a group of employers or employed could completely block any new experiment? A co-operative society manufacturing a particular article might wish to work on the lines laid down by the Government Amendment; but, as I understand the position, they could be blocked either by a large group of employers manufacturing a similar article, or by a large group of labour in that particular employment. As one who desires to do his best not to hinder, but rather to help the advancement of co-operative societies, I am absolutely bound to vote against the Labour party on this particular occasion. Take again the question of profit sharing to which there has been considerable opposition by certain groups. Suppose that in some industry, employing women altogether if you like, the employers and employed came together and agreed that they could work under better conditions with shorter hours and better wages by working under a profit-sharing scheme which would cut out almost any other similar business in the United Kingdom.
    1174
    As I read the Amendment of the Labour party, an association either of employers or employed in other branches of the industry could completely block such a profit-sharing plan. I trust the Government will in this case stand by their Amendment. I hope a Division will be taken, because I believe the position taken up by the Labour party is a position which will lead and tend to lead very much more towards the destruction of industrial development either on the lines of profit sharing or co-operation, and will harm both those lines of progress which, I believe, are the real solution of our industrial troubles.
    5.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I take it that the Home Secretary has drawn an Amendment which he believes to be the nearest possible to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, which has been frequently mentioned by him. I think it is only right that we should get back to that recommendation and consider what the real opinion of the Committee was on this subject. The report deals very precisely with the subject under discussion. The Labour party are afraid that as a result of this proposal there will be unnecessary and what ought to be avoidable competition. When we consider the recommendation and the speeches made by those responsible, we will see that their ideas are entirely confined. This is the conclusion to which they came:
    "We have carefully considered the evidence before us. We recognise that the experience of the system is limited. We are, however, of the opinion that a case has been made out for allowing, under conditions, the adoption of the shift system—firstly, in continuous industries; secondly, in seasonal trades; and thirdly, in factories in which the plant and premises are temporarily insufficient. We are further of the opinion that it is in the national interest, subject to proper safeguards and supervision, that the opportunity for trying the system should be given to those employers and trade union organisations who desire to introduce it as a regular part of their industrial system for the purpose of increasing production. We do not think, however, that the experience of the system so far obtained is sufficient to enable us to recommend its incorporation as a permanent part of our factory legislation."
    That is the recommendation of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip), in his speech reported on column 876 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 26th November, said as

    1175
    follows, reading from the report of Dr. Marion Phillips in the first instance:
    "If there is some special need in particular trades, it would be far better to deal with them by special orders for individual cases rather than by a general provision affecting all."
    The hon. and learned Member himself went on to say, as Chairman of that Departmental Committee:
    "That is, in fact, the system with which the Committee has decided to recommend, that there shall be special orders for individual cases and not a general provision."
    We ought to be very clear about the recommendation of the Committee. It is not recommended that the two-shift system shall be applied all round to all trades, but it is to be confined to the three cases that are mentioned as being specially recommended. As I said yesterday, if by some Amendment those three cases could be embodied in the Bill, then, I think, there need be no fear on the part of any section of this House, or of any section of industry, that the recommendation of the Departmental Committee could be overstepped. What I would like, if possible, would be an Amendment like this in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman: After "may" to insert "on the joint applications of the employer or employers of any factory or group of factories" and then to insert "which in the opinion of
    the Home Secretary are what is known as continuous industries, seasonal trades, or factories in which plants and premises are temporarily insufficient and the majority of the working people concerned in such factories agree." Those are the words I should like inserted, because they are the recommendation of the Committee, but I can see the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman. He has a difficulty in adopting that line. Still, if it were adopted I believe it would obviate all the difficulties that have been suggested by my hon. Friends opposite and everyone connected with the various trades. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to adopting that Amendment, which I suggested to him yesterday, then I think he has come to the nearest solution of the difficulty. I am sorry he cannot recommend the adoption of the identical words and the spirit of the Report of the Departmental Committee because the hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip), who spoke very lucidly on Friday last in connection with the whole matter, was very particular to explain that this was a limited matter and ought to be a very limited matter.
    Question put, that the words "of any factory or group of factories" stand part of the proposed Amendment.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 58.

    Division No. 377.]

    AYES.

    [5.8 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Casey, T. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Armitage, Robert

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Gardiner, James

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Chadwick, Sir Robert

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Grant, James A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Clough, Robert

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Davidson, J. C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

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

    Britton, G. B.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

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

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

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Jesson, C.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

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

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Parker, James

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Pearce, Sir William

    Sturrock, J. Leng

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

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Taylor, J.

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

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Lorden, John William

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Pratt, John William

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Rae, H. Norman

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

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

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

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

    Renwick, George

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading).

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

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

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Moles, Thomas

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Wise, Frederick

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Rodger, A. K.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Murchison, C. K.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Younger, Sir George

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Hallas, Eldred

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Seddon, J. A.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Bromfield, William

    Hinds, John

    Simm, M. T.

    Cairns, John

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Cape, Thomas

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan)

    Swan, J. E.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

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

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

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

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

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Myers, Thomas

    Tootill, Robert

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Waddington, R.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Wignall, James

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

    Robertson, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Sugden.

    Question, "That the words on the joint application of the employer or employers of any factory or group of factories, and the majority of the workpeople concerned in such factory or group of factories,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. A. DAVIES (Clitheroe): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "six" ["workshop at any time between the hours of six"], and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."
    It will be generally agreed that in the whole course of this Debate there has been a feeling of resentment against the time at which the two-shift system should begin to operate, and I noticed particularly that the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) emphasised in his speech last night the necessity not
    1178
    only for altering the hours, but for reducing the length of each shift. It is not necessary for me to dwell at any length on a point which is so obvious, and I think most hon. Members will agree that 6 o'clock is too early in the morning for women and young persons to start work.
    Mr. SHORTT: I quite appreciate the spirit in which this is moved, and I appreciate and sympathise with all that has been said in the course of this Debate about early hours, but at the same time I am acting as completely as I can on the advice of the Departmental Committee, and they point out that so far as continuous processes are concerned, processes which they put in the forefront in recommending this system, unless you keep the hours of 6 till 10 the Bill is useless. May I just remind the House of what they state:

    1179
    "We do not recommend any alteration in the hours proposed in the Government Bill, 6 a.m. an4 10 p.m. The reduction of the period of employment to less than eight hours would in most cases prevent the adoption of the system, while it would not remove the chief objections to the scheme which are the weekly turnover of shifts and the evening work in alternate periods. We think the objections to the hours proposed have been exaggerated, and the Home Office will be able by the conditions it attaches to its Orders to safeguard the interests of the workers."
    Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman show us where in that Export they say that 7 a.m. would be a fundamental objection?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes—
    "The reduction of the period of employment to less than eight hours would in most cases prevent the adoption of the system."
    If you make it 7 instead of 6 a.m., you must reduce it, unless you extend it in the evening to 11 o'clock. That is the opinion of the Departmental Committee, and it is for that reason that I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment. I think the Committee will forgive me if I make an appeal to them. We have in the course of the discussions thoroughly thrashed out the effects of long hours, and so on, and I would like to ask the Committee to come to a decision as quickly as possible, because the programme is a long one.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am sorry the Home Secretary is unable to take greater notice of the many speeches that have been made suggesting this alteration in the Bill. I am at a loss to understand why and how it is that the eight-hours working shifts have any substantial bearing on this matter. It is suggested in the Report that it will affect the successful working of the system, but I have yet to understand how or why a 15 hours' continuous working by the two shifts, assuming the hour was taken off at the beginning, is going to mitigate the principle as against the 16 hours. I think there must be some misunderstanding or confusion. I could have understood it if it referred to a three-shift system, in which the whole 24 hours were involved, but in regard to the two shifts I do not see how this question of starting at seven in the morning as against six operates very materially against the principle.
    Mr. SEDDON: The last hon. Member said there was some confusion, but I think it is in his own mind. The Home Secretary distinctly stated, quoting from the Report of the Departmental Committee, that it was a question of the continuous shifts. The particular trade that this would very seriously militate against do work three shifts in the 24 hours, and if you were to reduce the two shifts for women and young persons, you would inflict a longer shift during the night upon boys over 16, and you would dislocate the whole of the industry. I am quite sure no one wants women and young persons to work unnecessarily, but having conceded the principle where continuous operations are required in an industry, to accept this Amendment would be inimical to the interests of the industry to which essentially this particular principle is to apply. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not recede from his position, because it would make null and void the application of young persons' and boys' labour to this continuous process where they have three shifts in 24 hours.
    Mr. INSKIP: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word, though anything T may say must, of course, be taken to be an expression of my individual opinions and not particularly as a Member of the Departmental Committee. This question of hours gave the Committee anxious thought, and I think that if we felt able, without qualifying the effect of our Report, to come to the conclusion that 7 o'clock was an early enough hour, we should very gladly have come to that conclusion. I think I may say, therefore, on behalf of the Committee, as well as of myself, that nobody who has heard the experience of various hon. Members of the House as to working at early hours can fail to be impressed by the fact that it is not in the interests of people of even 16 and 17 years of age to turn out at five and half-past five every morning, but the view which I take is that on the whole six o'clock or half-past five is not quite so early or so deleterious as at first sight we are inclined to think. Take such an industry as the seed-crushing industry of the British Olympia Oilcake Mills, near Selby. The people employed in that industry, if they were not so employed, would be engaged in agriculture, and in agriculture the whole family is

    1181
    likely to be awake and up long before 6 o'clock. It is, therefore, really no hardship—it is rather a misuse of terms to talk of it as a hardship—for those women to begin their work at 6. In that particular industry it is essential that they shall be at work for very much the reasons that my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Seddon) has mentioned, namely, that it is necessary for them to take over a shift in a continuous process trade which is worked by men at night, and also to keep pace with the output of departments where men only are employed on work which is not suitable for women, and the requirements of the whole industry or factory depend on the resumption by women, if they are to be employed at all, at 6 o'clock.
    There are various illustrations which might be given of that, but another point of view might be mentioned, and that is this, that the whole objection, or a great part of the objection, to the early hours is connected with the late hours at which people used to work. Many hon. Members speak of their experiences of going to work at 5.30 or 6 in the morning as if they were going to work the same long hours as they used to work. To begin at 6 and continue, as many hon. Members have said they did, till 5, 6, or even 7 in the evening, with overtime on top of that on certain occasions, is a very different proposition from what is now put forward, both from a medical point of view and from the point of view of the social and moral welfare of the workers, and I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that if you are going to work from 6 in the morning to 2 in the afternoon, and leaving out for the moment the question as to how far the worker may be induced to do housework in her spare time, you have a distinct advantage by giving her the variety of an afternoon oft, which is bound to be beneficial from every point of view. That is likely only to be possible if they begin at this early hour. I think employers would not really adopt this system unless they may begin at 6. I am hopeful, when they have had experience of the two-shift system, that they will find it more efficient and gradually reduce the hours, possibly by half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour, or even an hour.
    Then there is another advantage which the Home Secretary may secure upon the
    1182
    present working of the system, an advantage which obtains in some works. Instead of having only one break for half-an-hour for breakfast, there could be a longer break of three-quarters of an hour, and an interval of a quarter of an hour or ten minutes for some light refreshment or for a break in the middle of the three hours' work after breakfast. Those can all be made the subject of conditions by the Home Secretary or of requirements by the factory inspectors which will mitigate the first harshness of the requirement of beginning work at 6 o'clock. May I mention one other consideration. The employers, I think in every single case that was brought before us—and we were very careful to inquire—took pains, I daresay under compulsion in some cases, to see that the remuneration of the worker was not reduced by the shortening of hours. That is to say, they assured us—I am not saying that in every case the assurance must be taken necessarily at its face value—and the workers corroborated, that the rates have been increased, so that although workers were working 38 and 41 hours, as against 45 and 48 hours, the remuneration of the workers remained the same. Of course, if the hours were reduced from an eight-hour shift, that is to say, from 7½ hours' actual work to 6½ hours' actual work, it would either make the system unremunerative to the employer, in which case it would not be adopted, or it would mean a net reduction of the earning capacity of the worker. I hope hon. Members opposite will not think there is likely to be very great hardship from beginning work at 6 o'clock. In London, where we are all accustomed to go to bed later, it is a greater hardship than in the North, where they go to bed earlier and are expected to get up earlier.
    Mr. W. THORNE: It is a case of travelling in London as well.
    Mr. INSKIP: I am glad the hon. Member has reminded me of that, and I hope the Home Secretary will take notice of the availability of labour within a short distance of the factory, and that where the labour is not available within, say, ten minutes, or a quarter of an hour, or a comparatively short distance from the factory, the two-shift system will not be allowed to be worked. I think that will mitigate the harshness of the early start, and if that is the general practice adopted

    1183
    I do not see why the workers should be required to get up earlier than a quarter or twenty minutes past five. For a great part of my younger days I rose at 5.30 without any deleterious effects. Of course, it was not going out to industry.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Voluntary rising.
    Mr. INSKIP: No, involuntary rising. I join in the Home Secretary's hope that the Committee will accept this, not because it is ideal, but because I genuinely think it may lead to the adoption of a system which, in the end, will secure shorter hours and a more varied and interesting life for the workers than that which obtains under the system of longer hours and occasional overtime, which I think nobody desires to see continued. I hope, therefore, the Committee will unanimously accept this until later on, perhaps, some Amendment can be made
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to confirm what my hon. and learned Friend said. All the time I was at Winchester I had to get up at 6 o'clock, and I do not know that any evil result ensued from
    it. If you were not up in time, you got it smartly over the shoulders, so that there was not any voluntary wish about it.
    Mr. THOMAS: I hope the Committee will not get into a schoolboy discussion on this question. I should like the Committee to visualise, first, the mother who gets up at four to 4.30 to see a daughter off to work, and at six o'clock has to prepare the breakfast for the husband or brother who may be going out at seven, and later in the day she has to prepare a meal for a, daughter who is going out on the night-shift. I think we must have some regard for the domestic side of this question. It is humbug to talk of boys at school getting up, and comparing them with young girls and women tramping out at six o'clock in the morning. I can quite conceive of an employer arranging seven hours rather than eight for the early shift. If that can be done, I see no insuperable difficulty in making it seven instead of six o'clock.
    Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 68.

    Division No. 378.]

    AYES.

    [5.35 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Davidson, J. C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

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

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Armitage, Robert

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Atkey, A. R.

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

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Donald, Thompson

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Doyle, N. Grattan

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Gange, E. Stanley

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

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

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Gardiner, James

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Grant, James A.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Britton, G. B.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W).

    Hood, Joseph

    Parker, James

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Clough, Robert

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

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

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

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Pratt, John William

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jesson, C.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Purchase, H. G.

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Remnant, Sir James

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

    Whitla, Sir William

    Renwick, George

    Simm, M. T.

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

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Rodger, A. K.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Royden, Sir Thomas

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Wise, Frederick

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Goff, Sir R. Park

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

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hallas, Eldred

    Sexton, James

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromfield, William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

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

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Spencer, George A.

    Cairns, John

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Sugden, W. H.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hinds, John

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hirst, G. H.

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

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Casey, T. W.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Tootill, Robert

    Coote, William (Tyrone. South)

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

    Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Moles, Thomas

    Waddington, R.

    Cowan, Sir W. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wignall, James

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

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

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

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Finney, Samuel

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Redmond, Captain William Archer

    Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Neil

    Glanville. Harold James

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

    Maclean.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I draw attention to the fact that all the members of Standing Committee A have been crowded out of the Division? Could not arrangements have been made so that we could vote?
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "Provided that it a joint representation is made to the Secretary of State by organisations representing a majority of the employers and workers in the industry or section of industry concerned to the effect that Orders under this section ought not to be made in respect of factories and workshops in that industry or section of industry, the powers of the Secretary of State to make Orders under this section shall cease to be exercisable as regards that industry or section of industry unless and until the representation is withdrawn by the said organisations, and if any such representation so requires any Order previously made in respect of a factory or workshop in that industry or section of industry shall, on the expiration of such reasonable period, not exceeding four months, as the Secretary of State may fix, cease to have effect.
    Every Order made under this section shall be published forthwith in the London Gazette, and no representation as respects factories and workshops in the industry or section of industry to which the Order relates shall be of any effect unless made within one month from the date of the publication of "the Order."
    1186
    As the Committee have approved my original Amendment, namely, that the Orders are to be made on the joint application of the employers and the majority of the workpeople in any particular factory or group of factories, I should imagine there would not be much opposition to this Amendment. It provides, practically, that where an application is made in respect of a particular factory, or a group of factories, and an Order is made on that application, the Order has to be published in the "London Gazette," and then during a period of time—we have suggested a month as a fair period—the industry concerned can, by its organisations, consider the question, and if they choose, they may make representations. If they like to agree that later on in the year the experiment may be tried, they can still do so. Equally they can, if they ask for it, have all the Orders made within that month cancelled. It is only fair that those who are opposed to an Order being made should make representations within a reasonable time; because a man could not possibly enter into contracts on the basis of the Order having been made, until he knew he was safe. I should think that on principle, the Committee having

    1187
    accepted my former Amendment, there would not be very much objection to this. Therefore, I hope it will be accepted. I hope the House will also believe me when I say I have tried to make it a fair way of allowing industries to rule themselves, of giving them complete control so far as the industry chooses to exercise it. Employers and employed in any industry will have control over that industry.
    Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "joint" ["if a joint representation"].
    I am very much obliged to the Home Secretary for putting in this Amendment, All I want to do is to improve it. This Amendment is the result of two very hard days' work, on Friday and yesterday, and of representations to the right hon. Gentleman that there was not to be absolute power to make these Orders, and that every industry should have some check upon them on behalf of employers and employed in the industry. I move this Amendment with a view of re arranging other words a little later. I consider it is a very great matter indeed that private Members of this House have been able to convince the Home Secretary that this Amendment of his is necessary, and I beg to congratulate him upon the way in which he accepted those views, and of seeing how necessary it was that the Amendment should have been put upon the Paper. I shall be perfectly satisfied with this Amendment if he makes one or two small Amendments in it. I should have liked it to be the other way about, the hors> in front of the cart instead of the cart in front of the horse. I desire that he should strike out the word "and" ["representing a majority of the employers and workers"], and insert instead thereof the word" or. "That will make it read" a majority of the employers 'or' workers. "This is the whole matter between us. It contains a very great principle of the very great importance, and it makes all the difference in the world. It reads here, "Provided that if a joint representation is made, then the Secretary of State' shall not exercise this power. "I am going to submit to the House that it ought to be the organisation representing a majority of the employers" or "of the workmen, so that if the workers object—
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: But it is a joint representation.
    Mr. DENNISS: Yes, in that case the word "joint" will have to come out, and I will therefore ask leave to move my Amendment in that amended form, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that. The difference between the present proposal and my suggestion is this: If the employers and workers apply to the Secretary of State and say they object to an Order being made, then, as a matter of course, the Home Secretary makes no such Orders, and repeals those already made. Suppose the workers object to it, and the employers want such an Order, or vice versa, then this whole Amendment is neutralised and nothing can be done. Say a man makes an application for an Order for one particular factory or mill, thinking he would like to have the two-shift system in the factory, and his workpeople agree with him, then the Home Secretary makes the Order, whereupon the employers and the workers in that industry generally have an opportunity of going to the Home Secretary and objecting. If both of them object, then the licence is not granted, or if it has been granted it is revoked. It therefore follows that unless both employers and workers agree this Amendment is no use. If an employer wants to make more money, and suggests the two-shift system, and the workpeople object, then if the word" or "is put in instead of" and "the workers' will will prevail, and the employer will not be able to force upon the workers the two-shift system, because the workers in the industry as a whole say, "We do not want it." It is quite clear that if the whole of the employers and workers in an industry, or in any section of an industry, come together and agree that the two-shift system ought not to be introduced, then the Home Secretary refuses the application or cancels it. But if he has made an Order in a particular factory it lasts for five years. It cannot be revoked unless the owner of the factory breaks the conditions under which it is granted, and this Amendment is useless. It is quite clear, if the employers object to the two-shift system being introduced into the industry, the employers would not work it.
    Mr. SEDDON: Then they will not apply!
    Mr. DENNISS: But if the workers object it is quite clear, seeing it is forced upon them, that unless the employers join with them in condemning it and appealing to the Home Secretary, they will strike, and there is an end of it.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I hope the Home Secretary will resist this Amendment. Yesterday, as a result of the discussion which took place, my right hon Friend was seized with the desirability of recognising the joint industrial councils in our national scheme or industrial organisation, and this is really a concession made to us who feel very strongly that the joint industrial councils ought now to be allowed to emerge as the real representative bodies of the industries. After all the underlying principle is that the two parties should act jointly. It is pretty certain, as I stated yesterday, that unless we do secure unanimity within the industry, and the concurrence of the two parties, no such experiments as contemplated by this Bill can ever work smoothly. I feel keenly about this scheme of general industrial councils. I want us to get rid of the idea that either one party or the other is animated with a desire to impose something on the industry which the other party objects to. I say I want to get rid of that idea and to give expression to the newer and better idea which, I think, is gradually emerging in industry, that these changes and these experiments should be conducted as representing joint interests in the industry—that any matter should be regarded as desirable or otherwise in the interests of the whole.
    Mr. SHORTT: This is a thoroughly reactionary proposal—a proposal of direct action, a Bolshevik proposal—and I hope the House will not accept it.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    6.0 P.M.
    Major HILLS: I shall not keep the Committee from a Division, but I want to take a point of view that has not yet been taken. I want to say that I think this Amendment goes too far in this direction It lessens the discretion of the Home Secretary which he is bound to exercise under the Factory Acts. It takes something from his statutory rights which have been built up in a series of legislative
    1190
    enactments, now embodied in our factory code and which on the whole work most excellently. My point is this: Under the first part of the Amendment that we accepted to-day the Home Secretary can make an Order authorising the two-shift system in a factory or group of factories. Then the industry—that is employers and employed—can come down and veto that Order. Thereby it is left to an industry to fulfil functions which I profoundly believe are and ought to be the functions of the Home Secretary. I do not think he ought to allow anybody else to stand between him and the duties which Parliament has given to him. Parliament has made him the guardian of labour in a very special sense, and especially the guardian of the labour of children and young persons. That guardianship is now embodied in a series of laws, and his decision and judgment as to whether a group of factories ought to have two shifts or not can be overruled by a joint representation of the industry. I shall be told that it is quite right that an industry should rule itself. I cannot, however, forget the great position which the Home Secretary had got under our factory laws. If an industry is unanimous, except for a small section, then the Order cannot be made. I think the Home Secretary ought to consult everybody concerned, and examine the question, but when the final decision comes to be made it ought to be the Home Secretary's decision, made by himself as Minister and as someone responsible to the House of Commons. I do not think any other position would be fulfilling what I regard as the essence of our factory legislation. I shall not vote against this Amendment, because I regard it as part of a bargain, but I do think that the Labour party have got by this proposal far more than they realise, and it cuts away a good deal of the arguments we have heard on previous Amendments. I think in a case of this sort, where Parliament has put the decision in the hands of the Home Secretary, he ought not to divest himself of that power.
    Captain ELLIOT: I think it is worth while to point out that this is really a Soviet Amendment, and I do not think that is an exaggerated statement. Parliament is allowing to Whitley Councils to impose a veto on its decision. I do not

    1191
    call that Bolshevism, which is not necessarily associated with Sovietism, and it is handing over the rights of the geographic assembly to the economic assembly, that is, the Chamber of Consumers to the Chamber of Producers. We talk of experiments under this Bill, but we are indulging in one of the largest experiments in the course of this Bill and that is handing over the veto of the Home Secretary to the Whitley Councils. I know that this is the result of a Parliamentary bargain, but on this point I agree that the Labour party has got more under this proposal than they realise, and I believe far more than the Home Secretary realised he was giving.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Not more than we deserve.
    Captain ELLIOT: The Home Secretary is the guardian of the women employed in industry and these economic bodies, by the very nature of the case, have no great respect for women, because the majority of the people engaged in production are not women but men. There is a distinct danger that the Guild or Soviet will object to the introduction of fresh labour into its ranks, and will become a sort of caste, and will tend to resent the intrusion of fresh labour. There is a very distinct danger in the Home Secretary's abandonment of his powers.
    Mr. SHORTT: There is no abandonment of any power in this proposal, and the power of veto remains in spite of the decision of the Joint Industrial Council. The Home Secretary has parted with no powers which are necessary for him to see that women's work is protected.
    Captain ELLIOT: I am prepared to maintain my position even against what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The question cannot seriously be debated that if the women wish to enter an industry and the Whitley Council desires to prevent them, the Home Secretary has no power to persist as against the decision of the Joint Industrial Council. We have already seen Whitley Councils acting in an arbitrary manner towards women's labour. There are two main principles involved here. One is the protection of young persons and women in industry. There are women in industry who have to earn their living because their natural protectors have been killed in the War.
    1192
    This proposal is quite a new departure, and I think those who are in favour of Whitley Councils might give this their closest attention. I think it is a good Amendment because it appears to give strength and power to those very interesting new joint economic bodies which are being set up in industry to-day.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "the factory or workshop shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with" and to insert instead thereof the words" in the case of a woman or young person, that woman or young person shall be deemed to be employed in contravention of."
    This is purely a question of procedure, and the Amendment is a purely drafting one. There are two methods, and one deals with machinery where the factory-is not kept in accordance with the Act, and the other deals with the employés, women and young person. I think the better way is to keep all questions relating to women and young persons under the same Section.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (6). add a new Subsection—
    "(7) This Section shall be construed as one with the Factory and Workshop Acts. 1901 to 1911."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments. As amended (on re-committal) considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. SEDDON: I think there are one or two things that ought to be said on the motion for the Third Reading. Few Debates have been carried on with less acrimony than the Debate which has been carried on during Friday last week and yesterday and to-day. Those of us who have been advocating the two-shift system have done so with a sincere regard to the women and children, and we are just as sincere as those who have opposed this proposal. Speaking for myself and those hon. Members who have taken the same course, we have been lead by the logic of events and circumstances which we could not alter by legislation. It was said on Friday that I was one of the leaders of

    1193
    all reactionary causes, and I want to repudiate that criticism as strongly as I can. The case put to me was put by a trade unionist and by the glass workers of St. Helens, and I object to the big trade unions not listening to the reasonable demands of the small unions. We have heard a great deal about cotton. I remember when the cotton trade resisted the abolition of the half-time system for many years, and it ill-becomes them to gibe at those who are trying to do justice to other workers who have made out a good case. I happen to have in my hand a statement for the workers in the glass industry. It comes from the president of the glass trade organisation, and I think he presents a reasonable case. He says:
    "There is a shortage of boys in the glass industry, while girls are plentiful and there are a large number out of work. Girls are more suitable for this particular class of work in the glass industry than boys. In taking boys into this industry only a very small proportion "can ever become skilled workmen."
    I think the proportion is five boys to one man, and therefore if the odd boy becomes a skilled workman four others can be employed up to the age of 18 or 19, with the result that they are employed in a blind alley occupation, and they are apt to be thrown on to the labour market without any training for any other industry. On the other hand, the women and girls generally stop at this trade until they get married or reach middle age. So far as the two-shift system is concerned it works out at 40 hours per week for females and 42 hours for boys. These girls and boys are the sons and daughters of glass workers to a very large extent, and surely their parents are just as fond of their children as are any other body of workers and would not, merely for selfish reasons, get them out of bed at five or six in the morning. It is because they know-that, under present conditions in that particular industry, unless there is boy and girl labour it will be impossible for the industry to be carried on—while they may regret it as much as we do. So far as this particular industry is concerned I submit the large trade unions have a moral obligation to listen to the case that has been made out by the smaller unions. I am glad that the Home Secretary has acted as he has done, and I thank him personally, for I know he has brought a frigid legal mind to bear on this question.
    1194
    If he had studied his own inclination he would have had something to say quite different, but he has simply looked at it from the point of view of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and I am glad that he, and this House, and the majority of the Members have recognised that, under modern conditions, those engaged in certain industries when they make out a good case, are entitled to be listened to.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In my own Parliamentary division we have a very large glass works, one of the largest in the country, and belonging to a firm which is starting works all over the country. I do not want to dispute the facts put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken. Xo doubt he had certain information and representation from St. Helens, but from my own constituency I have not had a single indication of any kind either from employers or workpeople in favour of the introduction of the two-shift system. If the company to which I have referred had felt inclined to want the system, for reasons suggested by my hon. Friend, I feel confident I should have had some communication from these particular people. I do not think that they want the two-shift system at all so far as their works are concerned.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like an explanation why certain laws are to be continued in this particular Bill. The laws to which I allude are in Parts III and IV of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, Section 21, and the Housing, Town Planning (Scotland) Act, 1919, Section 18. These two Sections renew the power given under the Acts to grant a subsidy of £250 to any private individual who builds houses for the working classes. We are shortly going to discuss the Public Works Loans Act, and when we get into Committee on that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is to move

  1195
  a Clause which would seem to me to render the continuance of these two Acts unnecessary. As I understand it he is going to grant powers to the Local Loans Commissioners to make grants payable under the Housing Act, and if that is so I would like to know why it is necessary to continue in this Bill these two particular Sections. I do not know who is in charge of the Bill, but if it is the Secretary to the Treasury I think we may get an explanation from him. There is also the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, Section 1, which gives very drastic powers to the Government. I am not at all sure that I do not agree with them, but I think we ought to have some explanation as to why it is necessary to continue for another year these very drastic powers.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: As this is perhaps the only occasion on which we shall have an opportunity of referring generally to the terms of this Act, I wish to say I observe it is proposed to continue the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, as regards the whole Act, and that moves me to ask if the Government on this Bill can give any indication of their policy under that Act regarding unemployment at the present time, and whether in point of fact they in reality intend to continue it at all, and if it is to be continued, whether the powers 'under it are to be used. The position in the country, certainly in England and to a very large extent in Scotland, is that every form of activity under this Act of Parliament has practically ceased, and little or very little is being done at the present time. The machinery of the distress committees is being continued, but the overwhelming majority of those committees are doing no work at all, so that that represents an expenditure in salaries and in office and other accommodation for no earthly purpose in the matter of helping to solve the unemployed problem. I desire to ask on this Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill whether it is worth while to continue this Act at all, and whether it would not be good business to allow it to go, and to take definite steps to deal with unemployment on other lines, preserving what is good under this Act in any new machinery that may be set up
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London for not having been in the House at the commencement of his speech. The preceding Bill was disposed of more rapidly than I had anticipated. I think I understand the point which he raised. The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, Section (21), relates, as he says, to loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioners to private persons constructing houses under certain circumstances. The desirability of continuing that form of subsidy will, I think, be generally accepted so far as the ensuing year is concerned. But without explaining the Clause I have set down on the Public Works Loans Bill I can assure my right hon. Friend that it does not touch the point which he has raised. It is entirely dissimilar. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) I have asked the Minister of Health, at whose desire this Act is being continued, to attend and I hope he may be here in time to explain his reason. But I would point out to my hon. Friend that we are now on the Second Reading and, if necessary, he can raise his point in Committee and move the omission of any particular Act. I hope that that explanation for the moment will be satisfactory. The hon. Member will understand that further discussion is not precluded. Although I am responsible for the introduction of this Bill it contains a very large number of Acts concerning the activities of many Departments of State and sometimes it is a little difficult to ensure the attendance of Ministers unless one has warning beforehand of the points intended to be raised.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBTS].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eyemouth Harbour in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans."

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 (Appointment of Public Works Loan Commissioners for Five Years), 2 (Grants for Public Works), 3 (Certain Debts not to be reckoned as Assets of Local Loans Funds), 4 (Remission of Arrears of Principal and Interest in respect of Eyemouth Harbour Loan), and 5 (Short Title)ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to make Temporary Advances from Local Loans Fund to Local Authorities for Housing Purposes.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, the Public Works Loan Commissioners may advance out of the Local Loans Fund to local authorities within the meaning of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, and on the like security as sums borrowed for the purposes of those Acts, any sums which those authorities have power to borrow for those purposes:
    Provided that—

    (a) the amount of an advance to any local authority shall not exceed such sum as may be approved by the Treasury and the Minister of Health in that behalf; and

    (b) the amount advanced shall be repaid by the local authority to the Local Loans Fund within a period of twelve months from the date of the advance.

    (2) Interest on advances under this Section shall be payable at such a rate as the Treasury may from time to time fix or, if the rate applicable to any advance is less than the bank rate for the time being in force, at the bank rate.
    (3) A local authority to whom an advance has been made under this Section may, without the consent of the Minister of Health, borrow any money required for the purpose of repaying the advance.
    (4) The power to make advances under this Section shall not be exercised after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I ought to give a brief explanation of this Clause to the Committee, and I should like to make it clear, in the first place, that it does not increase by a single penny the amount of money which is at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the ensuing twelve months. Its purpose is to enable temporary advances to be made from the Local Loans Fund to local authorities for housing schemes where a local authority cannot raise the necessary capital immediately. These powers are purely temporary," to meet a condition of affairs which exist at the present time. To show how temporary they are, I may point out that a date is put in, namely, the 30th September next, after which no further loans shall be made. They are not grants, but loans, and the need for them is this: One recognises the necessity of finding work during this winter for out-of-work ex-service men, and there will be cases in which local authorities will be in a position to get on with their building schemes, but will be in immediate need of money, because it takes time, in some circumstances, to make the necessary preparations for a public issue of stock. It is really to afford those local authorities the power of enjoying for a short time an overdraft. Ample security is provided in the matter of repayment. The Sub-sections of the Clause deal with these points, and, having regard to the temporary nature of the difficulty which the Clause is designed to meet, it appeared to me that the Committee would have no objection to inserting it for this year, and this year only, in this particular Bill. I would remind the Committee once more, if the reminder is necessary, that it adds nothing to the amount which is allowed to be lent. Whatever amounts are lent under this Clause will rank as part and parcel of the £40,000,000 which is the limited sum referred to in the main body of the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I propose to move an Amendment to this Clause, but I think we must get the Clause read a Second time before I can do that. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question. He has told us that nothing in the Clause will enable the Government or the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance a larger sum than the £40,000,000 which has been put into the

    1199
    Bill. I may remind him that he told me, I think only yesterday, that, although the sum of £40,000,000 was put into the Bill—that sum having been put into the Act of last year—during last year, instead of £40,000,000, only some £12,000,000 has been spent; and I understood him to say that the balance would accrue this year.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I did not mean to reply to that effect, and I hope I did not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It may have been my fault. We had rather a hurried conversation, and that is what I thought my right hon. Friend meant. I do not suggest that he told me that it was so, but that is what I understood, and I may have made a mistake. It is now quite clear that the whole of that £40,000,000 will, in all probability, be advanced, and that is rather a large order in view of the state of the national finances. That £40,000,000 has to come from somewhere; it will either have to be borrowed or to be taken out of the sum, if there is any left, which we were told, at the time the Budget was passed, was to be devoted to the redemption of debt or the reduction of the Floating Debt. With all these Bills coming forward one after the other, it seems to me that, when the time comes, we shall find that the surplus has all been eaten up. The Committee ought really to consider whether or not it is advisable to authorise such a very large expenditure. When the Clause has been read a Second time, I propose, as I have said, to move an Amendment to Sub-section (2), and I propose to ask why it is necessary to put in Sub-section (3): but perhaps I had better wait until the Clause has been read a Second time before I raise those questions. Perhaps, in the meantime, my right hon. Friend can give me a short answer as to where he proposes to get the £40,000,000 from, and what the effect will be upon the surplus which was supposed to be devoted to the reduction of debt or of the Floating Debt.
    Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend is generally possessed of such knowledge of these matters that I am rather surprised to find that he has slipped into an error on this occasion by showing himself to be not familiar with the working of the Local Loans Fund. I agree that
    1200
    it is probable that a large amount of this money will be required this year, because of the demand for housing, but in no circumstances can any of the money that is required to be lent from the Local Loans Fund diminish any figures regarding which a calculation has been made in the Budget. The Local Loans Fund is fed in two ways. It is fed by issues to the public and by the continual flow of repayment of loans. My right hon. Friend may have forgotten that, when the issue was made the other day. of. I think, £15,000,000 of local loan stock, that was the first issue that had been made of that particular stock for sixteen years. During that period, the £2,000,000 raised in 1904 and the repayments have been sufficient to carry on the Fund, although I freely admit that the figures before the War were smaller, because in no year did we have to face a large scheme, such as the housing scheme which we have to face to-day. My own impression—I cannot go beyond that at the moment—is that, with the repayments that come in and the issue that has been made, we may hope to be able to find such sums as may be required from the Local Loans Fund during the lifetime of the Bill that we have now before us. Of course, I can give no pledge of that, but I hope and think that it is probable. I think that my right hon. Friend rather exaggerates the gravity of the situation. With regard to Sub-section (3), the reason that we propose to dispense with the consent of the Minister of Health to borrowing for the purpose of repayment of any such advances is that his consent will already have been given to the scheme in the first instance, and we do not consider it necessary to get consent a second time to what is practically the same thing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I had forgotten for the moment that there were repayments of loans which went into the Fund, but I had not forgotten that the other source from which the Fund was fed was by borrowing in the open market. That method of proceeding was often, criticised by me in the old days, on the ground that you were depreciating the credit of the Government by borowing for local loans. The security of local loans is practically the same as the security of Government stock, and you were depreciating the security of Government stock by continual

    1201
    borrowing for local loans. If local authorities want the money they ought to borrow it on their own account. I was aware that that was one of the principal ways in which the Fund was fed. I think my right "hon. Friend has already admitted that the amounts in those days were very much smaller, and the loans, as far as I remember, were made for a longer period than one year. The advances here are only going to be made for one year, and I should like to know whether it may be hoped that the money that is to be lent for one year will come back in one year, and whether it is to be obtained from the taxes or from short loans or Treasury bills. My right hon. Friend says he thinks—although he is not sure—that it will not be necessary to borrow any further money, but that the repayments and the £15,000,000 will be sufficient. Should that not be the case, however, I presume that a permanent loan will not be issued, but that, if any further money is required, as it will only be for a year, it will be obtained by one-year bills. The disadvantage of that, of course, is that it increases the floating debt. I do not know whether I am explaining clearly what I mean. Suppose that the £15,000,000 and the repayments of loans are not sufficient, how does my right hon. Friend propose to find the balance? Is it by a loan in the ordinary way for a certain number of years—I forget how long they generally run, but it is a considerable number of years—or is it by a short loan? Perhaps he can give me a short answer as to that.
    Mr. BALDWIN: All the money must come out of the Local Loans Fund, which is fed by the methods which I have described, namely, the issue of stock and the repayment of loans. I do not think that this particular form of borrowing can be on any extensive scale; I think that the cases in which it will be required will be very few.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Under the Housing and Town Planning Act passed last year there was power given to the Local Loans Commissioners to advance money for public purposes to private builders. This Clause gives the same people power to lend money to local authorities for building purposes, I think for the first time. Has that power in the Housing and Town Planning Bill been taken advantage of by private builders
    1202
    to any, and, if so, to what extent? If so, will it be in any way prejudiced by money which is being taken by local authorities interfering with private enterprise, should it wish to go forward?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid that is a point for the Minister of Health. I have no information about it, though I can get it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words" or if the rate applicable to any advance is less than the bank rate for the time being in force, at the bank rate," and to insert instead thereof the words "at a rate not less than the bank rate for the time being in force."
    I do not think it is advisable that we should lend money to local authorities at less than the Bank Rate. The local authorities can probably not borrow at less than, even if they could borrow at that rate, and if the State is to provide the money and is to lend to local authorities, I think the rate should be limited in some such manner as I suggest. This is a protection to the Treasury. The Treasury, I feel sure, will have a considerable amount of pressure put upon them by the local authorities to lend this money at a low rate. If they consent, if the Act of Parliament authorises them to do so, and if it has been put that such rate shall not be under the Bank Rate, which is a very reasonable limit to put in, I think it will assist the Treasury in safeguarding the public interest, and will prevent pressure being put upon them to lend money at low rates, which will cause a loss to the Treasury.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I hope my right hon. Friend will allow me time to look at this, because what he has in mind and what I have in mind are one and the same thing, and I have been advised by my draughtsman that it is not in our power to lend at less than the Bank Rate. If my right hon. Friend will allow me to take advice on the matter I shall be only too pleased to tell him the result of my investigations on the Report stage, and to assure him that the object he has in view is the same that I have in view.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, the Report stage will not be taken to-day?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite willing to accede to my right hon. Friend's request.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Secretary to the Treasury explain the phrase "the rate applicable to any advance"? How is it applicable? What is the meaning of the word "applicable"? I think we should all be able to understand whether my right hon. Friend's Amendment was necessary or not necessary if that were explained to us.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I am not quite clear in my own mind.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended to be considered To-morrow.

  CHARITY COMMISSION SCHEMES.

    LITILE LONGSTONE CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I think we are entitled to some statement from the representative of the Charity Commissioners. I understand it comes within their purview.
    Sir R. SANDERS: This is merely a Bill in the ordinary form to confirm a scheme which the Charity Commissioners have made. They have gone into the matter and have made out a scheme, which appears in the Schedule, for the application and management of this charity money. It is vested in the trustees of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, and various Clauses in the Schedule show the way in which the money is to be used. To put it shortly, it is to be used for the ordinary purposes of a Congregational chapel.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: How is it being used at present?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid that is a little more than I can tell on Second Reading.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know that we are very much wiser for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation. I should like to make a protest against taking this Bill. The Government again and again tell us, in answer to our appeals, that they have no choice of bringing in what we think very important legislation which formed part of their pledges at the election. I will only refer to one case, the Minimum Wage Bill. We are told there is no possibility of bringing it in now owing to the pressure of work in the House of Commons. There are many others I could mention which are very desirable and affect many millions of poor people, and yet we are told that the House of Commons has not time to bring them in this Session, although the Bills are apparently ready. Here we are, at six minutes to seven on a Tuesday evening, with a number of possibly important Bills, and yet the Government cannot find time to bring in vital pieces of legislation which the country is crying out for. It shows the bad way in which business of the House is arranged by the Government, and their contempt for the real needs of the people and, I think, their very cavalier treatment of the House. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir Godfrey Collins) is the only Member of the House who has his name on the back of the Bill, and I daresay there is a very good reason why he is not here to explain it. But I should like to have asked why the Bill is brought before the House at all; secondly, what is the amount of money involved; and, thirdly, is there any sort of method in drawing up the Schedules? I have been reading the Schedules, and the Schedules of this Bill and the Baptist Chapels Charity Bills seem to differ, and I cannot see why they should differ. We are passing these Bills with all the ancient forms and usages of the House, and we ought to know what we are doing, and I should like to know what is the principle on which these Schedules are drawn up, and who decides on them. This Bill consists of one page of Bill and six pages of Schedule. It may all be very admirable, but the particular difference I would draw attention to is that this Schedule deals with persons entitled to attend and vote at meetings, at which, I suppose, it is decided how the money shall be spent, and it says, "Persons,

    1205
    whether male or female, who have attained the age of 21 years, and have been members of the Church during at least six calendar months next preceding the meeting. "In the next Bill but one the same provision is laid down for attending meetings, but there the persons must be 18 years of age. If we are to do our duty properly we are entitled to ask why there is that difference. If the Government cannot tell us now, I hope the matter can be explained in Committee.
    Sir R. SANDERS: These are all Committee points that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised. They have all been carefully considered by the Charity Commissioners, and all we are asked to do is to give a Second Reading assent to what they think necessary and desirable in the interests of the funds of the Congregational Church. These details can be discussed in Committee, and the Committee will not be taken to-day.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

    HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    7.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have a word of explanation about this? I do not want to strain the Members of the Government too much, but I do not know how much money there is involved. It is not mentioned in the Bill. I should like to protest once more against taking Bills of this sort on a Tuesday so early in the Session. All sorts of restrictions on the liberty of the subject, to mention no other objections, are now being imposed by bureaucrats because certain Peace Treaties have not been ratified. Why should not these be brought before the House to be dealt with? We are fobbed off again and again by the Leader of the House, when we ask for important legislation to be brought in, by saying, "There is no time," or "The pressure of work is too great," or "Certain Bills have not come down from another place," and here
    1206
    we are being put off with Bills which the Government do not consider important enough to give a word of explanation on, and I presume if this Bill passes Second Reading now, the Government will move that it be committed to Committee of the whole House. I really think the matter is most serious. The Government is apparently shirking its responsibilities to the country in bringing in most important legislation which is urgently required by saying there is no time, and yet here we are at 7 o'clock discussing these Bills of tenth-rate importance. They may be important, but they cannot compare with the Bills I have mentioned as urgently needed by the country which we are told cannot be brought in because the work of the Session is crowded or some other excuse. At any rate, let us have a word of explanation before we pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
    Sir R. SANDERS: This Bill is on all fours with the last one, except that it applies to a charity, whereas the previous Bill applied to a Congregational church. This Bill is brought in by the Charity Commissioners. Under their statutory obligation they are obliged to frame these schemes for the management of charitable estates. It is simply as a matter of form that they have to be submitted to the House of Commons. I believe it to be strict constitutional doctrine that the responsibility rests entirely with the Charity Commissioners, and ultimately with the Court of Chancery.

    BAPTIST CHAPELS.
    Order for Second Reading, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir R. Sanders.]
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to make the same point again, but I wish to ask if it is intended that this Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House, and if so, why? Surely the House has plenty to do without that. I ask this because the Standing Committee on which I have

    1207
    the honour to serve at present has finished its work. I do not know if there is any more work ready for it, but, so far as I can find out in the Vote Office, there is not. Why should not this Bill be sent upstairs? Why should our time be taken up here in discussing it if there are any points for the Committee? Personally, I object to the whole system of Standing Committees upstairs. I think it has broken down in practice, and I know there are many hon. Members, in all parts of the House, who agree with me. Under the system, certain Bills of first-rate or of second-rate importance can go upstirs. Why should not this Bill go up? Hon. Members representing the Government may think there is nothing very controversial in the measure, I do not know. It may give rise to some very important questions, and we might spend an hour on it in Committee.
    Sir R. SANDERS: I believe this matter has received very careful consideration. The Government have resolved to keep the Bill downstairs, in deference, I have no doubt, to the hon. and gallant Member's objection to Standing Committees.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Are we on the Baptist Bill now, or on the Hulme Trust Estates Bill? The question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and answered by the Minister in charge of the Bill, related, I believe, to the measure we have already dealt with.
    Sir R. SANDERS: No.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: To this Bill.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Then I would ask one question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to the Baptist Chapels Charities Bill. What sum is involved in it? Has it funds similar to the Hulme Trust Estates Fund? What form does the property which is being dealt with take? How is it to be applied, and how does the proposed application vary from the method in which it is applied at the present moment? Are they taking it from one set of beneficiaries and endowing another set of beneficiaries with the proceeds of the charity? The explanation given by the Government on all these three Bills has been very meager.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir R. Sanders.]
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly, at Six minutes past. Seven o'clock.

IRELAND.
  ARMY PENSIONS DEPARTMENT ROBBERY, CORK.
    ORDER ISSUED AGAINST MOTOR-CYCLES AND CARS.
    ORDER ISSUED AGAINST MOTOR-CYCLES AND CARS.
    SCHEDULE.
    SCHEDULE.
    PATRICK DARBY (ARREST).
    PATRICK DARBY (ARREST).
    TEACHERS (DIPLOMAS).
    TEACHERS (DIPLOMAS).
    MOTOR-CARS (RESTRICTIONS).
    MOTOR-CARS (RESTRICTIONS).
    REPRISALS.
    REPRISALS.
    SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.
    SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA (CASUALTIES).
  MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA (CASUALTIES).
  COMPENSATION CLAIM (MR. HITCHMAN).
  COMPENSATION CLAIM (MR. HITCHMAN).
  WOOLWICH AND ENFIELD FACTORIES.
  WOOLWICH AND ENFIELD FACTORIES.
  ACTING HANK.
  ACTING HANK.
  EXPENDITURE.
  EXPENDITURE.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  FUNERALS (FIRING PARTIES).
  FUNERALS (FIRING PARTIES).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ROYAL WARRANT AMENDMENTS.
  ROYAL WARRANT AMENDMENTS.
  BERKSHIRE REGIMENT (JOHN BONE).
  BERKSHIRE REGIMENT (JOHN BONE).
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  WAR GRATUITY (CIVIL SERVICE IN MESOPOTAMIA).
  WAR GRATUITY (CIVIL SERVICE IN MESOPOTAMIA).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  EXPENDITURE.
  EXPENDITURE.
  CADET COLLEGE, CRANWELL.
  CADET COLLEGE, CRANWELL.
ROYAL NAVY.
  MEDALS.
  MEDALS.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  BRITISH DELEGATION.
  BRITISH DELEGATION.
  EGYPT.
  EGYPT.
  PROFITEERING ACTS (TRUSTS).
  PROFITEERING ACTS (TRUSTS).
RUSSIA.
  FINANCIAL INTERESTS, CHINA.
  FINANCIAL INTERESTS, CHINA.
  ROMAN CATHOLICS, NEAR EAST.
  ROMAN CATHOLICS, NEAR EAST.
  ASIA MINOR (GREEK ARMY).
  ASIA MINOR (GREEK ARMY).
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  EX-SOLDIER CLERKS, WAR OFFICE.
  EX-SOLDIER CLERKS, WAR OFFICE.
  MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMEN.
  MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DRAUGHTSMEN.
  CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).
HOUSING.
  HEXHAM SCHEME.
  HEXHAM SCHEME.
FOOD SUPPLIES
  CUSTARD POWDERS AND BUTTER.
  CUSTARD POWDERS AND BUTTER.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  PAUPERS (MAINTENANCE COST).
  PAUPERS (MAINTENANCE COST).
  METEOPOLITAN BOROUGHS (EMPLOYES).
  METEOPOLITAN BOROUGHS (EMPLOYES).
  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
EDUCATION.
  PHYSICAL TRAINING.
  PHYSICAL TRAINING.
  "HYGIENE OF FOOD AND DRINK."
  "HYGIENE OF FOOD AND DRINK."
TRANSPORT.
  PASSENGER TRAIN TRAFFIC RECEIPTS.
  PASSENGER TRAIN TRAFFIC RECEIPTS.
  RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT, NORTHUMBERLAND.
  RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT, NORTHUMBERLAND.
  ELECTRICAL POWER (SEVERN SCHEME).
  ELECTRICAL POWER (SEVERN SCHEME).
  CANAL CONTROL COMMITTEE.
  CANAL CONTROL COMMITTEE.
  "LABOUR GAZETTE."
  "LABOUR GAZETTE."
  POST OFFICE DRAUGHTSMEN.
  POST OFFICE DRAUGHTSMEN.
  FILMS (EXAMINATION).
  FILMS (EXAMINATION).
  BROKEN DOWN AMMUNITION (EXPLOSIONS).
  BROKEN DOWN AMMUNITION (EXPLOSIONS).
  JURIES ACT, 1918.
  JURIES ACT, 1918.
  AREICULTURAL WAGES (CARLISLE).
  AREICULTURAL WAGES (CARLISLE).
  SOCIALIST SUNDAY SCHOOL, GLASGOW.
  SOCIALIST SUNDAY SCHOOL, GLASGOW.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
  GOVERNMENT TIMBER SALES (MR. MEYER).
  GOVERNMENT TIMBER SALES (MR. MEYER).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I have to move, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Curzon, the Resolution which stands in his name on the Paper. I had an opportunity last night of consulting Lord Strachie, who was courteous enough to agree to this Motion, thus postponing the priority which he had held for a good many days. Unfortunately I have not been able to see Lord Linlithgow, but I have reason to hope that he likewise is prepared to consent. The result of this Motion is to give precedence to my noble friend Lord Lee, who will move the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill, after which the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, will move the adjournment of the debate to this day week. I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting so that the Agriculture Bill have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): My Lords, it is with no ordinary sense of responsibility, and still less with any illusions as to the popularity of some of the proposals in this Bill with your Lordships' House, that I venture to ask you to give the Bill a Second Reading. I trust that I shall not be thought guilty of disrespect if I recall that it has been said of your Lordships that while you would not hesitate to surrender your last shilling, or even your lives, on behalf of your country, you would as unhesitatingly go to the stake sooner than submit to any
720
derogation of the rights of landed property. I am quite sure that the first part of this statement is true, but I am not so sure that the second part is. I have an uncomfortable feeling that on this occasion, at any rate, you might prefer to send me to the stake instead. As to that, I must wait and see.
I am fully aware that there is hardly any subject, except possibly theology, which arouses such bitter controversies as legislation affecting land; nor is there, I think, any task so difficult and thankless as that of the would-be agricultural reformer. There is always not only active but passive resistance on the part of the industry to any proposals which involve change of any kind, and this constitutional and traditional yearning to be let alone has baffled most of those who have endeavoured in the past to help agriculture, either by legislative or administrative action. Where much bigger and wiser men than I have failed, I may be rash to try my hand; but my only excuse—and it is, I think, a sufficient one—for, as the Americans say, "borrowing trouble" in connection with this matter., is my sincere and profound conviction that the safety of the Realm may be very largely bound up in the passing of this Bill. Indeed, I go further and say that it is not designed primarily as a measure of agricultural reform, but as an essential provision of national defence which has been shown to be necessary as a result of the lessons of the late war. This is what I shall endeavour to make good to your Lordships.
I fear that I shall have to trespass upon your indulgence for a considerable period this afternoon, as I understand it is the wish of your Lordships generally that I should make a full and measured statement with regard to the objects and the broad principles of this measure. I realise that unless I succeed in making good that it is a measure essential to the interests of the State, I shall be deprived of my chief justification for proposals which admittedly interfere with the laws of supply and demand, and which in certain cases may cause inconvenience and even hardship to individuals. Certainly nothing but the national interest and national safety could justify such interference; and I know that if I succeed in convincing your Lordships that it is necessary, no considerations of self-interest would tempt you for a moment to reject the Bill.

721
I hope I may be forgiven if I interpolate a brief personal explanation, because I do not want it to be thought that I lay any cairn to special expert knowledge with regard to agriculture, or that I have any pretensions to speak as an agricultural authority. I know that many of my predecessors in the Office I now hold, and notably my immediate predecessor, have probably forgotten more about agriculture than I could ever know. But I do claim that there can hardly be any one in this country who can have had a more clear and vivid inside view of the peril which the country ran through the later stages of the war in connection with its food supplies. At that time I was Director-General of Food Production, and I know that we were pushed to the very edge of the abyss, and having once looked over that edge I certainly could never rest content until I had done whatever lay in my power to safeguard the future and to give effect to what I believe to be perhaps the most obvious and greatest lesson of the war.
It was with this object only, and for this reason only, that I felt justified in assuming the responsibility of my present office. However imperfect in many respects your Lordships may consider my agricultural qualifications to be, at least I can claim that during the whole thirty years or more during which I have been engaged in public work I have devoted myself to the study and furtherance of national defence. If therefore this Bill, both in intention and in effect, did not promote the safety of the Realm I personally should take comparatively little interest in it, despite the fact that it does embody a series of agricultural reforms for which the most enlightened spokesmen of the industry have been asking and pressing in the most formal way by means of Committees and Royal Commissions for many years past.
In the preparation of this measure the Government has principally, though not exclusively, relied upon the authoritative Report of what is known as the Selborne Reconstruction Committee on Agriculture, which reported only three years ago on the whole problem of post-war agricultural reconstruction. Whatever may be the fate of this Bill the Government, the country, and the agricultural industry in particular owe a deep debt of gratitude to Lord Selborne and his eminent colleagues for the thoroughness and devotion with which they discharged their important and
722
most laborious task. That Report showed a profound knowledge and appreciation of the practical and technical problems with which agriculture has to deal, together with a far-sighted imagination which kept clearly before the nation and the industry the fact that their interests are inextricably intertwined and the obligation which rests upon them of closer co-operation in the supreme duty of national defence. In that connection I should like to quote from the Report. The Committee said—
"We must renew our assurance with all the earnestness at our command that, unless after the war the principles of that Act I the Corn Production Act) are (with the necessary adjustment of details to the values and conditions of the time) embodied in a permanent Statute, there can be no hope of the people of the United Kingdom becoming emancipate(1 from dependence on supplies of foodstuffs brought from overseas, or of the increase of our rural population."
I do not suggest that this Bill follows undeviatingly the recommendations of the noble Earl's Committee. We have sought inspiration from other authoritative quarters, a fact which I am sure he will be the last to resent. But I hope I may be able to prove to your Lordships that even for some of the more contentious provisions of this measure we have high and authoritative support from influential, technical, and professional bodies to whose opinions I know that your Lordships are accustomed to attach peculiar weight.
It is obvious that your Lordships will not wish me to deal with the details of this measure this afternoon. The proper occasion for that will be the Committee stage. I would like to emphasise, however, that the principles and the provisions of the Bill are not in any sense the product of the unaided genius of the Government, still less a happy inspiration of my own, and that they are, or at any rate profess to be and are believed to be, a compendium of the reforms which have been pressed on the Government unceasingly by the most influential spokesman of the industry for many years past. This being so, I cannot help feeling that it is a little hard for critics to turn round on the Government and say, "Why do you introduce this Bill at all?" and make the occasion one rather of protest and complaint.
The Bill has critics and opponents. After all, what great measure has not? So far as I can judge, the criticism and opposition so far has been almost entirely destructive; no alternative plan has been

723
put forward from any authoritative quarter, which is at any rate within the region of practical politics, for dealing with the new problems which as a result of the war have and do confront the industry. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, who is to move the rejection of the Bill, in a letter which he published a few days ago described the Bill as "rotten." I have not yet learnt what he would substitute for it. I hope he will tell us. If it is merely the policy of "Let us alone," of laissez faire, I think that can hardly be dignified by the name of a constructive policy, and in any case it is totally incompatible at the present time with the highest interests of the State.
Having regard to the fact that this Bill has just passed through the House of Commons with the support of all Parties by large majorities, and that on the occasion of the Third Reading only twelve members of the House saw fit to go into the Lobby against it, I think I am justified in claiming that at the present time this Bill holds the field. It may be retorted that it is an unpopular measure, and that there is no great enthusiasm for it amongst any section of the industry. Is that altogether a bad recommendation? I venture to say that if this Bill seemed to satisfy the extreme demands of any one of the sections concerned it would lie open to the charge of ill-balance and partiality, and if to your Lordships it may seem in some of its provisions to lean too much one way or the other I can only plead that the Government, and certainly I, have been actuated by no other view than that of promoting the safety and the increase of our national food supply. I can claim at any rate that no political or Party considerations entered for one moment into the framing of this Bill. Its very unpopularity, if that be a correct term, is surely sufficient proof that we have not been angling for votes. As I have said, its chief purpose is to stimulate food production by creating conditions which shall promote arable farming and tend to keep as much land as is suitable for the purpose, and no other, under the plough, not necessarily under wheat, or oats, or any other given crop, but under crops of some kind, so that it can be available in time of national emergency for growing wheat or whatever the nation most needs.
If this policy is to suceed it is obviously essential, in the first place, to give confidence
724
and a greater sense of security to those who till the soil. As you well know, the average farmer is inclined to be discouraged and panicky, and at the present time he has additional reasons for being so. In the present state of the world he sees wages constantly rising and the political pressure behind them all in the direction of forcing them permanently higher. On the other hand, he sees the prices of his produce falling, or at any rate fluctuating wildly, with political pressure always in the direction of trying to force them down. These are naturally disturbing circumstances. They breed in the farmer a lack of confidence, which is intensified by a feeling of insecurity of tenure to which I shall have to refer later. These things combined tempt him to play for safety; and by "safety" I mean whenever possible converting arable land into grass, and reducing so far as possible the amount of labour which he employs. Unfortunately for the State the farmer has the alternative of either arable or grass farming. I am speaking broadly now, of course. The comparative immunity from worries which attaches to grass farming very often has a fatal attraction for those who prefer a quiet life. This is reflected in the national Returns which show that since- 1918 there has been a reduction of over 450,000 acres of arable land, and, as your Lordships well know, there has been a reduction of over 3,000,000 acres since 1870.
Therefore, this Bill, in its first provisions, offers a system of guaranteed minimum prices for wheat and oats to the farmer, not in the interests of the farmer himself, and not as a subsidy to a particular industry, but in the interests of the nation as an insurance against the submarine. We think that it is of vital interest to the State that the farmer should be encouraged to maintain and, if possible, to increase his arable area, but it is obvious that this can only be done in the long run in time of peace by making it worth his while. I agree with those who say that wheat, or indeed any other crop, will not be grown unless it pays, and equally that it will be grown if it does pay. But how, under present conditions, is it possible for the average farmer to tell what the price is going to be twelve months ahead? Any one who has seen the fluctuations in the market during the last few months will realise who impossible it is, and that instability of the market is likely to con-

725
tinue for a long time while we are recovering from the world war. For this reason guarantees are proposed in this Bill, and for the first time they are based on the cost of production—a very important principle—and they are so calculated as, in our judgment, to protect the grower of wheat or oats from disastrous losses in case. there is a slump in the market, without at the same time guaranteeing him any profit.
The old guarantees under the Corn Production Act are generally admitted, I think, to be perfectly useless. They bear no relation whatsoever to the facts of to-day. The main reason they are useless is that they were not based upon, or made to vary with, the cost of production. It is obviously necessary, if there are to be, guarantees, that time scale should be brought up to date. A Royal Commission was appointed specifically for the purpose of going into the question of figures, and in this Bill the Government have accepted verbatim et literatim the figures recommended recently by the Royal Commission. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships by describing the actual system, as it is set forth very clearly in the first page of the Memorandum which is attached to the Bill. Consideration for your Lordships time restrains me from reading that passage, which I think could not be more clearly stated.
Some alarm has been expressed in certain quarters that these guarantees possibly may become effective, that the country may be called upon to pay them, and that thereby they will become a serious financial burden. If necessary that must be faced. Certainly these guarantees are not put into the Bill as mere camouflage which could under no circumstances ever cost the country anything. If so, they would be merely deluding the farmer into thinking that he could ever get assistance from them. I prefer to describe them as a national insurance premium at a very low rate compared with the risks which that premium covers. There is this comfort for those who are anxious about the cost, that if the world price drops below the guarantee, it is quite obvious that can only happen if the costs of production have dropped also, and that there must have been a drop in the essentials—cost of labour, manures, machinery, and so forth. As there is developing very rapidly a world movement in agricultural labour for levelling up not
726
only the wage but the conditions which prevail throughout the industry in different countries, I venture to say, if the prices abroad dropped substantially to anywhere below the guarantees, that a lower cost of production would follow in this country also, and in consequence the guarantees would automatically decline in sympathy under the scheme of the Bill. I must emphasise again that the guarantees are not intended in any way to ensure the farmer a profit, because they can never in any circumstances, under the scheme of the Bill, exceed, the bare average cost of production. Therefore farmers will never grow cereals simply for the sake of the guarantees, but we have confidence that the insurance against loss which these guarantees afford will encourage the growing of cereals whenever market conditions appear reasonably favourable. That is all we claim for the guarantees.
I need hardly say that the system of guarantees is not a casual inspiration on our part. It has been sanctioned by the highest expert authorities who have recently and repeatedly gone into the question. There was the Milner Committee on Food Production, the Selborne Reconstruction Committee, and lastly the Royal Commission. I do not know that I need say more at this stage in support of this system of guarantees except that they represent the only plan, I think, that has ever been suggested which will not increase the price of the loaf, and which will therefore not hit, at any rate in any direct way, the consumer of that necessity of life. But your Lordships will further note with regard to these guarantees that, although under the scheme of the Bill they are intended to be permanent (in so far as any Act of Parliament can be permanent), if Parliament should determine at a later date to terminate the scheme it must give four years' notice in order that farmers might have time to adjust their business to the changed conditions. If then the guarantees should be discontinued the whole of Part I of the Bill would go with them, including the Agricultural Wages Boards, and the other provisions of that part of the Bill.
The fixing of the guarantees each year will be undertaken by three Commissioners, whose duties are set forth in the Bill, and in regard to whom I only wish to say here that so far as I am aware they will be the only additional officials, except

727
possibly some temporary assistants to the crop reporters at certain seasons of the year, who will be created as a result of the machinery of this Bill. We have heard so much, in rhetorical objections to the Bill, about the hordes of new officials, mostly emanating from Whitehall, who are to be let loose on a suffering countryside as a result of the provisions of this Bill, that I thought it as well to refer to the actual facts of the case.
I will pass, if I may, to the more contentious portion of the Bill—Clause 4—which deals with powers to enforce proper cultivation. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the Bill as introduced in another place will recognise that this clause appears in a much simpler form, and without all that irritating cross-reference to other legislation which I freely admit disfigured the original draft of the Bill. The clause as it now stands, and as it passed the House of Commons, reproduces Clause 9 of the Corn Production Act but in a greatly modified and softened form, in so far as it affects the interests of both owners and occupiers. Before I come to any of the details I would like to state my reasons for asking your Lordships to accept such a clause at all. I say "such a clause" advisedly, because I do not pretend for a moment that this clause in its present form is a law of the Medes and Persians, incapable of any alteration, and so long as the principle is conceded I shall at a later stage, I need hardly say, be prepared to consider in a reasonable spirit any Amendments which would make the principle more acceptable to those affected, provided, of course, that they do not make the clause ineffective and useless. That portion of the powers which deals merely with the enforcement of good husbandry will, I imagine, meet with comparatively little disagreement from your Lordships. Your Lordships will see what is meant by "good husbandry" from the definition in Clause 30, which provides that the expression "rules of good husbandry" means "the rules of good husbandry generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood." I imagine that the provisions with regard to that will not be the subject of prolonged controversy, but I am aware that there is strong opposition to the continuance, even in the very modified form described in this clause, of any powers to the county agricultural committees to extend or even
728
maintain the existing arable areas. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that this may be the greatest difficulty that I shall have to face in your Lordships' House in my attempt to persuade you of the wisdom of these proposals, and as the matter is of vital importance I am anxious to face the question frankly and at once.
May I in this connection remind your Lordships once more that the immediate problem with which the Government is concerned in the national interest is how to arrest the rapid shrinkage of the arable area which has been going on since the conclusion of the war, and how to ensure in future a greater production of essential foodstuffs. The first remedy that we proposed for that is the guarantees to which I referred, coupled—and this is most important—with a free market for the produce, which will give the grower his fair chance of profit. But that is not enough, and I venture to say it would not be possible to ask the State to assume the financial risk which undoubtedly exists in these guarantees without at the same time retaining some power (and a very modified power it is) to ensure that the farmer performs his part of the bargain. I cannot assure your Lordships too strongly that there is no question or intention whatsoever of applying war methods to peace farming. At the same time it would be folly, I maintain, to ignore war experience in framing future policy. Merely to trust to the patriotism of farmers in this matter is surely not enough. Farmers are no less patriotic than any other section of the community, but in 1915–16 at a time of dire national need, when labour difficulties were much less acute than they became later, all the patriotism of the farmers did not produce any marked increase in the food supply of this country, nor did all their knowledge and industry in the forty years before the war prevent the shrinkage of our arable area by over 4½million acres and the reduction of our agricultural population by over 600,000. These facts have to be faced, and on these facts we have I venture to claim overwhelming authority for the proposals for the control of cultivation which are contained in the Bill.
May I refer again to the Report of the Selborne Committee and read a few extracts to your Lordships, because I rather resent the charge that this is a policy which has been invented by me on

729
the strength of my experience as Director-General of Food Production at a time when we had to consider nothing but how to avert starvation. These are extracts from the Report of the Selborne Committee—
"It must be explained to landowners, farmers' and agricultural labourers alike that the experience of this war has shown that the methods and results of land management and of farming are matters involving the safety of the State, and are not of concern only to the interests of individuals. They must be plainly told that the security and welfare of the State demand that the agricultural land of the country must gradually is, made to yield its maximum production both in foodstuffs and timber."
The Report goes on to say that—
"Much grass land must be reconverted into arable …We recommend that the State should fix a minimum wage for the ordinary agricultural labourer in each county, guarantee to t he farmer a minimum price for wheat and oats, and take steps … to secure the increase of production which is the object of the guarantee … Of the remaining grass land a large proportion could be ploughed up with advantage to the farmer, the landowners and the State. The interests of the State demand that more land should be put under the plough."
Further on it says—
"The policy which we recommend will be thoroughly unpopular with many landowners and farmers. They have turned their farms down to grass, they do not grow corn and do not wish to do so, and they do not ask for a guarantee; they will not like the idea of a minimum standard wage, and all they ask is to be left alone … If, however, they once understand that the policy in which they are asked to join is necessary for the safety and welfare of the nation, the State can, we believe, confidently rely upon their co-operation."
Finally, the Report says—
"But we recognise that, when once the State has embarked on such a policy as we recommend, for the sake of the nation's safety, it can run no avoidable risk of its failure. Neither the idio-syneracies, nor the incapacity, nor the lack of patriotism of individuals can be allowed to interpose even a partial barrier to the success of a national policy."
Those are strong words, my Lords. I notice that the Report is signed by many practical agricultural authorities, including my noble friend Lord Bledisloe.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The first part of it.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I am quoting at present from the first part only, which was signed by my noble friend. Language of almost equal strength was used in the Report of the Milner Committee, and stronger language still was used in favour of the control of cultivation by the
730
Royal Commission which reported last Christmas, the Majority Report of which was signed by, I think, every practical farmer that was a member of the Commission. Their recommendations went considerably further than anything which is proposed in this Bill, and the National Farmers' Union, which might have been a protesting body in this matter, alter the introduction of the Bill, and after our even stronger provisions were still in the draft, stated—
"This power to enforce proper cultivation is assumed in consideration of the guarantees given in regard to cereal prices. The National Farmers' Union accepts, subject to certain reservations, the decision of the Government in these matters in the belief that such decision was demanded in the interests of the gat on at large."
If the farmers through their accredited representatives, whether on these Committees or Commissions, or speaking for the National Farmer's Union, are prepared to accept the powers for the control of cultivation which are contained in this clause, I hardly think it is incumbent upon your Lordships to show yourselves plus royalist que le roi.
I can only assume that what critics and opponents genuinely fear in connection with these powers it, a possible resumption of some kind of grass ploughing campaign, such as was carried out on a wholesale scale in 1917 and 1918 at the greatest crisis of the war—carried out, I freely admit, under my own direction. From a letter written by very moderate and experienced authority that I read yesterday, I gather that there has even been a fear that the system of county quotas might be re-established. I can assure your Lordships on behalf of the Government that there is no such intention, nor is there any possibility of such a thing unless the very life of the nation were again at stake. If that is not clear in the Bill I am, as I say, perfectly willing to consider any reasonable Amendments which will make it more clear and afford the necessary safeguards. I do not want this issue to be prejudiced by what took place in 1917–18. If challenged I shall be prepared to defend up to the hilt what was done under stress of war and under my direction in that purely war-time campaign.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I sometimes hear it alleged that the whole of the work which was then done produced no food for

731
the nation, that land was destroyed and no food resulted. My Lords, I can only ask you to look at the official agricultural returns; not those dealing with acreage—I am not concerned with that—but with the actual weight of crops harvested, and you will find that as a result of that campaign we produced in the year 1918 52 per cent, more wheat, 41 per cent, more oats, 57 per cent, more potatoes, in realised bushels, than the average of the previous ten years, and that the total weight of this food was over 4½million tons, which, if it had had to be brought from overseas in the face of the submarines, would have needed the services of something like 875 ships of 5,000 tons apiece. That is, I think, a sufficient answer to those who say that that campaign was of no effect and was not justified by the results.
I admit that in the course of that campaign none of us who were concerned in directing it were restrained by considerations merely of good husbandry. The life of the nation was at stake; we were threatened with starvation; we had to get food at any cost, and the plough was driven relentlessly, though I venture to say, with due discrimination. There were mistakes, of course, but I have evidence to show they were certainly not more than 5 per cent, of the acreage that was ploughed, and in some cases, of course, the farmer had to go over the top and suffer casualties, like other people, in the death grapple in which we were engaged. I make no apologies whatever for what was done in that connection; indeed, I would have ploughed up the floor of your Lordships' House if that could in any way have assisted to defeat the submarines.
But, having said that, what I want to emphasise by way of contrast is that there can be no repetition of it, and, indeed, there are no such powers contained in the provisions of the present Bill. Indeed the powers of the county agricultural committees are so hedged round with restrictions of every sort and kind that the most effective criticism that I have heard made with regard to those powers is that they have been so whittled down that they would be comparatively ineffective. In the first place, the right of appeal is given in any and every case of an order—even an order with regard to good husbandry. Then, with regard to any order, the arbitrator to whom the appeal goes can only confirm the order if he is satisfied, first, that
732
it will not injuriously affect the interests of any persons connected with the land; secondly, that it will increase production; and, thirdly, that it will be in the national interest. Moreover, a very important Amendment was inserted in another place under which no order can in any circumstances be made which would interfere with the discretion of the farmer with regard to the crops that should be grown on a particular piece of land. Those are very severe limitations, and I notice that they are recognised as such in the very interesting and balanced legal examination of the Bill which was issued by the Central Land Association. It said—
"The Amendments now proposed do to some extent contract the powers originally granted. The measures of protection which have been introduced are undoubtedly of great value, whilst j the new powers, when closely analysed, lose soma of their first formidable appearance. The existence of the rights of appeal, even if seldom resorted to, exercise a wholesome influence."
And, as I have shown just now, the National Farmers' Union accept the modified powers for which I now ask.
And what is the alternative if they are not accepted? Is self-interest only to prevail in this matter? I can conceive that self-interest might possibly dictate the conversion of the whole of England into a grazing ranch. Then at any rate the timid farmer or landowner would be in one sense on velvet; he would be spared a very large proportion of his worries with labour, machinery, buildings, equipment, and so forth. But the national need would be entirely ignored, and after all the land of this country is limited and the nation is deeply concerned in the uses to which it is put. The occupation of land involves national obligations as well as individual self-interests.
This is not merely a question of the State seeking to exact a quid pro quo in connection with its offer of guaranteed minimum prices and a measure of increased security of tenure. It is true that the Bill is not designed in any sense as a measure of social reform, but incidentally, if passed, it may prevent a great injury to our social fabric. Every one admits, I suppose, that the maintenance, and indeed the increase, of our rural population his of vital importance, both from a political and a hygienic standpoint. But the substitution on a large scale of grass land for arable is a direct negative to that policy; it is not only opposed to the national interest but,

733
if persisted in, must have one, result—the creation of a new army of landless men who are skilled land workers and who, having lost their employment, will embark upon what, I venture to say, would prove an irresistible agitation for the breaking up of farms and for the nationalisation of the land. There have been rumbles of that already, and I am quite convinced that that tendency would not be in the interests either of farmers or of landowners. At the same time it is a contingency which cannot lightly be dismissed.
Under Clause 4 committees will also have the power to insist on the execution by the tenant or landlord, as the case may be, of repairs and works of maintenance which are essential to the proper cultivation of a holding. But against these powers, again, there is the right of appeal, and in case of default the penalty which stood in the original Corn Production Act—the much too severe penalty, as I considered it, of eviction from the holding—has been reduced to a small fine, or the committee may execute the work and recover the cost.
I have no doubt that in the course of the speeches in answer to mine one frequent objection that will be made will be that your Lordships do not possess the necessary confidence in the discretion of the county agricultural committees—which, of course, are not set up by this Bill, but which were set up under the Ministry of Agriculture Act. I have been concerned in scrutinising the list of those committees with immense care. I have seen every one of them, and I venture to say that on the whole, and with very few exceptions, they have been most carefully chosen and consist of highly responsible and representative men and women. There may be a few cases open to criticism. But after all, my Lords, the powers which are given to these committees in connection with this Bill are delegated powers only. If abused they can be Withdrawn; and I say unhesitatingly that so long as I hold my present office they will certainly be withdrawn it they are abused.
Personally, speaking for the committee in my own county, which is also the county of my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, I have the utmost confidence in their capacity and good sense. I had the honour of being their first chairman, and I know that my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire is an active member of that committee.
734
As an illustration of their diligence and impartiality, quite recently they hauled me over the coals in connection with a superfluity of weeds in certain fields for which I was responsible. I need hardly say I at once complied with their directions, but also I gladly kissed the rod which I had myself forged and wielded at an earlier date. I ask your Lordships to give reasonable confidence to these committees, upon which, I have no doubt, many of you are sitting—at any rate until they [trove themselves unworthy of that trust.
There is one other point in connection with Clause 4 to which I feel I ought to call attention, although I have no doubt it has not escaped the notice of your Lordships—that is the provision for dealing with an estate which is so grossly mismanaged as to impede the production of food in the national interest. Fortunately, that is a very rare evil, but where it occurs it is undoubtedly a great offence and scandal to the neighbourhood and a great hardship to the tenants affected; and it is necessary, I think, that the State should retain the power in the last resort to intervene in cases of that kind. The necessity was very strongly pressed upon the Government by the Report of the Selborne Committee, in paragraph 56. Experience, unfortunately, has shown me that there are a certain number of such cases. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Northbrook, if he were here, would agree with that remark in view of the difficulty which his own committee in Hampshire is having at the present time. Power to deal with such rare cases is badly needed, and I am sure of this, that these cases if brought before any tribunal of your Lordships would be more sternly condemned than they would be by any agricultural committee. But the powers, again, are hedged round with every kind of safeguard and restriction, including an appeal to the High Court in any case where it is sought to put these powers into force.
My Lords, the only other provisions in the first part of the Bill to which I will call your attention are the powers to order the destruction of noxious weeds, wherever situate—much-needed powers in some districts—also the provision which was inserted in another place at the last moment, in response to the unanimous and insistent demands of Welsh Members of all parties, for the extablishment of a separate Wages Board for Wales; and other minor

735
points which can be dealt with in committee. I feel I must apologise to your Lordships for the length at which I have dealt with this first part of the Bill, but I realise that it has excited and will excite much opposition in some quarters, and I am anxious, if I can, not only to give a full exposition but if possible to allay some of those apprehensions which have been expressed.
Now I come to Part II of the Bill, which deal; with the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Acts. The main purpose of this part of the Bill is, whilst preserving in all circumstances the right of the landlord to give notice to quit, and whilst steering clear of the evils of fixity of tenure and of dual ownership, to give those tenants who are farming properly a greater sense of security than they now enjoy, and to do that by compensating them fully in the event of their having to quit. We propose this not merely as a matter of justice, nor principally as a matter of justice, but because we regard it as essential in the national interest, that the good farmer should have sufficient encouragement to tempt him to embark his capital in increased production and to produce from his holding the maximum amount of food. I think there is comparatively little difference of opinion as to the reality and the extent of this evil. It was very clearly and adequately set forth by the chairman of the Central Land Association in the Report to the Annual General Meeting last year. He said—
"There has been a great unsettlement of the occupier owing to the great number of estates that have gone into the market; and, above all, to the practice, which personally I deplore, of giving wholesale notices to the tenants to quit in preparation for a sale. Now, that that. has produced unsettlement we cannot deny …Therefore when our friends of the National Farmers' Union put forward their proposals for what they call security, I suggest that we must examine those proposals with great respect, but in the light of the principles which I have laid down."
—those principles apparently being that there must be nothing which savours of fixity of tenure or dual ownership. I claim that in this part of the Bill we have avoided those two pitfalls to which the chairman referred, and that at any rate these proposals do represent what I have ventured to call reasonable corn-promise which was negotiated and come to between the authorised representatives of the National Farmers' Union and a group of very influential landlords—namely, the
736
leaders of the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, who have generally been looked upon as the most authoritative representatives of agricultural opinion in that House. I am aware that at a later stage, although they themselves held to the compromise which they had negotiated, they found that some of those who had previously acted with them had broken away from it. But it does represent a compromise which I believe is fair, and in any case it has been adopted by the Government as offering a reasonable sense of security to the farmer who is not in default and who is farming his holding properly. On the other hand, the provisions of this part of the Bill extend no such consideration to the bad or defaulting tenant. Indeed, the Bill provides special facilities for getting rid of any such with less difficulty than formerly.
If I may summarise in a sentence the purpose which we have in view in this part of the Bill, it is to make it easy to get rid of a bad tenant, while making it difficult or at any rate expensive to get rid of a good one. I do not believe that the good landlords—and they are in a great majority—have anything to fear from this portion of the Bill. From the way in which it has been denounced in some quarters one might really imagine that it was the ambition of landlords to get rid of their good tenants on every possible occasion, and that this Bill in some way proposed unfairly to thwart them. As a matter of fact, as between the good landlord and the good tenant these compensation clauses will hardly ever come into effect, whilst on the other hand they do constitute a much needed and effective protection to the good tenant against the rare case of the harsh, oppressive, and capricious landlord.
The benefits of this portion of the Bill are not by any means confined to tenants. For the first time, under this clause, a simple and friendly procedure is provided by which either the landlord or the tenant can secure a revision of rent without having to have recourse to a Land Court or even of notice to quit. It is notorious that a great portion of the land of this country is greatly under-rented; both tenants and landlords know it. But under existing conditions the best landlords, particularly, shrink from trying to force an increase of rent from long-established tenants by the only available means, which is giving notice to quit. This is

737
unfair to the landlord. As a result he is prevented by financial considerations from discharging his full obligations to the tenant and to the holding, and in the last resort, I am afraid in numberless cases, he is forced to sell. Under the provisions of this clause it will be possible for a landlord to secure a reasonable increase of rent without disturbing his tenant and without incurring the odium which undoubtedly attaches at present to giving notice to quit for this purpose; whilst conversely the over-rented tenant—I think he is an exceedingly rare bird—if he can establish his case, will be able to secure a revision by arbitration whilst still remaining in possession of his holding. Those are, in brief, the main provisions of Clause 8 which I am well aware will come under minute examination when we reach Committee stage.
I know that the whole of Part-II of the Bill treads on very delicate ground and that in bringing it forward I am embarking on the battlefield of old controversies and embittered fights. I am not doing this merely for the love of trouble. I am doing it solely from a deep conviction that a settlement of this burning question is long overdue, that it is demanded not only in the interests of the State, but in the interests of all parties affected, and that the present is almost a unique opportunity for coming to a fair settlement—an opportunity which may never occur again. It should count for something that this measure has been approved by a Cabinet consisting of representatives of the two great Parties in the State, and that you have at the present time a Minister of Agriculture who is profoundly convinced of the evils both of fixity of tenure and dual ownership and who is irrevocably opposed to both. My successor might think differently; but certainly I feel that never before has there been such a large measure of agreement and goodwill amongst moderate and influential men of both sides as there is at the present. Therefore, perhaps greatly daring, I have endeavoured to build a golden bridge between the two interests concerned, and in doing so have tried to steer a straight course between the Scylla of dual ownership and the Charybdis of nationalisation.
That the desire for a settlement is widespread and sincere no one will deny. It was voiced very clearly by the Central Chamber in last year's Report; by the Surveyors Institution, the Land Agents
738
Society, the Central Land Association, the National Farmers Union (with the representatives of all of which I have consulted freely), and also by many individuals and distinguished authorities, such as my predecessor, Lord Ernie. It is quite unnecessary for me to labour the desire for settlement. That it admitted. My task will be to justify not so much the principle as the details of the Rill with regard to this point and to make them as acceptable to your Lordships as I can. Clause 8, which I know is vital, contains numerous safeguards for landlords against any abuse of its provisions. It provides a power to withdraw a notice to quit in lieu of paying compensation. It limits compensation to that portion of the holding, if it is only a fraction, which is taken away, and, what is most important., it enables a landlord to get rid of a bad tenant without compensation for disturbance if he secures from the county committee a certificate that the tenant has been farming badly.
Those are the more important and contentious portions of Part II, and it is only consideration for your Lordships' time that prevents me from dealing with details on other points. I may call attention, however, to Clause 9, which provides compensation for disturbance for allotment holders. Clause 10, applies to cottages held under a farmer by agricultural labourers the same principle of compensation for disturbance as is adopted in the Bill with regard to holdings. That, again, is hedged about by numerous restrictions and safeguards which will prevent any real hardship on a tenant who gets rid of a labourer under those conditions. Clause 11 places tenants who hold upon lease for a. term of years on the same footing as yearly tenants as regards compensation for disturbance, and leases will automatically continue in force as yearly tenancies unless they are terminated by notice to quit.
There is an important clause under which, if a tenant is unable to secure the consent of his landlord to an improvement which is essential to the good cultivation of the holding, he can refer the matter to an arbitrator or to the county committee, and if they are of opinion that the improvement should be made they may authorise that, when made by the tenant, it shall rank with other matters for compensation.
Then there is an important provision for extending what is known as the Evesham custom in connection with market gardens

739
generally all over the country. Another clause, which I have no doubt will be closely criticised by your Lordships, gives the tenant power to recover such compensation as represents the benefit accruing to the holding for the continuous adoption of a standard or system of farming higher than that which is required by the contract of tenancy or by custom, providing that a record of the holding has been made. That is based on the advice of the Selborne Committee and has been pressed upon the Government in an authoritative way. Further, there are clauses for protecting the landlord's position under which he can claim compensation in the event of any deterioration of the holding by a tenant. Clause 19 explains how the panel of arbitrators is appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. That was the result of a compromise in another place. Clause 26 provides that the tenancy of an agricultural holding shall not be determined by a notice to quit of less than twelve months except in certain specified cases.
I feel that I have made such a demand upon your Lordships' time that you will not wish me, on the occasion of the Second Reading, to deal with any further details of the Bill. I hope that in the arguments I have put forward I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that in framing and introducing this measure the Government have not been actuated by any other motive than a passionate desire to stimulate production and—whilst doing nothing to injure any section of the industry but rather to further its interest on the lines which have been pressed upon the Government—to establish agriculture in its proper place as one of the first lines of our national defence. This Bill cannot be fairly described as a farmer's charter; still less as a landlord's scourge. It is, if anything, a consumer's insurance. This, at any rate, is the object of the Government's policy, and if, and in so far as, it fails to find adequate expression in the Bill I have no doubt your Lordships will advance suggestions to make it more effective. To any proposals of that kind which are put forward in a constructive spirit and which will not destroy the vitals of the Bill, I need hardly say we shall give the most earnest consideration.
I fully recognise that in your Lordships' House I am addressing a body of experts who are peculiarly interested in these matters, and therefore it is not only my
740
duty, but my desire, to give special weight to your views. At the same time I must make it plain that the scheme and the whole policy of the Bill rest upon three main legs. It may be possible slightly to lengthen or shorten them, but if any one of them be so drastically cut as to make the structure topple over, then obviously the Bill cannot survive. I am quite unwilling to contemplate such an outcome in view of the disastrous blow that would be given to the foundations of our national security—a cause on behalf of which I do not believe any appeal has ever been made to your Lordships in vain. We really cannot afford to disregard what is one of the most striking lessons of the war, merely, if I may say so, to gratify my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire who, in a public letter that he wrote a day or two ago, spoke as if this debate were a sort of opportunity for a day's rabbiting in which he would have, as he said, a sporting chance to knock on the head a Bill which I venture to claim in its essence is a first-class measure of national insurance against perils the reality and gravity of which have been so recently and forcibly brought home to every one of your Lord-slops.
If any further support were needed for the case I have endeavoured to make this afternoon I would ask your Lordships to recall and consider the official opinion of the Board of Admiralty communicated to the Selborne Committee and printed at the end of their Report. The Admiralty said—
"The submarine attack on the overseas food supply of the Unit, d Kingdom has thrown a great additional strain upon the Navy in the present war. The Navy has so far been able to keep this submarine attack in check, but no means have yet been discovered to render sea-borne traffic immune from attack. Consequently any effective steps to make this country less dependent upon the importation of the necessities of life in the present war would result in a great reduction of anxiety. The certain development of the submarine may render such vessels still more formidable as weapons of attack against sea-borne commerce in a future war, and no justification exists for assuming that anything approaching entire immunity can be obtained. Therefore the experience of the present war leads to the conclusion that any measures which resulted in rendering the United Kingdom less dependent on the importation of foodstuffs during the period of a future war, and so in reducing the volume of seaborne traffic, would greatly relieve the strain upon the Navy and add immensely to the national security."
That is the opinion of the Board of Admiralty.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: What date was that?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: 1917. How great that strain was is brought home to me by information which I have received since that during the later stages of the war there were seldom more than eight or nine German submarines operating around our coast at any one time, and yet to deal with these the. Navy maintained, actually patrolling in the Irish Sea, at one time an average of 2,500 vessels. Still they were quite unable to give us security or to prevent daily and disastrous sinkings. It has been estimated that in actual money losses and naval expenses the sinking of every one of these German submarines cost us not less than £20,000,000. And that quite apart from loss of life. At one period undoubtedly our overseas supplies of food were within very measurable distance of complete severance.
If that was the extent of the peril in 1918, who can set a limit to what that peril may be in any future emergency, or the extent to which we may have to rely for our very existence upon home-produced food. Certainly we cannot depend upon another improvisation to save us in a situation of that kind. That is the main justification for this Bill, and so profoundly convinced am I that there is a vital need for legislation on these lines that I could not face the responsibilities of my present office unless Parliament sanctioned some measure of this sort in an effective form. My experience of public life, like that of my noble friend Lord Selborne, has been very largely bound up in naval and agricultural business, and never before has their interdependence been so vividly apparent. I hope, therefore, that I may be forgiven if, as my last word, I venture slightly to paraphrase the ancient and historic preamble of the naval articles of war and say, "It is expedient to amend the law relating to the government of the Navy, and of Agriculture, whereon, under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety, and strength of this Kingdom do chiefly depend." I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, debate adjourned until Tuesday of next week.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the object of this Bill, which for practical purposes is only a one-clause Bill, is to stop a leak which was caused by my friend Mr. Runciman. Perhaps I had better refer to the particular section of the Act which it is proposed to amend by this Bill. It is the Act of 1896, which amended the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and the particular provision which I objected to is contained in subsection (b) which says—
"… foreign animals intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes, and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Board subject to the provisions of Part 11 (quarantine) of the Thu 0 Schedule of this Act."
Mr. Runciman took upon himself to introduce a precedent. It had always been regarded by Presidents of the Board of Agriculture that the Amending Act, to which I have referred, strictly confined itself to animals for exhibition, or animals coining under a special category, such as bringing in some specimen to the Zoological Gardens. It was not regarded as covering cattle brought in for commercial purposes, as was done by Mr. Runciman. In 1914 he brought in a large importation of Friesian cattle at, I am credibly informed, a very great advantage to those concerned. I am told that they made a profit of £10,000. At the same time there were considerable risks by reason of the animals having to go into quarantine, though that is denied. There is not only the risk of foot and mouth disease, but there is also the risk of pleuro-pneumonia, which is one of the most difficult diseases to diagnose, the animal having to be in a serious condition before it can be ascertained to be suffering from that disease.
Mr. Runciman set a precedent, having discovered that he could take advantage of a particular subsection of the Act—a subsection which, I contend, was only intended to be used in exceptional circumstances. There was a great outcry about it in agricultural circles at the time. I remember that Mr. Walter Long and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes were very indignant about it, but owing to the war nothing was done

743
at that time. Then my noble friend Lord Ernie, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, went one better even than Mr. Runciman in this matter, and declared quite openly, as regards Canadian cattle, that he had an absolute right by the stroke of his pen, if he so wished, to introduce Canadian stores into this country.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Never.
LORD STRACHIE: My noble friend shakes his head, but he was not present when this question was discussed. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that what I say is correct.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Lord Ernie admitted that it would require fresh legislation.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg my noble friend's pardon; it was nothing of the kind. I have just refreshed my memory about it, and he certainly took the view that I have indicated. If my noble friend will look up the report of the Colonial Conference he will find that Lord Ernie said that he had power to do it without legislation. Again, we have the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture continuing what Mr. Runciman began, and giving permission this year for the importation of Friesian cattle. When my noble friend the Minister of Agriculture was questioned regarding that he said that he was doing it as he had a right to do it. Apparently there is a right to do it, and therefore I have brought forward this Bill. No Minister, however, (lid it until Mr. Runciman set the precedent, to which Lord Ernie went one better, and the example of which the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture is following.
What does this Bill do? It simply provides that if the Minister for the time being desires to allow cattle to be introduced into this country, as has been done by Mr. Runciman and by the noble Lord opposite, he would simply have to give public notice in the Gazette of his intention to do so. Cattle then could not be smuggled into the country, as they were in 1914, without public notice. I am told that the Board of Trade returns did not show that those cattle were brought in, and it was only discovered by accident. This Bill provides that public notice should be given, and that the Order must be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament so that there may be an opportunity to
744
Members of Parliament, if they think fit, to state any objections that there may be to these cattle being brought in.
The Bill does not prejudice the Minister. He can make an Order to bring in cattle, but only under the conditions which I have indicated. I do not see why your Lordships should not be ready to approve of this Bill. Its object is to take the power out of the hands of the Minister, and to give it to Parliament, of saying whether cattle should be imported or not into this country. I think that many of your Lordships will agree that in these days it is very necessary that Ministers should be restricted because, as has been truly said, the present House of Commons simply does what it is told. Certainly Ministers exercise much greater power and authority than they used to do, and are much less checked by Parliament. Ministers should be the servants of Parliament and not its masters.
I am introducing this Bill on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. If the Houses of Parliament have no objection then, as a matter of course, cattle can be imported and no one would be the worse. On the other hand, if there is a strong feeling against it in the country Parliament will have the right to stop the importation. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further upon the merits of the Bill. It is probably enough to say that it has the support of all the agricultural societies, from the Royal Agricultural Society of England down to the smallest societies. All have passed resolutions strongly opposed to the importation of cattle under the provision which has been taken advantage of by my noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham and by Mr. Runciman. The noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture cannot quote a single society as having passed a resolution in favour of retaining the provision under which he has acted. I do not think he can even get his friends the Farmers' Union to support him, although he has lately given us a Bill on their behalf. The agriculturists of this country are most anxious to see this power taken out of the hands of the Minister and put under the control of Parliament, which alone can be the judge whether it is right that our flocks and herds should run the enormous risk of infection from flocks and herds imported from abroad. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—Lord Strachie.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so not only as a member of the business committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which is responsible for the Bill, but also as president of the Bath and West of England Society, and as president of the Dairy Farmers' Association. I am bound to say that those organisations regard with considerable apprehension the stretching of the discretion of the Minister which lie is authorised to exercise and is intended to exercise in a very limited degree by the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896. All that we are asking in this Bill is that the authority given by the Minister shall not be given in a secret or clandestine way, but that it shall be made known to the public through the channels mentioned by my noble friend, and through the medium of Parliament before the actual importation takes place. The case to which my noble friend Lord Strachie referred might have been a very serious one, when Mr. Runciman authorised the introduction of animals from a country in which foot-and-mouth disease was certainly prevalent at the time; I cannot say about the other serious contagious diseases. Fortunately although the importation was considerable the precautions taken apparently had the effect of preventing any serious results. But a risk was involved, a risk which I venture to suggest to your Lordships in the light of past history we cannot securely face.
I do not think I should be wrong in suggesting to the noble Lord—I am sure he will not contradict it—that although We all realise, I hope, the enormous importance of raising more bread-stuffs in this country, as he has been urging this afternoon, it is the livestock of this country that has been the sheet-anchor and the very backbone of agriculture during the last thirty years, and enabled us during the period of the war to provide within our own shores something like 50 per cent. and upwards of the meat required for consumption in this country. It is a matter in which we can take no risk, and, whatever is done under the authority of the Minister which was originally intended to apply only to exhibition animals after proper safeguards had been taken, we should not, owing to the secret exercise of this discretion, run serious risks to that section of British agriculture which has been the very backbone of the industry in which we are interested. I beg to support the Motion
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: May I, in the first place, express my obligation to my noble friend Lord Strachie for having kindly postponed the moving of this Bill until after I had got through my heavier task and I am afraid exhausted most of my voice in so doing. Having done that, I do not think I can altogether thank him for the tone of the speech which he has just delivered It seems to be animated in almost equal proportions by a dislike, not of myself personally, but of all Ministers of Agriculture and a deep distrust of any of their acts.
LORD STRACHIE: Only since 1914.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: That is a long time, and a good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then. He seeks in effect by this Bill to substitute for the administrative discretion which has been conferred under the Minister by Parliament the direct intervention of either House of Parliament in a matter which is really one of administrative detail. That is a very unusual procedure to suggest, and is certainly not one which I am prepared to accept. I think it is the harder, if I may say so, in that it is directed against me in particular, because I have taken a somewhat rigid and unyielding view with regard to the importation of cattle under any conditions which could possibly be a menace to the flocks and herds in this country.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I have been considerably pressed, even attacked, for so doing. I believe I am still under the concentrated fire of a widely-read newspaper in this particular connection, and for your Lordships to take this opportunity of expressing your complete lack of confidence in my power to exercise in any reasonable way powers with which I have been invested by Act of Parliament savours a little bit of what I might call ingratitude. From my noble friend Lord Strachie's indictment, which grew in vehemence as he proceeded, one would almost have thought that there had been an uninterrupted flow of diseased animals pouring into this country ever since 1914, I think the date is, as the result of the clandestine and secret connivance and almost at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture of the day.

747
I am sorry to have to prick that particular bubble, because on looking at the actual facts I find that since the first Act came into force in 1894 there have been only two occasions in which any animals have been introduced which could in any way have come into subsequent contact with home farmed stock. The first occasion was in 1904, when thirteen goats were brought from France by the British Goat Society. The second was in 1914, when sixty Holstein cattle were brought from Holland. The other animals imported under the authority of the Act so far have consisted entirely of zoological specimens and a few animals brought in for special experimental purposes. I believe there is the exception of a pet pig which was landed from the German warship "Dresden" and a goat which was found in Gallipoli and brought to this country by His Majesty's ship "Prince George"; otherwise there has been in effect the most rigid exclusion of animals under this section, and successive Ministers of Agriculture have exercised their discretionary power in a way which I venture to say has been completely satisfactory.
What my noble friend Lord Strachie now asks is that in a matter of purely administrative procedure I should first of all advertise my intentions in I do not know how many newspapers and gazettes; that I should then come down here and lay the proposal on the Table in both Houses of Parliament, and if the House is not sitting—perhaps it might not be sitting for six months—the whole of this discretion should be withheld, although as his Bill is framed I am not at all sure that I should not retain the power to order the admission of these animals and then in six months' time, when Parliament took the matter up, they would put upon me the task of getting rid of these invaders. I feel that my noble friend Lord Strachie is afraid of a shadow which really has no substance.
The conditions under which alone any animals can be imported except for purely zoological purposes are now so rigid that I venture to say there is not the smallest risk of the importation of disease under the restrictions which are imposed. I have no doubt that he has in his mind—indeed he referred to it, I think—the permission which I gave some time ago for the importation of a limited number of highly exceptional animals (Friesian cattle) in response to the very strong recommendation of the Committee on the Production and
748
Distribution of milk, but so rigid did I make those conditions that so far not a single Friesian, like the camel, has succeeded in getting through the eye of a needle—there has not been a single importation under those provisions, and I shall be greatly surprised if the permission is taken advantage of effectively to any material extent. And in the meantime I am just as persuaded as are my noble friends—for, after all, the odium of outbreaks falls largely upon the Ministry for which I am responsible—of the vital importance, not only in the interests of the Ministry but of the whole country, of doing nothing which could possibly endanger our flocks and herds. But to say in effect, as this Bill does, "We do not trust you; we consider that the discretion which was given you by Parliament ought to be taken away by Parliament, and you are in effect, therefore, unfitted for your position" is something which I cannot be prepared to accept with any warmth, and certainly I am not prepared on behalf of the Government to accept this Bill which my noble friend has moved.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we all feel, I think, that it is a little hard upon the noble Lord opposite, after the very clear and necessarily long speech which he had to deliver on the previous Bill, once more to have to rise and reply to my noble friend in respect to this other measure. But at the same time I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord's reply will be heard with some disappointment by many of your Lordships. The noble Lord has, I fear, taken this too much as a purely departmental and personal matter, as though mistrust were entertained against him in respect to the importation of cattle. That really is not so, because in the particular case to which the noble Lord last alluded, that of the importation of Friesian cattle, he will quite well remember that when some of us representing the agricultural societies attended at the Board of Agriculture on that very subject we were all highly sensible of the care which he personally desired to exercise in the matter, and we expressed our thanks in that regard. But the noble Lord does not, I think, quite realise what the strength of feeling is in this matter on the part of agriculturists. At the Central Chamber of Agriculture, for instance—I happen to be chairman of it this year, and my two I noble friends are both prominent members,

749
as your Lordships know—there was a unanimous desire that this question should be dealt with by the means which my noble friend has formulated in his Bill. I am certain I can say the same of the Shorthorn Society, of which I happen also to be an official at this moment.
I think the noble Lord, on the contrary, ought to consider himself somewhat complimented, rather than the reverse, by the fact of this Bill being introduced. He may remember that in the course of his speech on the Agriculture Bill he threw out some almost lurid suggestion as to the course which a possible successor to his office might take with regard to compensation and such matters. I do not mind saying from my own personal conviction that, so long as the noble Lord is Minister of Agriculture, I feel convinced that he will desire to hedge about this power of import with the same close restrictions which he has applied in the case of the Friesian cattle, of the necessity of which he is, I am certain, convinced. But we do not know that his successor would act with the same necessary degree of caution.
And considering how tremendous is the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
possible risk in comparison with the advantage to be gained by this occasional importation of selected animals, I cannot see why the noble Lord should regard it as such a severe imputation upon his Department that he is merely asked to do what all Ministers are from time to time asked to do—namely to lay on the Table of the House proposals, it being understood that in a great number of cases they pass with the silent sanction of Parliament, and that it is only in the exceptional case of a breach of what is desirable and proper that Parliament would interfere with the administrative discretion of the Minister. I wish, therefore, twat the noble Lord had agreed to accept the Motion of my noble friend for the Second Reading. If my noble friend proceeds to a Division I shall feel bound—and I cannot help thinking that many of your Lordships closely interested in agriculture will also feel bound—to support him.
On Question, whether the Bill should be read 2a?—
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Sandwich, E,

Erskine, L.

Wellington, D

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Crewe, M.

Strafford, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Lincolnshire, M. (Lord Great Chamberlain.)

Faringdon, L.

Allendale, V.

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

M. Bangor, V.

Islington L

Linlithgow, E.

Harcourt, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kitore.)

Ancaster, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Devon, E.

Askwith, L.

Parmoor, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Baccleuch and Queensberry.)

Bledisloe, L.

Rotherham, L.

de Mauley, L.

Shandon, L.

Midleton, E.

Denman, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Desborongh, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sydenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Cave, V.

Hylton, L.

Chilston, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Bradford, E.

Finlay, V.

Meston, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Milner, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Eldon, E.

Phillimore, L

Harewood, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia)

Lucan, E

Buckmaster, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lytton, E.

Cawley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller]

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
LORD SHAW: My Lords, I desire to offer a few observations with regard to this measure. I think the House is to be con-

751
gratulated upon the Bill having been introduced, pushed forward so pluckily, and brought to this stage by my noble friend opposite. The House will probably remember with me what an hereditary interest my noble friend has in this measure. I may say, speaking with some experience of Scotland and of the inside of the Scottish Office—I may ask the forgiveness of my noble friend for saying this—that the services of his noble and distinguished father are remembered with extreme gratitude mid affection both inside the House and throughout the whole of the country, and this Bill has very worthily fallen into his hands. The Bill is much overdue. Its object is simply to add another to the principal Secretaries of State, that other officer being the Secretary for Scotland.
It is almost impossible to show to the outside world what are the multiform duties of that officer, and I do not propose to do so; but I would say that during the war I know of no office of old standing which has so manfully and capably risen to the numerous demands made upon it. This is not a measure introduced in order to provide for a temporary purpose. It is a measure which depends upon its own merits, and, as I have said, the Bill is long overdue. I desire to make a definite appeal to the Government upon this subject. A great opportunity offered in the year 1917 when the Air Ministry was constructed under Statute. Then an addition of one was made to the principal. Secretaries of State, and I do not think it would have been out of place to have seized that opportunity to add this overdue appointment. That opportunity was passed by. Undoubtedly there were causes arising out of the exigencies of the time which might excuse that. But the fact is that not only is this not a Bill providing for a temporary alleviation of things which occur now and disappear next year, but that every year of the history of the Scottish Office the duties are increased and enhanced.
I may mention to your Lordships only one item which will convince the House of how very serious is the position of the Secretary for Scotland if he is not upon a level with the other Secretaries of State. One of the principal functions of the Secretary for Scotland is not only to watch the development of and demand for legislation in that country, but to watch also the development and progress of legislation
752
Therefore the relations of the Scottish Office with the Home Office are daily and in many cases hourly, and when great Bills are passed emanating from the Home Office and affecting the welfare of the English people you will see towards the close of those Bills very often a reference to the application of those measures to Scotland. The length, or rather I should say the lack of length, of that reference gives no indication whatever to the labour involved. The two systems of jurisprudence are entirely unlike. In land, in succession, in many parts of the administration a separate code of legislation would be required but for the watchful and the daily and hourly care of this distinguished officer the Secretary for Scotland. He has to meet on a level the Home Secretary and other Secretaries of State, and I wish to testify that I have never in all my experience known a more capable or a more distinguished or able service rendered to the State than by the present holder of that great office.
I make an appeal to the Government for this reason. I hear that there are two dangers affecting the Bill. The first danger is that it may be mixed up with other questions as to other appointments and what, rank they should have. My Lords, this is a case on its own merits and deserves to be treated on its own merits and ought not to be smothered in that manner. In the second place I hear that it is possible that the ordinary and familiar device of remitting this to a Committee, perhaps along with other kindred topics, may be resorted to. There is no occasion and no excuse for that. I wish to say quite emphatically and plainly, from my experience of my country and my experience of years of the Office, that this little bit of legislation, so simple and so urgent, ought not to be further avoided, and I appeal to the Government to assist its passage into law.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I can only say how touched I am that the noble and learned Lord should associate the name of my late father with my own humble and obscure efforts in relation to this Bill. I should be doing myself less than justice if I allowed the House to think that it was nothing to me to urge in your Lordships' House, and in an Assembly in which my father had so

753
many friends, the claims of an Office that was once filled by him. Of the many stories of my father which I treasure, this is one—that while he held the office of Secretary for Scotland, and when there was under his consideration the claims of various persons for some minor posts, he turned to his adviser and asked only this question, "What is best for Scotland?" If I may say so without pretentiousness that is the way I have honestly attempted to regard this question. Your Lordships recently gave a Second Reading to a Bill touching Ireland which made no small claim on the Imperial revenue. It was the fear that a noisy disloyalty might be preferred to staunch and manly cooperation that prompted me to take the course I have. The Lord Chancellor, when this question was first mooted in your Lordships' House, recommended me to mobilise the persuasive forces of my countrymen. I have done my best to do so, but still there is in the Government some element, I know not what, that remains obdurate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the House has passed the Third Reading of his Bill and as there is no question before the House now, does the noble Marquess really think it necessary to enter on the question of the propriety of the Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I recognise that I failed to take advantage of my opportunity, and that I have no right to ask the House for any consideration in the matter. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Regulations for employment of women and young persons in processes involving use of lead compounds.
2.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to employ in any process involving the use of lead compounds any woman or young person, if the process is such that lead dust or lead fume is produced therein or the persons employed therein
754
are liable to be splashed with any lead compound in the course of their employment, unless the following regulations are complied with as respects all women and young persons employed:—

(a) Provision must be made for drawing away from the parsons employed any lead dust or lea.1 fume by means of an efficient exhaust draught so contrived as to operate on the dust or fume as nearly as may be at its point of origin:

(b) The persons employed must undergo the prescribed medical examination at the prescribed intervals, and the prescribed record must be kept with respect to their health:

(c) No food, drink, or tobacco shall be brought into or consumed in any room in which the process is carried on, and no person shall be allowed to remain in any such room during meal times:

(d) Adequate protective clothing in a clean condition shall be provided by the employer and worn by the persons employed:

(e) Suitable cloak rooms and mess rooms, and such washing accommodation as may be prescribed, shall be provided for the use of the persons employed:

(f) The rooms in which the persons are employed, end all tools and apparatus used by them, shall be kept in a clean condition.

(2) It shall not be lawful for any person to employ in any process involving he use of lead compounds any woman or young person who has been suspended after medical examination from employment in any such process on the ground that continuance therein would involve special danger to health.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "lead dust or lead fume" and to insert "dust or fume from a lead compound." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the next Amendments on the Paper are being proposed after consultation with my noble friend opposite and the London Chamber of Commerce.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("lead dust or lead fume") end insert ("dust or fume from a lead compound").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF OINSLOW THE EARL OF OINSLOW moved to delete from subsection (1) (a)"Provision must be made for drawing away from the persons employed any lead, dust., or lead fume," and to insert "Where dust or fume from a lead compound is produced in the process provision must be made for drawing the fume or dust away from the persons employed."
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("Provision must be made for drawing away from the persons employed any lead, dust, or lead fume") and insert ("Where dust or fume from a lead compound is produced in the process provision must be made for drawing the fume or dust away from the persons employed").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to delete from subsection (1) (e) "Suitable cloakrooms, mess-rooms and such" and to insert "Such suitable cloak-rooms, mess-room and."
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out ("suitable cloak-rooms, mess-rooms and such") and insert ("such suitable cloak-room, mess-room and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to take samples.
3.—(1) Where an inspector under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, suspects that any substance used or intended for use in any process in which women or young persons are employed contains a lead compound, he may at any time take for analysis sufficient samples of that substance.
(2)If the occupier of the factory or workshop in which any such process is carried on refuses to allow an inspector to take samples in pursuance of this section, or to give him facilities for the purpose, he shall be guilty of obstructing the inspector in the execution of his duties under the said Act:
Provided that the occupier of a factory may, at the time when a sample is taken under this section, and on providing the necessary appliances, require the inspector to divide the sample into two parts and to mark and seal and deliver to him one such part.
(3)In this section the expression "occupier of a factory or workshop" includes any person employing a woman or young person in any process involving the use of lead compounds in any place other than a factory or workshop.
(4)A certificate purporting to be a certificate by the Principal Chemist of the Government Laboratory as to the result of an analysis of a sample under this section shall in any proceedings under this Act be evidence of the matters stated therein, unless either party requires the person by whom the analysis was made to be called as a witness.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection—
"(5) It shall not be lawful for any person, except in so far as is necessary for the purposes of a prosecution for an offence under this Act, to publish or disclose to any person the results of an analysis made under this Act.
756
"If any person acts in contravention of the provisions of this subsection he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Interpretation.
6.In this Act—
The expression "young person" means a person who is under the age of eighteen years;
The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State, and the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) and subsections (4), (6), and (7) of section seven of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, shall apply with respect to orders made under this Act as they apply with respect to orders made under that section;
The expression "lead compound" means any compound of lead, or any mixture containing any such compound, which would, if treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, yield in solution such an amount of lead compound as would, if converted into lead monoxide, exceed five per cent. of the weight when dry of the amount of the compound or mixture so treated, but does not include an alloy containing lead:
Tests for the purpose of ascertaining whether any compound or mixture is a lead compound within the meaning of this Act shall be made in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW had Amendments on the Paper altering the wording of the interpretation of the expression "lead compound" to read as follows—
"The expression lead compound means any soluble compound of lead which is declared by order of the Secretary of State to be a lead compound for the purposes of this Act, and includes a mixture containing any such compound, but does not include an alloy containing lead."
Amendments also stood in the noble Earl's name with the object of making the last paragraph of Clause 6 read as follows—
"The method of ascertaining whether any compound mixture is a lead compound within the meaning of this Act shall be such as the Secretary of State may prescribe."
The noble Earl said: These Amendments have received very careful consideration with my noble friend opposite and with the representatives of the London Chamber of Commerce and others. Two alternatives were submitted; one was to embody in the text of the Bill the whole of the

757
salient features of the test for lead compounds in solution at present applied by the Pottery Regulations. It was held that this test has been in operation for a considerable time and was thoroughly satisfactory, and therefore it would be desirable to make it permanent by embodying it in an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, it was urged that scientific discoveries might lead in the future to the recommendation of modifications in the test in question, and if the methods of the test were embodied in a Statute considerable difficulty would be met with in altering them; in fact, the only way would be by the passage of a fresh Act of Parliament. This for obvious reasons would be a dilatory and unsatisfactory method, and it was held that the definition of soluble lead compound, and the method of determining whether a substance is or is not a lead compound under the Act might be better effected by an Order of the Secretary of State as is at present the case in the Pottery Regulations.
It should be clearly understood that these Regulations can only be altered after careful examination and the full assurance that those interested have every opportunity of representing their views to the Secretary of State and may raise any objections or modifications that may occur to them before any change can be put into operation. It was felt that in principle this safeguard was all that was necessary no the circumstances, and that therefore me would be better to frame the clause as amended leaving the method by which definition of lead compounds was to be arrived at to be prescribed by an Order of the Secretary of State as is done in the Pottery Regulations. This is approved of by all those interested in the subject. should add that the test which I ventured to quote during the Committee stage of this Bill has the entire approval of all those interested in the processes in question, and that there is no intention whatever of making any change in it. But should in future any change become desirable it would be possible to effect that change by the means of an alteration in the Regulations and not to have recourse to a fresh Act of Parliament.
Amendments moved—
Clause 6, page 4, line 8, after ("any") insert ("soluble")
Clause 6, page 4, line 9, leave out from ("load") to ("but") in line 14, and insert ("which is declared by order of the Secretary of State to be a load compound for the purposes of
758
this Act, and includes a mixture containing any such compound")
Clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out ("tests for the purpose") and insert ("the method")
Clause 6, page 4, line 18, leave out ("made in such manner") and insert ("such as").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ASKWITH: As the noble Earl has said, these Amendments have been reached after long conferences in committee with the consent of all parties who were present. Their importance is apparent to those conversant with the subject, and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether it is possible to have all this technical matter prepared before the actual conferences take place at Geneva or Washington. The Amendments are devoted to improving the prevention of dust in lead working. Dust has been found to be the real thing which causes lead poisoning, and until these Amendments were put down the poisoning might have been supposed to hare come from substances from which no poisoning can arise. It is a remarkable thing that dust is the thing which is now found to be the real cause of lead poisoning, and one of the chief proofs of it is to be found in the admirable Report of Dr. Legge, Chief Inspector of Factories, when he speaks of the manufacture of bullets and shrapnel, millions of which must pass through the hands of the workers. He states that there were only a few cases of lead poisoning—two or three among the women—and that these were stopped directly devices for absorbing the dust were adopted. That is a most extraordinary result, and I think the Home Office must be congratulated on having achieved it during the course of the last few years.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and returned to the Commons.

UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATEFOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I owe to your Lordships an apology for asking you to take the Second Reading of this Bill at such short notice and without warning, but this is an emergency measure the early passing of which the Government

759
regard as a matter of the most urgent necessity. It has been introduced with one object, and one object only—that of accelerating the procedure for the acquisition of land for the purpose of the construction of roads for the relief of unemployment. Except in that one respect the Bill does not confer any new powers upon any body. It does not authorise any new expenditure or establish new relief works. It does not deal with unemployment generally and it is in no sense an attempt to solve the problem of unemployment. That problem is being dealt with to-clay in many ways in different parts of the country. All that this Bill does is to remove what has been proved in practice to be the main obstacle to the immediate progress of relief works which have already been prepared.
The first clause in the Bill applies the machinery of the Housing Acts for the acquisition of land to works of public utility as defined in Clause 4. Clause 2 introduces new and even more expeditious machinery for acquiring land needed for the purpose of the construction of arterial roads. Clause 3 enables local authorities to contribute to works of public utility outside their area or to combine with neighbouring authorities for the execution of such works. The Bill is urgent because local authorities are waiting for these powers to put their relief schemes into operation, and when it is a case of saving thousands of men from actual starvation delay, even of hours, is a serious matter.
The general problem of unemployment is no new one. Even when trade and industry are flourishing there must always be some residuum of less efficient labour for which it is difficult to find employment, and in times of trade depression that residuum is apt to be increased. That problem is ever pressing, but it is not the problem with which the Government is dealing. The duty which has evolved upon this Government is the quite exceptional and peculiar one of reinstating in industry a large body of men who were taken from employment for the purposes of the Army during the war. These men are not old and inefficient. They are young men, able bodied, but some of them have been disabled by their war service and are therefore unable to return to their normal employment. Others were taken at the moment when their industrial training was in progress and have been returned, after three or four years service in the
760
Army, seriously handicapped by the loss of those particularly precious years, and it is our obligation to these which we are trying at this moment to I need not labour the point because I do not suppose there is a single member of this House who would dispute that it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to do whatever is possible to put every ex-service man into employment as soon as possible. Already four or five million men have been found employment since demobilisation but there are still about 200,000 for whom work has to be found. In greater London alone there are at this moment 100,000 men out of work, of whom 70,000 are ex-soldiers.
A special Committee of the Cabinet was appointed to consider the question and an Interim Report from that Committee, made in October, recommended as an immediate step the acceleration of the programme for constructing arterial roads which had been prepared by the Ministry of Transport, and the introduction of a Bill to facilitate the acquisition of land for that purpose. This Bill is the result of that Committee. The policy of constructing arterial roads in the London area has been under consideration ever since 1912. In normal circumstances it is not a work which would be undertaken at the present time, owing to the cost of labour and material, but it is a work peculiarly suited for the relief of unemployment, because it is a work which is urgently desired and one which can be commenced forthwith. The only obstacle which stands in the way is the difficulty of acquiring land with sufficient speed. Under the existing law there are no means whereby land can be acquired without a delay of many months and, I think, even a whole year.
The Government therefore introduced this Bill for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Housing Acts for the acquisition of land to these schemes of public utility work. That was the form in which the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. In that form it excited a strong protest from the London County Council on the ground that even those powers were not sufficient to enable land to be acquired speedily, and in response to the protest of the London County Council Clause 2 of this Bill was introduced in Committee in the House of Commons Under that Clause it will be

761
possible, with a certificate from the Ministry of Labour, for a local authority to enter upon land required for the construction of roads on giving seven days' notice both to the occupier and the owner. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that only vacant land can be acquired in this way and that I his clause will not apply to land upon which there are any permanent buildings. Like Clause 1 it provides only an acceleration of time. It gives no power of acquiring land to any authority which does not at present possess it, and it alters in no way the right of the owner to compensation for his land under the existing law. Those are the provisions of the Bill, and I can only conclude by appealing to your Lordships to pass it without delay. Outside this House, the London County Council and other local authorities are waiting for the powers which this Bill will give them. Behind them, again, are the men whom we so often honoured in our speeches, men for whom we feel the utmost sympathy in our hearts, but who are waiting with ever-increasing impatience for the practical fulfilment of the promises which have been so often made to them. It is in their name, my Lords, that I appeal to you to pass this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a (The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. I have looked into this Bill very carefully, considering the short time that I have had it at my disposal. I think it does meet the case, and that the powers in the Bill as regards either the acquisition of land or the entry upon land ought to be placed in the exceptional form in which they are in this Bill, having regard to the unemployment question. I desire to ask about Clause 2. The noble Earl stated that the power to enter on and acquire land under the special conditions of Clause 2 were only in respect of land required for the construction and improvement of roads. Is it so limited?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: Then, limited in that way, I think it is quite right that this special power of entry might be given. If it were enlarged there might be considerable objection to it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble and learned Lord is quite right. Clause 2 applies only to land required for the construction of arterial roads.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, when an appeal is made to your Lordships on behalf of men who have served in the war ill criticism is, of course, disarmed in advance. We owe them a debt which we can never too scrupulously pay, and the Government has only to tell us that this is the object of the Bill to make us accept something which we do not like.
My object in rising is to protest rather against the want of foresight on the part of the Government when they were dealing with the question of land acquisition last year. It is extraordinarily objectionable that one year we should have a Bill dealing with the question of land that we are told is going to settle all the questions connected with the acquisition of land permanently—and is accepted on that basis by your Lordships—and then, in less than twelve months, have the Government come down and say the Bill does not meet what was certainly a foreseen emergency, and that they must have an alteration in the Bill in connection with that emergency. I say this not with the view of opposing a Second Reading, but to protest against that method of legislation.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken. It was foreseen that there would be unemployment during this winter, and yet it is only at this late stage that we get this Bill for making it possible for these arterial roads to be made. It must take a long time before the land can be acquired in the proper manner, and in the meanwhile this is nearly the beginning of December and unemployment is rife throughout the land.
THE DUKE OF RUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I should like to express my agreement with my two noble friends who have just spoken. The first that I knew of this Bill was about three days ago, when I was told privately by a member of the Edinburgh Corporation that they were waiting for this Bill in order to acquire the land that they wanted to make a road. I hope that your Lordships will understand what this Bill means. It is going perhaps a good deal further than has been indicated to us. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord

763
Selborne that anything for the benefit of the unemployed will meet with the approval of your Lordships. At the same time I would point out that the cry of the unemployed is sometimes raised in order to get a Bill passed.
In this matter of unemployment the Government, if they have really thought about employment in the past, have not acted up to their pledges. I notice in this Bill mention, among other things, of afforestation. Does it give extra powers to the Forestry Commissioners? I learnt from one of them that they were looking forward to some Bill which would give them powers to acquire land somewhat easier and at much less cost than they can do now. There are all sorts of other things in the Bill—improvements of roads, means of transit, waterways, and so forth. It seems a very big Bill indeed. It appears to be rushed through for one purpose, and probably in the future it will be used for many other purposes to which your Lordships would not give your assent if you had time properly to consider the matter.
The Bill is apparently produced by the Ministry of Transport, which is probably the most extravagant and wasteful of all our new Departments. I do not wish to oppose a Second Reading, but I think the House is entitled, before the Bill goes further, to some additional information as to what it really does and as to what uses it will be put in the future, apart from its ostensible object of providing employment during the winter months.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I am not surprised at the protest as to the degree of haste with which this Bill is being pushed forward. I admitted at once that there was necessity for apology to the House on that ground. I would like, however, to reassure your Lordships on the point raised by the noble Duke. This Bill does not give power to anybody to do anything that they have not the power to do to-day. No power is given under Clause 4 to any authority to acquire land for any of these purposes. All that the Bill does is to say that any authority which to-day has power to acquire land for any of these purposes may acquire that land under the procedure of this Bill; in other words, may acquire it under the Housing Acts if it is work of public utility, or may acquire it under the procedure of Clause 2 if it is for the purpose of making roads. I might
764
also remind your Lordships that the powers of special procedure for acquiring land under the Housing Act, 1919, is a power limited for two years, and it will expire on July 31 of next year. The whole procedure, therefore, is one very much limited in time.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Does that limit apply to the whole of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: This Bill applies to land taken for works of public utility. The procedure of acquiring land under the Housing Acts, and the provision under the Housing Act of 1919 by which land may be acquired without giving notice—the procedure to which I have referred as the twenty-eight days' procedure—is limited in that Act to two years, and therefore its application in this Bill is subject to the same limitation.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Earl that it would be in accordance with what he has said, and would probably affect to some extent the judgment of the noble Duke behind me, if there was a limit to the period during which this Bill is in operation. We all desire to do what we can to forward any Bill for the assistance of the unemployed, but I would point out that this is for a temporary emergency, and that to ask for a Bill which will be in force at all times at the discretion of the Ministry of Transport is a very great demand to make in this hurry in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919: DRAFT RULES.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON rose to move to resolve, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Government of India Act, 1919:
That the draft rules under Section 1 of the said Act which were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved, subject, however; to the following modifications, namely:
Page 3, rule 1 (2), at end insert "and for different provisions of these rules."
Page 7, rule 15 (1), line 5, leave out from "jurisdiction" to the end of the subrule, and insert "The share so

765
allocated shall be three pies on each rupee brought under assessment under the said Act in respect of which the income tax assessed has been collected."
Page 7, rule 15 (2), line 6, leave out from "equivalent" to the end of the subrule, and insert "Of the amount which would have accrued to the local government in the year 1920–1921 (after deducting the provincial share of the cost of special income tax establishments in that year) had the pie-rate fixed under subrule (1) been applied in that year, due allowance being made for any abnormal delays in the collection of the tax."
Page 9, rule 20, after "contributions" insert "and assignments."
Page, 11, rule 27 (2), at end insert "(3) The Local Government of a Governor's province shall have power to sanction any expenditure on transferred subjects which relates to the heads enumerated in Section 72D (3) of the Act, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in Council or of the Governor-General in Council, if such approval is required by any rule for the time being in force."
Page 16, rule 41, leave out from the beginning of the rule down to "without" and insert "No allowance and no special or personal pay shall be sanctioned for any post or class of post or for any Government servant."
Page 21, Schedule I., Part I., entry 44, at end insert "45. The Public Service Commission," and renumber entries 45 and 46 as 46 and 47.
Page 27, Schedule I., Part II., entry 47, leave out "other public services within the province" and insert "public services within the province, other than all-India services."
To move to resolve, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Government of India Act, 1919:
That the draft rules under subsection (2) of Section 2 of the said Act, which were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved.
To move to resolve, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 91 of the Government of India Act, 1919:
That the draft rules under subsection (3) of Section 4 of the said Act, which
766
were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved.
To move to resolve, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Government of India Act, 1919:
That the draft rules under subsection (3) (a) of Section 10 of the said Act which were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved.
To move to resolve in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Government of India Act, 1919:
That the draft rules under subsection (3) (h) of Section 10 of the said Act which were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved.
To move to resolve, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Government of India Act, 1919:
That the draft rules under subsection (1) of Section 12 of the said Act which were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Resolutions which appear in my name on the Paper have, I am afraid, a very formidable appearance, and the subject with which they deal must seem both technical and complicated to those of your Lordships who are not acquainted with the machinery of the Government of India Act. But in moving them I do not propose to enter into any technical details, and I do not think it will be necessary for me to occupy much of the time of the House in dealing with their.
Taken as a whole the effect of the Resolutions on the Paper is to ask the assent of your Lordships' House to the Rules in the White Paper Cmd. 891 which was laid before this House in August last. The Rules in that Paper are made under six sections of the Government of India Act, and the only reason why they are made the subject of six separate Resolutions on this occasion instead of one comprehensive Resolution is to restrict the area of any possible discussion in the event of an Amendment of any one of the Rules being made in either House of Parliament. Having said that, I would ask the leave of

767
the House to deal with them as a whole, and to turn to the White Paper which contains the Rules to which they refer. It is enacted by Section 1 of the Government of India Act that provision may be made by Rules for the classification of the functions of Government in the first place into provincial and central subjects, and then for a further classification of the provincial subjects into those which are reserved to the Governor in Council and those which are transferred to the Governor and Ministers. That general principle being laid down in the Act, details were left to be carried out by Rules.
The first step the Government took immediately after the passing of the Act was to appoint a Committee to go out to India to investigate these details on the spot. That Committee was presided over by my noble friend Lord Southborough, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to him and his colleagues the thanks of the Government for the work which they did. The Government of India then took into consideration the recommendations of the Southborough Committee and drafted Rules based upon those recommendations. Those Rules were then submitted to the Joint Committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—to whom also we are greatly indebted—who are, so to speak, part authors with the Government of the Rules for which I am now asking the assent of your Lordships.
Part I of the Rules in this White Paper and Schedules I and 2 on pages 18 and 28 contain all the Rules relating to the classification of subjects. I do not propose to say anything about them unless any one of them is challenged or I am asked any question. They speak for themselves, and represent the considered opinion of the authorities that have drawn them up. I should like in this connection to say one word about the third series on page 34, which is the subject of the third Resolution on the Paper. These Rules provide the machinery whereby the Government is to be carried on temporarily when, for any reason, there is either no Minister at all or no Minister in charge of a particular portfolio. Vacancies in a Ministry might occur either by death or resignation, and those vacancies would be filled up in the course of a few days. But cases may also arise in which owing to disagreement with the Legislatures it is impossible to fill a vacancy, and it may be that the dis-
768
solution of a particular Legislative Chamber may be necessary before the vacancy can be filled. In those cases the Government has to be carried on, and it is therefore provided in these Rules that the Governor shall certify to the Governor-General in Council that an emergency has arisen, and he shall then administer the subject himself.
The financial provisions for these functions of Government are contained in Part II of the first series of Rules. As in the case of the classification of the functions of government, so with finance, the first problem was to provide out of the revenues of India the funds for Provincial Governments and at the same time leave sufficient revenues for the Central Government. That problem was investigated by my noble friend Lord Meston, and I think he will bear me out when I say that his Committee found it practically impossible to leave the Central Government of India without a deficit unless some contributions were made to it by the Provincial Governments. The recommendations of my noble friend's Committee were subjected to considerable criticism by the Provincial Governments, and the form in which the Rules appear in the White Paper is that in which they were finally approved by the Select Committee.
The next problem was to divide the revenues between the two halves of the Provincial Governments so as to allow of funds for reserved and transferred subjects. Hitherto the control over all expenditure from the revenues of India was vested in the Secretary of State in Council. The Legislative Council had no control over expenditure, though they had the power of criticism. It is obvious that such a system was impossible under the new form of government. In the case of transferred subjects the Minister will in future be responsible to the Provincial Legislature which will control the appropriation, vote the Budget, and have power to reduce or withhold supplies. The control, therefore, which has been exercised hitherto by the Government of India and the Secretary of State will be exercised in future by the Provincial Legislatures. It will be necessary, however, in respect of all India Services to restrict in two matters the control of the Provincial Legislatures. Rule 27 and Schedule 3 define these two limitations. Rule 27 (2) states the new procedure whereby, except in those two respects, Provincial Governments may sanction expenditure approved by the

769
Legislative Council. Except in these two matters the Legislative Council in each province will control its own finance.
The only other matter to which I desire to refer in the first series of Rules is Part III, which deals with the establishment of a Finance Department. There has always been in each. Provincial Government a separate Financial Secretary, and in Council Governments a Member in charge of finance, but the Finance Department never had any separate statutory existence, such as is exercised by the Treasury in this country. It has been regulated by Rules of Business, and it is now proposed without any change except in minor details to make these Rules of Business statutory.
The second series of Rules in the White Paper deal with the borrowing powers of the Provincial Governments. As a natural consequence of the allocation of separate sources of revenue to the Provincial Governments those Governments must have the power of borrowing on the security of their revenues. Section 2 of the Government of India Act enables Local Governments to raise loans, and Series 2 of the Rules defines the conditions which are to govern the borrowing. They will be subject to the sanction of the Government of India in respect of loans raised in India, and of the Secretary of State in the case of sterling loans raised in London. Those are the Rules contained in the first and second series of the White. Paper, and they are the subject of the first, second, and third Resolutions on the Paper.
I ought to say one word upon the Amendments with which I am moving the adoption of the fist series. They are practically all merely drafting Amendments. I need only mention the first Amendment on the Paper, which refers to Rule 15—a Rule which was inserted by the Joint Committee to give the provinces some share in the growth of revenue from taxation on incomes. At the time the Joint Committee made this Rule the material to enable them to calculate what the rate should be was not available. The Government of India have now calculated this, and the effect of The Amendment is simply to carry out the Joint Committee's intention in a concrete instead of an inferential form. The second Amendment is merely an alteration to make clearer the meaning of the words "net
770
amount" in the Joint Committee's Rules. All the other Amendments are either consequential or of a purely drafting character.
I have now explained the object of the Rules contained in Parts I, II and IIL of the White Paper. Those contained irk Series 4, 5, and 6 deal with matters connected, not with the Executive, but with the Legislature. The main powers and duties of the Legislature, as laid down in Section 10 of the "Act, and the Rules dealing with franchise and procedure have already been passed. There are, however, two small matters which are the subject of these Rules, and they are, briefly, the limitations put upon Provincial Legislatures with regard to All-lndia taxes and All-India loans. Section 10 of the Government of India Act authorises Provincial Legislatures to make loans for the government of the Province, but requires the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council in the case of laws which deal with matters affecting the interests of British India as a whole. One of these is taxation, and it is laid down that the Local Legislature may not, without previous sanction of the Governor-General, impose any new tax, unless the tax is a tax schedule as exempted from this provision by Rule. The Rules in Series 9: provide this schedule of exempted taxes. The other class of Bill which require the previous sanction of the Governor-General is that which would repeal or alter any All-lndia law, and tile Rules in Series 5 provide the list of such Acts. The last of the Series, No. 6, follows verba m the recommendation of the Functions Committee's Report. Section 12 of the Act authorises the Governor to withhold consent to, and requires reconsideration of a Bill in certain cases to be provided by Rules. This series prescribes what these cases are to be.
Those are the Rules referred to in these Resolutions. I have only to conclude by assuring your Lordships that they have had continued and careful consideration at the hands of the Government of India, of the India Office, and of the Committees to which they have been referred. In the form in which I now beg to move them they represent the considered opinion of those bodies in an earnest attempt to find the best solution for a difficult and complicated problem. I beg to move that the first Resolution, subject to the Amendments on the Paper, be agreed to.
Moved to resolve, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 44 of the Government of India Act, 1919, that the draft rules under Section 1 of the said Act which were presented to Parliament on the 11th August, 1920, in Command Paper Number 891 of 1920, be approved, subject, however, to the following modifications: [The modifications are set out at the commencement of Lord LYTTON'S speech].—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think it convenient that any discussion on these Resolutions should take place on the first; then the others can pass without farther discussion. These Resolutions are in accordance with the recommendations of the joint Select Committee of the two Houses, over which I had the honour to preside last year and this year. We recommended specifically that in the case of most of these Rules they should only come into operation when approved by positive Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, thereby reserving to Parliament the opportunity of a check on a curious form of legislation—curious but, in the circumstances, inevitable. For it is really the case that these Rules, which emanate from the Government of India or from the India Office, contain as much of the new Constitution of India as does the Government of India Act itself. I do n at think legislation on other lines would we been possible, and therefore I make no complain about it, but it was because of the enormous importance of these Rules and the fact that they really represent so many clauses of the Statute that we recommended that they should be subjected to a Resolution of positive assent in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons.
These Rules, after they had been drafted by the Government of India and criticised by the India Office, were laid before the same Joint Select Committee, which made some. alterations in them, and the form in which they are now presented to your Lordships is the form in which they left the Joint Select Committee, except where it is specifically stated that certain Amendments are proposed. My noble friend has given the reasons for those Amendments, and I think they will commend themselves to your Lordships. As regards these Rules, if the Government of India Act is to come into full operation at the earliest possible moment it is necessary that your Lordships should assent to these Re-772
solutions, and I know no reason why you should refuse that assent, and I know many reasons why you should not at this last moment withhold your assent.
As this is the last opportunity which your Lordships will have of reviewing the operation of the Government of India Act, and as these Resolutions are founded on the Reports of the Joint Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside, I do not think I shall be out of order if I. take this opportunity of saying something about the chances of the successful operation of the Government of India Act under the conditions which have arisen in India since the Joint Committee sat—since Parliament passed the Government of India Act, in special connection with a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee to which I will now draw the special attention of your Lordships.
Paragraph 14 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee, agreed to according to my recollection unanimously by that Committee, runs as follows—
"The Committee have been greatly struck by the earnest representations made to them by several witnesses, both of British and Indian birth, to the effect that the Government of India and the Provincial Governments must become more vocal and put forth their view of what the good of India requires with more courage and more persistence than they have in the past. It has been represented to them that it will be of the utmost importance in the future that the Government of India and the Provincial Governments should have means of explaining to the people of India the reasons why things are done, the reasons which underlie decisions, and the arguments against proposals which they consider will be detriment at to the welfare of the country. It was represented to the Committee that at present, to a great extent, the ease for the policy of the Government of India and of the Provincial Governments is unknown to the masses of Indians whereas the case against that policy is becoming every day more widely disseminated by means of the vernacular Press. They are glad to think that this opinion is also shared by the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy. It is dealt with in paragraph 326 of their report on Indian Constitutional Reforms."
This paragraph, which I venture to say is a very important one, was inserted because it was given in evidence before us by Anglo-Indians and by Indians that India was at times flooded with calumnies and lies directed against British rule in that country and against the acts and policy of the Government of India; that the people of India, being many of them very ignorant, when they heard these calumnies and lies or when they were

773
read out to them round the village fires said, "Why, this must be true, because the Government does not contradict it." And the officers of the Government sat mum, the Government of India made no sign, and infinite mischief resulted. But we were told that in the war a different state of things prevailed. Then the Government of India became vocal—it had a propaganda of its own with remarkable and instantaneous results. The same people who had believed these calumnies and lies said, "Oh, we trust the Raj. They tell us it is not true, and now we understand it is not true. Now we understand their policy, because it has been explained to us."
I hear from authority which I cannot doubt that at no moment of our connection with India has there been a greater, a more malignant, and a more persistent system of calumnies and lies than exists at the present moment, flooding India against the intentions of the Indian Government and of His Majesty's Government and the whole British policy towards India. I am told, on authority which I cannot doubt, that these calumnies and lies are being believed. Why? Because the Government of India remains dumb. I am told that the most dire consequences may possibly ensue from the campaign of calumny which is going on; yet notwithstanding our recommendations, notwithstanding the experiences of the past, I am told that nothing serious, nothing really important in the way of propaganda, is being done to counteract this campaign which, as we all know, is directed against British rule in India.
I have taken this opportunity of recording this protest, which I know would be voiced and supported by the whole of the Joint Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside. If, in the face of past experience and of what is going on at this moment in India according to my information, His Majesty's Government through the India Office and the Government of India refuse to take the necessary steps to counteract these calumnies and lies, a most tremendous responsibility will rest upon them. I cannot conceive for what reason they are neglecting to take these necessary precautions, and I believe it is not yet too late for them to do a great deal to counteract the dire mischief of this campaign. If they persist in letting this whole case—this great case of the
774
benefits of British rule, of the noble and magnanimous intentions of British rule in India—go by default, then I say their responsibility will be great indeed.
On Question, Fiat Resolution agreed to.
Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

DEBTS DUE TO EX-ENEMY NATIONALS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the recent Regulations relating to debts due to ex-enemy nationals are limited to post-war debts, and under what conditions favourable consideration is given in respect of prewar debts due to ex-enemy nationals.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on two former occasions in your Lordships' House I raised this question of what I call the virtue of confiscation of ex-enemy debts after the termination of the war, although according to the common law of this country the right to recover those debts arose as soon as the war itself came to an end. But I had an opportunity of communicating with the Board of Trade in reference to the Question which I am now going to ask, and that enables me to put the Question in a short form, as I think the noble Lord opposite would appreciate, because I know he has had information from the Board of Trade as to the exact nature of this information which I desire to obtain.
The first Question which I ask is whether the recent Regulations relating to debts due to ex-enemy nationals are limited to post-war debts. I have had enormous correspondence asking me whether recent Regulations were so limited. On the face of the Regulations they appear to be general, but on information supplied to me they apply only to ex-enemy nationals as regards post-war debts. I am perfectly well aware as to the conditions under which the question of post-war debts was brought before the Board of Trade. It was pointed out by the great shipping carriers of this country that unless they were to lose the carrying trade they must be put into the position, as regards goods carried on behalf of ex-enemies, to guarantee them against the confiscation of those goods. In fact, if there, had been a scheme to do the worst as regards the carrying trade, it would have been to place it under this disability that in certain circumstances goods entrusted

775
to them for safe carriage and delivery might be confiscated as against the owners. I know that representations were made in that sense to the Board of Trade, and the Regulations at any rate have that effect on post-war debts.
The next question is very important, and I particularly hope that full information may be given. It is well known that Lord Justice Younger has been appointed Chairman of the Committee to deal with the question of allowing necessitous persons to have a portion of their property immediately restored to them. I believe the limitation is £1,000 as regards certain ex-enemies, and £200 in the case of Germans. That does meet the case which I raised on a previous occasion, that this confiscation of debts presses with special hardship on poor persons who perhaps have no other source of income and livelihood except what these debts provide. Take the case of a man having invested all his money in insurance, and the conditions having arisen under which the insurance money became due—he has no other source of income of any kind—it is especially hard that a debt of that kind should not be recognised; in fact that the legislation has made it impossible he should receive that payment which the insurance company might desire to make.
On a previous occasion I mentioned that large numbers of poor German people, governesses and the like, were really starving—that is not at all too strong a word—because debts due to them were being withheld under the Treaty terms. I recollect that on that occasion the Lord Chancellor said he would look into the matter to see if some relief might be given. I believe some relief has been given—namely, that the Committee has been appointed with Lord Justice Younger as chairman (and no better chairman could be selected), but I want to know what are the terms of its appointment. From information which has been given to me I believe they are to consider what is called necessitous cases—that is, the case of poor people such as I have suggested; but if there are any more specific terms of reference to the Committee I hope the noble Lord will make them public. I can assure him that these poor foreigners find the greatest difficulty in ascertaining how they may obtain a remedy even if a remedy is practicable and possible. It is very difficult for a foreigner who has a bad know-
776
ledge of the language of this country to ascertain what his rights are unless they are explicitly and publicly stated.
There is a third ease to which I want to call attention. I wish my noble friend Lord Bryce was present, but this Question has come on at a very late hour. It is a matter with which he is specially acquainted. There are certain cases where writers of great eminence have their manuscripts and libraries in this country. One particular case has been brought to my notice. Surely it is especially hard that under these circumstances a man should not be entitled to his library and his manuscripts. I was informed by the Board of Trade, and I think I am entitled to refer to their information, that it was a matter which was being considered, and that this class of hardship would probably be put an end to on consideration. I cannot say that any promise was given that it would be, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me that in a case of this kind the property will not be detained, but that persons whose livelihood depends on writing and research will be allowed to have the return of their books and manuscripts which happen to be in this country. These are the special points on which I ask for information; I have given the Board of Trade full information as to the matters to which I desire their answer may be directed.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like to ask whether it is possible to him to supplement his reply with a correlative statement. The noble Lord's question is "under what conditions favourable consideration is given in respect of pre-war debts due to ex-enemy nationals." It would be interesting and most satisfactory to a great many people in this country if he could deal with "what favourable consideration is being given by the German Government to our own nationals." The points to which I would call his attention are, Has Germany been paying? If not, has she given any intimation when she is likely to pay, particularly debts under Article 297 which are payable at pre-war rates? Have the British Government been taking any steps to get payment, and have any recent arrangements been made on the subject? I understand that the President of the Board of Trade, who has been taking some interest in the matter, has sent an envoy to Berlin, and that some move has been

777
made on this long delayed question. If the noble Lord is at liberty to give any information on the matter it would be welcomed by many people in this country.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I will reply to both my noble friends as fully as I can. With regard to the first Question on the Paper, I understand that Lord Parmoor refers to the recent announcement made to the German Government with which I will deal in more detail in a moment. This announcement did not refer in terms to post-war debts only, but in a sense is practically confined to post-war debts. Other debts are dealt with by different provisions of the Treaty. The answer is, therefore, practically in the affirmative.
The only provision in the Treaties of Peace to the best of my information relating to post-war debts due from this country to ex-enemy nationals—that is, debts resulting from transactions undertaken after July, 1919, when permission was given for the resumption of trading relations with Germany—is contained in a paragraph of the Reparations Clauses; that is paragraph 18 of Annex II. This paragraph is a very general one, stating that—
"the measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take in case of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals, and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary in the circumstances."
These very general terms would include the seizure of the property of German nationals in this country, including debts clue to them. As was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, His Majesty's Government felt it to be impossible to continue to maintain a threat which injuriously affected British interests without offering any real security for the execution of the Treaty, since, so long as private German property in this country and in particular private bank balances belonging to Germans were exposed to seizure, it was fairly certain that if the moment ever arrived when this country desired to put paragraph 18 into operation there would be no appreciable property to seize. The paragraph thus operated merely to keep business away from London and to make Germans keep their balances in neutral currencies, a course
778
which was inconvenient to all parties and involved clear loss to this country without any countervailing advantages.
In view of these considerations His Majesty's Government informed the German Government in the latter part of October that, among the measures which they might take in given circumstances, they did not intend to exercise their rights under paragraph 18 of the Reparations Annex to seize the property of German nationals in this country in the case of voluntary default by Germany, and it was explained that this applied to German property whether in the form of bank balances or of goods in British bottoms or of goods sent to this country for sale.
My noble friend also asks under what conditions favourable consideration is given in respect of pre-war debts due to ex-enemy nationals. The rights conferred by the Reparations paragraph are not limited according to the date when the debt arose, and these particular rights will not be exercised in the case of any debts. Debts falling due before the outbreak of the war, or arising from pre-war transactions and falling due during the war, however, are affected by provisions established under another part of the Treaty for quite different reasons. The economic clauses of the Treaty of Peace give the right to the British Government to charge the property of ex-enemy nationals, which was in its territory or under its control at the date of the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace, with the payment of certain classes of obligations to British nationals. This charge has been established by the Treaty of Peace Order in Council, and applies to pre-war debts due to Germans in the same way as to other German property here. The reasons for this charge and the manner in which it will be exercised have already been discussed by your Lordships on a Question which was asked by the noble Lord in this House on June 9 last The Lord Chancellor then stated that the question whether and how far it would be possible to mitigate hardship caused to ex-enemy nationals in particular cases as a result of the charge would be carefully examined, and I am happy to be able to inform your Lordships that machinery has been established and is already in operation with a view to considering such cases of hardship.
A Committee has been appointed by the Board of Trade, consisting of Lord Justice Younger, Brigadier-General Cockerill, and

779
Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, to advise upon applications received from ex-enemy nationals by the Public Trustee in the case of German nationals, or by the Administrator of Austrian and Bulgarian property, for the release of their property within certain limits upon the ground of necessitous circumstances. The limits, which have been communicated to the Committee, are property to the value of £.1,000 in the case of ex-enemy nationals now resident in this country, and to the value of £200 in the case of ex-enemy nationals formerly resident here and now resident elsewhere. In addition to capital, income may be released up to a reasonable amount. The property released may, of course, include pre-war debts due to ex-enemy nationals as well as other kinds of property.
I may, perhaps, take the opportunity of mentioning, since I have referred to the discussion which took place on this subject more generally some months ago, that it is also proposed to release from the charge household furniture and effects, personal belongings and family souvenirs, and implements of trade belonging to ex-enemy nationals up to an amount of £500, in addition to the amount of storage and other charges, in cases where the income of the ex-enemy national does not exceed the equivalent of £400 a year.
Articles such as personal belongings and family souvenirs of no intrinsic value will be released irrespective of the amount of the owner's income. These concessions are already operative in the case of Austrians and Bulgarians, and they will become applicable in the case of German nationals upon the conclusion of an agreement with the German Government upon various questions relating to the execution of this part of the Treaty of Peace, which it is hoped will be signed in the course of a week or so. Applications for the release of furniture, and such things by persons outside this country will require to be made to the applicant's Government, who will have a representative in London for the purposes of such matters. I trust that this answer meets all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor.
With regard to the supplementary questions asked by Lord Askwith I am glad to say that a great deal has been
780
effected by the Board of Trade in the direction in which they are asked. I do not think it is necessary to state here the method under which the amount of the pre-war debt is arrived at. It is probably well known to the noble Lord who asked the Question, but I can explain it if he desires. Up to the present the German Government have paid us £9,000,000, all of which has been used in paying to British creditors their debts at the pre-war rate of exchange. In addition to debts the proceeds of the sale of British property which was liquidated in Germany during the war have now been admitted by Germany to the amount of over £5,000,000, and this sum has been paid to the claimants. Some difficulty has, however, arisen in regard to the Treaty provision for the payment of proceeds at the pre-war rate of exchange, but it is hoped that the amount of the remaining proceeds will be settled without undue delay and payment effected. I hope this answers the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I wish to thank the noble Lord for the very full answer he has given. It shows the advantage of explaining to the Department concerned, when a Question is put down, exactly what information one desires to obtain.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
[Front Minutes of November 29.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.