Sitting of 27 October 1920

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

    ARMY PENSIONS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India, considering that under the revised rules for pensions of the Indian Army, a lieutenant-colonel is given an Indian element of £200 per annum, if he will state for what reason is a colonel limited to an Indian element of only £100 per annum; and how is this reduction consistent with the statement in Army Instruction (India), No. 448, of 1920, that the Indian element is for service in the Indian Army?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher, in the absence of Mr. Montagu): Under former rules a colonel of the Indian Army received the same rate of pension as a lieutenant-colonel, but at the recent revision a higher rate of pension was given to substantive colonels, with a maximum intermediate between that for a lieutenant-colonel and that for a major-general. At the same time it was decided that the maximum pension for general officers should be the same as in the British Service, and it was therefore necessary to reduce the Indian element in a colonel's pension, as otherwise the maximum pension for a colonel would have been the same as for a major-general. I see no inconsistency between this arrangement and the Clause in the Army Instruction (India) referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel YATE: Is the position accepted that for the extra years' service colonels and generals are to receive no compensation?
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain officers of the Indian Army
    1710
    who entered the service prior to 1st July, 1881, and who accepted the offer made to them by the Indian Government of an immediate payment, on attaining 38 years' service, of £50 per annum if they would surrender their right to succeed to the colonel's allowance of £1,127 per annum have, since the 1st of April, 1919, on which date they became entitled to the revised rate of pension granted on account of the rise in the cost of living, been denied payment of that £50 per annum; whether, seeing that this £50 per annum was given in exchange for the surrender of their colonel's allowances, he will explain in what way a revised rate of pension open to the Indian Army generally is held to affect what is a special payment guaranteed in exchange for value received; and will he give directions therefore that the £50 per annum retained be refunded and continued to these officers?
    Mr. FISHER: The position is not quite correctly stated by the hon. and gallant Member. There has been no offer of an "immediate payment of £50" and no question of "exchange for value received." Officers who entered the Indian Army before 1st July, 1881, had the option of retiring on a pension of £750 per annum or remaining on the unemployed list on £700 per annum pay, with the chance of succeeding to colonel's allowance. During the War retirement was suspended and the option therefore ceased to be effective. Accordingly, in order to remove any possible hardship, such officers were offered unemployed pay at £750, provided that they relinquished their claim to colonel's allowance, which would thus put them in the same position financially as if they had retired. It must be clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that this has nothing to do with the rate of pension to which they are entitled under the new rules.
    Colonel YATE: They were asked to accept the £50 as immediate extra payment on completion of 38 years' service. Is that extra £50 now to be withdrawn?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is putting the case quite correctly. If he will look at the answer, he will see that these officers have no grievance.

    OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
    3. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India why, considering that

    1711
    acting rank is given to officers of the Indian Army serving with Indian troops in Waziristan, it should be denied to officers serving with Indian troops in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Turkey, and whether he will have this injustice remedied?
    Mr. FISHER: Acting rank is granted only in areas in which active operations are in progress. The question of reintroducing it in Mesopotamia and in the Black Sea is under discussion with the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: Why is Palestine taken out? Are there not continual Arab raids and other things?
    Mr. FISHER: I think Palestine is in a different position.

    POLITICAL SITUATION.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Indian National Congress at Calcutta in September, calling upon the people of India to support the programme of non-co-operation drawn up by Mr. Gandhi, including abstention from all association with the new councils under the reform scheme; whether he will state the number of renunciations of titles, resignations of public offices, or from the public services, and withdrawals of candidature for election to the assembly and the councils which have taken place in consequence, and any other facts in connection with the political situation in India likely to be of interest to this House, especially in connection with the progress of the elections for the legislative councils?
    Mr. FISHER: With the hon. Member's permission the latest information at the disposal of the India Office will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend has asked for a report to enable him to reply specifically to the hon. Member's questions, and hopes to be in a position next week to supplement the information now given.
    The following is the information promised:—
    The latest information which I have received on this matter is that the non-co-operators are now concentrating their atten-
    1712
    tion on inducing voters not to vote. One effect of the campaign has been to allow candidates with poor chances to retire with dignity. The leaders are not unanimous; some urge that the boycott of councils is a mistake, and the Moderate Press lay stress on the opportunity given by Nationalist withdrawals to Moderates to get in without trouble or expense. It is impossible to estimate the result of the boycott of councils with exactness, but so far this has been the most successful feature of the programme of non-co-operation.
    In Madras resignations of honorary offices and council candidatures continue, but there have been no recent renunciations of titles. In Bombay report is made of intimidation to secure resignation of titles. Many seats are uncontested owing to withdrawal of Congress candidates, and for the two seats in the Indian Legislative Assembly for the Bombay general electorate there were only two nominations; but all Indian constituencies have nominated candidates, though in many there was a doubt up to the last moment. The Nationalists are planning a final campaign in Gujarat and the Deccan. In Bengal attention has been given to the fact that Pandit M. M. Malaviya of the United Provinces, though avowedly an opponent of Mr. Gandhi's programme, has nevertheless withdrawn his candidature; and he has had some imitators. But there are few fresh signs of practical non-co-operation, such as resignations from local bodies. In the United Provinces there are signs of election rivalry in many districts. In the Punjab reluctance to make personal sacrifices is limiting the effect of non-co-operation. In Assam there is no lack of candidates for councils; in only one constituency has there been no nomination. In the Central Provinces a committee has recently been appointed to secure the boycott of councils, and there have been two resignations of titles and three of honorary magistracies. I have not received any complete statement of the numbers of resignations or withdrawals. An earlier report mentioned that 48 persons had withdrawn candidature in the Bombay Presidency, of whom half had little chance of election. But I cannot say, even approximately, the total numbers, or give any indication of the numbers of resignations of titles up to date.

    GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Governor-General's Executive Council has been increased by the addition of a member for industries; and whether this is a permanent or temporary appointment?
    Mr. FISHER: The number of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council was increased to eight in July, under the provisions of Section 28 of the Government of India Act of last year The opportunity was then taken to appoint a member in charge of the development

    1713
    of industries. The ultimate constitution of the department which he now administers is not yet settled.

    KHIVA AND BOKHARA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India what is the present de facto government in the Khanates of Khiva and Bokhara?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The administration actually in power in the Khanate of Khiva is a body recognised and supported by the Moscow Soviet, with whom it concluded an economic treaty on 13th September. The administration of Bokhara is believed to be in the hands of the Young Bokharan party, as the result of a rising which took place on 31st August, in conjunction with an invasion by Bolshevik troops. The Amir of Bokhara is in flight.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are the Young Bokharan party Bolshevists, or something of that character?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not any very exact information, but I will endeavour to discover for my hon. Friend, if he will put down a further question.
    Colonel YATE: Has the Amir of Bokhara arrived in Afghanistan?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to his whereabouts at present.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MINE-SWEEPING, NORTH SEA.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how far mine-sweeping operations are still being carried on in the North Sea; and what steps are being taken in this direction to protect deep-sea and coastwise traffic from the danger of drifting mines?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir J. Craig): Mine-sweeping operations are still being carried out by the German forces in the North Sea to clear the dangerous areas to the eastward of the
    1714
    meridian of 40° E. between the parallels of latitude of 56° 10 N. and 54° N. About 70 per cent. of the original mined area in existence in the North Sea at the Armistice which was allocated to Germany has been reported by them as cleared. Constant pressure has been, and is being, brought to bear on the German Authorities to expedite the work. The precautions taken to deal with drifting mines, as set forth in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gateshead of the 13th May, are still in force.
    Commander Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the mines recently discovered in the English Channel are coming from the German mine-fields?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Notice ought to be given of that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: What steps do the Government take to verify the facts as given to them by the Germans who are sweeping for mines?
    Sir J. CRAIG: There is no question about that. The Admiralty are very careful.

    TRAVEL FACILITIES (OFFICERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the limitation of naval officers' travelling facilities to return tickets to London and naval ports practically offers no concession to naval officers belonging to the west country ports, seeing that these officers have not to travel to London to go home; whether, in view of the high cost of railway travelling and the limited means of so many naval officers, more especially Royal Naval commissioned and warrant officers, he can see his way to issue an order to the effect that all officers of the Royal Navy may be allowed a first-class return ticket at the ordinary first-class single fare from London or any of the naval ports or bases to any station in the United Kingdom, tickets to be available at the principal station in the vicinity of each base; and will he further consider the possibility of allowing the present privilege of optional uniform when travelling to remain in force in such cases?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The Admiralty have the whole question of concession fares for naval officers now under consideration, and pending decision I am unable to give any answer to the question raised as to extension of existing privileges. In regard to the last part of the question, I may add that officers are not required to wear uniform in order to obtain the concession fares at present in force, and there is no intention of altering the present orders under which officers are required to wear uniform or permitted to wear plain clothes on the same occasions as before the War.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the specific point to which I have drawn attention is under consideration?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly; that is indicated by the answer.

    CHARGEMEN OF TRADES (PETITION).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the chargemen of trades' petition presented to their Lordships in December, 1919?
    Sir J. CRAIG: It is expected that it will be possible to issue the reply within the next week or two.

    PRIZE MONEY, PAYMENT.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is delaying the payment of prize money to those officers and men entitled thereto; when it is expected that payment of the outstanding claims will be settled; and whether interest will be paid in addition to those officers and men whose payments have been so greatly delayed since the date of their first payment?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Payment of prize money is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and it is hoped that the present issue will be practically completed early in 1921. There is no provision for the payment of interest on individual shares. The method of dealing with claimants in sections has been adopted to obviate the useless accumulation in office of claims, certificates for service, etc. It is quite impossible to make payment to all claimants at once, but the additional letters "C, N, O, P, U and V" were notified in the Press for payment last week,
    1716
    and all claimants whose surnames begin with those letters should apply for their shares as soon as possible in accordance with the instructions on the Prize Fund Notice displayed in Post Offices.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst the men who are entitled to the prize money at the very great delay which has taken place; and is he also aware that the whole of the active list were paid in March and June and that it has taken up to the present date to pay two or three classes and all the others entitled to prize money?
    Sir J. CRAIG: No, Sir. As a matter of fact I have evidence of the great satisfaction which has been expressed about the rapidity with which the prize money has been distributed. It is a very large question and the staff had to verify all the records and that takes a great deal of time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the Admiralty are getting interest on this money all this time and if so, what is going to happen to it and could it not be added to the claims which are being made now?
    Sir J. CRAIG: No.

    BATTLE OF JUTLAND.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the official account of the battle of Jutland will be published?
    Sir J. CRAIG: It is not now proposed to publish an official account of the Battle of Jutland. Since the original intention to do so was announced and the compilation of the record begun, a mass of information has been accumulated from unofficial German sources which throws considerable light on the progress of the Battle from a new angle, and the conclusion has been reached that any record based on British official evidence only, would inevitably present a one-sided version, tending to distort the true facts and create a wrong impression of the battle as a whole. Moreover, Sir Julian Corbett's Naval History of the War, in course of publication under the authority of the Committee of Imperial Defence, whose volume includes Jutland, is likely to be published in the course of next year, and the publishers have made representations

    1717
    that they would have strong reason to complain of the simultaneous publication by the Admiralty of any such narrative. However, all the material prepared by the Admiralty will be placed at Sir Julian Corbett's disposal, which will expedite his publication.
    Viscount CURZON: May I ask if that answer will not undoubtedly give rise to the idea that the Admiralty have something to hush up, and would it not be much better to give a full account, if accounts differ, from all sources, and all the information which is at the disposal of the Admiralty?
    Sir J. CRAIG: It is made clear in the last paragraph of the answer that all the material prepared by the Admiralty will be placed at Sir Julian Corbett's disposal.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is there any truth in the rumour that the delay in publication is due to any difference between Lord Beatty and Lord Jellicoe?
    Sir J. CRAIG: No, Sir, there is not the slightest foundation for any such rumour, because I happen to know that both gallant Admirals have seen the report and have acqiuiesced in that report being handed to Sir Julian Corbett for incorporation in his work.
    Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: May I ask whether Sir Julian Corbett's account will in any way be censored by the Admiralty before publication?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I should like notice of that question.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the regulations applied to the lower deck with reference to the age at which the marriage allowance is paid?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The regulations in regard to marriage allowance for the Navy are contained in monthly order 2165 of this year, which was promulgated to the Fleet on 17th July.
    Paragraph 8 of the Order reads as follows:
    "Age limit. The allowance will not be paid in respect of men under the age of 25. It will consequently be necessary for men's birth certificates to be produced before the
    1718
    issue of an allowance to their wives can be considered. The age limit will not apply in the case of men already married and entitled to Separation Allowance under existing conditions or to men who marry within three weeks of the date of the receipt of this Order on board the ship on which they are serving."

    ADMIRALTY YACHT.
    Mr. SWANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of upkeep and running of the Admiralty yacht during the period of the last voyage on which it was employed by him and the purpose for which it was employed?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The expenditure occasioned by the recent cruise was approximately £3,270—when not on cruise the normal upkeep amounts to about £12,000 for a similar period. Its purpose was to enable the First Lord, by personal inspection of the Fleet, its harbours and bases, and by conversations with naval officers and officials on the spot, to get into the closest possible touch with the work of the Department for which he is responsible.

    MILFORD HAVEN (SHORE STAFF).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the shore staff at Milford Haven still occupy two houses, an old hotel, and a new brick building, the same amount of accommodation as during the War, though the staff has been reduced from 40 officers and a large number of ratings to six officers and men in proportion; and whether, in view of the need for economy and the shortage of houses, he will cause some of the accommodation to be relinquished?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The Admiralty occupation of these premises has ceased. The hotel was surrendered on the 21st instant. The Admiralty tenancy of the two houses (which are now empty) will cease on the 25th December, 1920. Negotiations for the disposal of the brick building to the owner of the land are in progress.

    SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, inasmuch as the question of increases in the pay of schoolmasters of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines has been under consideration for a very long time, if he is now in a position to state that the Treasury has approved of these increases being ante-dated to 1st February,

    1719
    1919, as was the case with all other officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Yes, Sir; these increases will be ante-dated as from 1st February, 1919.

    TECHNICAL CLUBS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain the nature and purpose of the technical clubs proposed to be set up on several of His Majesty's ships; whether it is proposed to give instructions in electrical work and the various branches of engineering, such as turning, etc.; for what purpose; who will be the teachers; whether skilled engineers in the Navy will be compelled to give such instruction against their will; and whether men so taught in the proposed technical clubs will be utilised in the Navy for work done by skilled men such as electricians and engineers?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The Admiralty have no information as to the formation of these clubs, but if the hon. Member will let me know the names of the ships to which he refers, I will have inquiries made.

    ARTIFICER ENGINEERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to reply to the letter addressed to their Lordships of the Admiralty by the members of the dockyard and parliamentary committee dated 1st May, 1920, suggesting that the artificer engineer on promotion should be awarded 3s. a day as a special allowance, and also explaining the question of special training?
    Sir J. CRAIG: It is regretted that approval cannot be given to the suggested allowance of 3s. a day, which is the amount by which the pay of Sub-Lieutenants qualified and employed on engineering duties. Mates (E) and Lieutenants (E) or Engineer Lieutenants (old scheme), exceeds that of Sub-Lieutenants, Mates and Lieutenants, in view of the fact that the training in engineering of Warrant and Commissioned Engineers cannot, in their opinion, be regarded as equivalent to the training carried out by these other officers, which qualifies them to receive such special appointments as those in the dockyards
    1720
    and at the Admiralty and in charge of the machinery of the most important vessels in the Fleet. Steps are, however, contemplated and will shortly be announced under which the disability with regard to their total emoluments suffered in certain cases by ratings on promotion to Warrant rank will be removed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: will the hon. Gentleman convey that decision to the Dockyard Parliamentary Committee?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly.

  RUSSIA.

    GENERAL WRANGEL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether General Baron Wrangel and his chief of staff were officially received and entertained to dinner on board His Majesty's Ship "Ramillies" on 19th August last; whether members of the late British military mission to Baron Wrangel were present; and whether this is in accordance with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Sir J. CRAIG: There is no information at the Admiralty concerning this matter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gave notice of this question last week. May I ask whether inquiries were made, and can the hon. Gentleman state, if the facts as stated in the question are correct, whether it is not contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is there any reason why they should not be?
    Sir J. CRAIG: We have no information about it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he did make the inquiry when I put the question down a long time ago? I gave very long notice. Will the hon. Gentleman be able to get the information if I repeat the question?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly. Everything will be done to meet a question put on the Paper; but since it was put down no information has reached the Admiralty.

    BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has

    1721
    been called to the allegation that Messrs. Krassin and Kameneff, the Russian delegates, had used their position in this country to bribe the Press and to carry on a campaign of Bolshevist propaganda; If the Government possess proofs bearing cut this statement; and, if so, whether in these circumstances it is proposed to continue the negotiations with Krassin and to allow him to remain in this country and to be at liberty to carry on such propaganda work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): For the reasons stated in the question, the Government were compelled to ask M. Kameneff to leave the country, but did not find it necessary to take the same course in regard to the rest of the Russian Trade Delegation. As I stated yesterday, the Government propose to resume the negotiations when the conditions laid down have been fulfilled.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a plucky speech recently made by a member of the Cabinet dealing with this important matter; and on the strength of that information does not my right hon. Friend think it necessary and advisable that every care should be taken to see that this propaganda is stopped?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes; I fully appreciate the necessity of stopping the propaganda, but there are so many plucky speeches made by members of the Cabinet that I cannot remember the one to which reference is made.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Who was the plucky man?
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that there was no evidence whatever that M. Krassin had taken part in this propagandist work in conjunction with M. Kameneff?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As my answer states, the matter was carefully considered by the Government, and we thought it was necessary to tell M. Kameneff to go; but it was not thought necessary in the case of the other members of the mission.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: My question was: Is it not the fact that there was no evidence that M. Krassin had been taking part in this work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have given is surely sufficient. We did think there was ground for the action taken against M. Kameneff; we did not think there was any ground for taking action against M. Krassin.

    THREE-MILE LIMIT (INFRINGEMENTS).
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the infringement of international law by French fishermen who trawl within the three-mile limit without check in the neighbourhood of Plymouth and Ram's Head; and will he take immediate steps to put an end to this practice?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except that it is not correct to state that the infringement is carried on without check, as two of His Majesty's Fishery Protection Vessels are stationed in the English Channels with headquarters at Falmouth. One of these vessels on the 15th September arrested a French trawler within the three-mile limit off Ram's Head, with subsequent legal proceedings, resulting in convictions and penalty of £5 fine.
    Colonel BURN: May I ask, seeing that the punishments now inflicted on these men do not seem to be sufficient to deter them from fishing in our waters, the hon. Gentleman will assist mo to get legislation for further punishment to be given?
    Sir J. CRAIG: That is a matter for the Leader of the House. I could not say what possibility there is of such legislation. It may be that the fines in these cases can be increased. I will look into it
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Having regard to these recurring fishing disputes, will the Government take into consideration the whole question of the three miles' limit, in view of the fact that that limit was fixed at a time when the range of naval guns was about one-tenth of what it is to-day?
    Sir J. CRAIG: That is rather a large question to arise out of the point raised.

    OUT-OF-WORK DONATION, BELFAST.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of people drawing out-of-work donation in Belfast during the months of July, August, and September, respectively; and how many in each case were ex-service men?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The numbers of persons drawing out-of-work donation at Belfast at the end of July, August, and September respectively were 2,975, 3,433, and 2,519; except for a few merchant seamen, numbering less than 50, these were all ex-members of the Forces.
    Mr. DONALD: May I ask whether there has been any extension of the scope of this donation to other than ex-service men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not to my knowledge. The present out-of-work donation is for ex-service men and women and merchant seamen only.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the employees in the shipyards, sent from their work for political reasons, are being paid out-of-work donation now, and especially whether ox-service men, who are being driven out for political or religious reasons are receiving it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know anything about political or religious reasons. An ex-service man thrown out of employment gets his out-of-work donation under the rules.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are non-ex-service men who have been driven out of employment for political reasons being paid the out of-work donation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hoar my previous reply, in which I said that the out-of-work donation applies to ex-service men and women and merchant seamen and not civilians.
    Mr. SWAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the men out of work is due to the army of occupation in Ireland?

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour when the Government will be prepared to introduce legislative proposals for dealing with the causes that make for unemployment and under-employment in normal times, apart from the special emergencies of to-day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend is closely familiar with the steps we have taken, and are taking, to meet the hardships of unemployment. I recognise that his question is designed to go much deeper than the provision made to meet the hardships of unemployment as and when they arise. Without attempting to pre-judge the question as to whether or not the causes of unemployment can be effectively dealt with by legislation, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole question which he raises is one which is engaging the close attention of the Government.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    TRAINING CENTRE, EXETER.
    Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Labour if premises which were formerly a café were taken in St. Martin's Lane, Exeter, as a training centre for disabled ex-service men desirous of instruction in watch and clock repairing; what rent is being paid for these premises; and were they taken by the advice of the Technical Advisory Committee?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The premises referred to by my hon. and galland Friend appear to be those known as Deller's Old Café, Exeter. They were taken as a centre for training disabled men in the watch and clock and certain other trades. The rent payable is £450 a year. They were approved by the Local Technical Advisory Committee as suitable for training in the watch and clock repairing trades.
    Colonel BURN: Was it necessary to pay such a big rent, and could not other suitable quarters have been found for much less?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The premises were approved by the T.A.C., and the rent was only arrived at after protracted negotiations.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men are in training?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, but I will let ray hon. Friend know. I have not got the precise figures by me.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether the men and women who will be out of work on and after 6th December are not to receive benefit unless they have been in work during each of the previous four weeks; and, if so, whether, in view of the prevalence of unemployment and the distress which will be caused, he can see his way to modifying this arrangement?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Persons who become insured for the first time under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, will become entitled to benefit for eight weeks as soon as they have been in work and paid contributions in each of four weeks from 8th November. Those previously insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1919, will in most cases have paid already the qualifying number of four contributions, and will consequently be in benefit at once. As the new Act is on a contributory basis, I cannot hold out any hope of any general modification of this requirement, which in fact is already very favourable to those newly entering into Insurance. As regards ex-service men, however, who stand in a special position, I am considering what arrangements it may be possible to make after 8th November, on which date the special extension of Donation now payable comes to an end.
    Mr. THOMSON: How soon will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement with regard to the ex-service men and special arrangements?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It will have to be before this next week, obviously, and I am doing what I can to secure a decision being taken as early as possible.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the discontinuance of sanatorium benefit at the end of the current
    1726
    calendar year, he will either provide for the compulsory transfer of members of staffs of insurance committees engaged on sanatorium benefit work to the new authority or provide adequate compensation for all officers displaced by reason of the discontinuance of sanatorium benefit on the same lines as other public servants whose duties are abolished by Statute?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): The sanatorium benefit work of insurance committees is only a part of the work of those bodies, and is, to a largo extent, carried on by officers and servants of the committees who have other duties. I am sending my hon. Friend an extract from a circular letter which was issued in June last to insurance committees in regard to staffing arrangements in connection with the discontinuance of sanatorium benefit at the end of the year. I have not received representations from any quarter that there is need for provision being made on the lines indicated in the question.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as a result of that circular letter County Council authorities have sent round letters to the officers hitherto engaged in the administration of sanatorium benefit, saying that they can hold out no hope whatever of their being employed on other work, and is he aware that a number of clerks and others were employed in administering sanatorium benefit at the beginning of the Act and are now being thrown out of work altogether and given no other alternative at all?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid I am not acquainted with those facts at all, and if my hon. Friend has anything to support them, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

  HOUSING.

    CLERICAL STAFFS (RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS).
    Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Minister of Health whether; in view of the representations which he has received from the Rural Districts Councils' Association, and the resolution which was passed at the last annual conference of rural district councils of

    1727
    England and Wales as to the inadequacy of the extra remuneration authorised by the general housing memorandum, No. 17, to be paid by rural district councils to their clerical staff for services in connection with housing schemes, and the inadequate nature of the provisions of that memorandum, he will at once take into consideration the desirability of substantially increasing the sum of £100 per annum authorised by that memorandum, and of extending the period of one year from the date of the inception of a housing scheme during which such extra remuneration is payable?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), of which I will send him a copy.

    FLOOR AREA.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Health whether any increase of the present superficial floor area is contemplated in connection with the houses built under the housing scheme; will he consider the desirability of recommending an increase of the floor area to 2,000 feet, or whether, in the view of his Department, the present limit of 1,400 feet is adequate for growing families of four or five members; and whether he will consider the desirability of some encouragement being given to builders of houses of a larger floor area than 1,400 feet which can be let at an economic rent, as distinct from those which will automatically involve an additional burden upon either rates or taxes, or both?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that the floor area at present allowed for State-aided housing schemes and houses erected under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act is sufficient to provide adequate accommodation for the average working-class family, and I doubt whether it would be desirable to increase the present maximum.
    Colonel NEWMAN: If a body of men are building their own houses under this housing scheme, and do not happen to be working-class men, why could not they be allowed the same help in regard to their costs?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is very considerable latitude. I have often enlarged it,
    1728
    and am continually being pressed to make alterations here and there, but you cannot always be doing so.

    RATES (ASSESSMENT).
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he has received communications from local authorities asking permission to be allowed to assess the new houses for rating purposes the same as pre-War houses of similar size and convenience; whether he is aware that if rent is to be taken as the basis for rating purposes the new houses will be rated nearly three times higher than pre-War houses; and will he take steps to comply with these requests?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have received a few representations on this matter, but I would remind the hon. Member that the question of the basis of assessment of new houses has been considered by Parliament this Session upon the Rent Restriction Bill, and a provision was inserted in that Bill which limits the gross estimated rental of such houses for the purpose of the valuation list.

    HOUSES CONDEMNED.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under powers given in the Public Health Act many houses have been closed by the local authorities; whether many of these could be put in habitable repair at a comparatively small cost, and by that means help to reduce the overcrowding prevalent; and whether he will call for a return of such houses and the estimated cost of repairing the same, and if found practicable give the necessary powers to the authorities to proceed with the work?
    Dr. ADDISON: According to my information, the number of houses which have been closed and could be rendered fit for habitation at comparatively low cost is very small, and I do not think that I should be warranted in the circumstances in asking for a return such as the hon. Member suggests. Local authorities already have powers under the Housing Acts to carry out essential repairs in suitable cases if the owner fails to do so.

    RENTAL.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked whether houses provided under the Housing Act

    1729
    at an approximate cost of £900 are being let at approximately £35 per annum instead of at an economic rental of approximately £72 per annum; whether such houses let at £35 per annum pay rates based upon assessments having relation to the subsidised rentals paid, and not to rentals based upon economic cost; if so, whether ratepayers occupying non-subsidised premises are subsidising the occupiers of premises let at non-economic rents in that the occupiers of subsidised premises are enjoying all the benefits provided by the total rates for the locality, but are not paying their share towards them proportionate to the economic cost of the premises provided under the Housing Act at rentals representing less than half the actual cost for interest and sinking fund on the money expended to provide such premises; and whether such a state of things indirectly throws upon a section of the general body of ratepayers a burden for the benefit of the occupiers of subsidised houses, which operates on ratepayers not enjoying the subsidised rentals, by indirect effect, as an excess of what they pay in the form of the penny local rate limited by the Act, and consequently constitutes an additional and sectional burden by means of local rates beyond the burden imposed under the Housing Act by Imperial taxation?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. The rents of the new houses are not like the rents of the old houses, protected by the Increase of Rent Act, and the object of Parliament in inserting the provision as to rating of new houses in Section 12 (9) of that Act was to secure that so long as the rents, and consequently the assessments, of the old houses are artificially, restricted, the occupiers of the new houses should not be unfairly rated by reason of such restriction.
    Mr. SAMUEL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when 100,000 new provided houses have been built, costing approximately £100,000,000, the assessment of these houses will be based upon the rental paid or upon the economic value; if these houses are assessed on the rental value—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

    HARROW SCHEME.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a letter from the Harrow-on-the-Hill urban district council stating that the Harrow housing scheme, which was proceeding satisfactorily, is held up for lack of materials, with the result that men have been discharged; and whether he has taken any steps to relieve the situation?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir, steps have been taken to expedite the delivery of materials for this scheme, and I am informed that supplies are now being received.

    BOUNDARIES EXTENSION (LOCAL INQUIRIES—COST).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health whether he will defer any inquiry into schemes of such magnitude as the Leeds and Bradford boundary extension inquiries until a Royal Commission or a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament has been appointed, and reported on the whole question of local government areas?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not prepared to adopt the course suggested.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling against these extension schemes in every one of these areas that are affected, and will he meet a deputation of West Riding Members of Parliament and others from the areas affected on this subject at an early date?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware there is strong feeling, and I am afraid it is often, in fact always, aroused by these extensions. I have in fact this morning directed a communication to be sent to the West Riding City Council, I think, about a deputation, but I can only see them on general questions relating to costs and so forth. I cannot have a preliminary hearing of the cases, which have to be dealt with by inspectors according to the Statute.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the cost to these localities in opposing these extension schemes, and does he not think that the money could at the present time be better spent than in this way? Surely some

    1731
    scheme could be brought about that would obviate this tremendous and wasteful expenditure?
    Dr. ADDISON: I entirely agree that there is a gross waste of money in these inquiries, and the object that I hope to attain in the deputation which I sent for this morning is on that very point, to try and avoid all this gross waste of public money.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that the failure of the Yorkshiremen to combine together for the extension of their boundaries in a sensible and reasonable way shall not injure Staffordshire in attempting to do the same?
    Mr. LANE-FOX: In view of the great cost to county councils of these inquiries, which is estimated at about £100,000, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to defer granting the inquiry until it is more thoroughly gone into?
    Dr. ADDISON: I really cannot overrule Acts of Parliament. The Act of Parliament requires that we shall hold an inquiry in certain circumstances. If those circumstances arise, I have no option but to hold an inquiry. I hope at the deputation that we shall have, where I hope many of the parties will be present, to try and arrive at some sensible arrangement to save this wasteful expenditure, but while the Act stands I am bound to see that it is administered.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Has he not the right under the Act, if special reasons are shown, to defer granting an inquiry?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of that, but the presence of opposition is not a special reason. It is always present.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health whether or not, if the Leeds extension inquiry proceeds, he will fix a specific date for hearing the case and taking evidence for and against the city administration, and separate dates for hearing the case and taking evidence for and against the two boroughs, eight urban, and three rural districts whose administration is sought to be interfered with, in order to prevent the waste of time and money and reduce the length and cost of the inquiry?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that the arrangement suggested would not be
    1732
    practicable and would not be likely to shorten the proceedings at the local inquiry or reduce the expense.
    Mr. LUNN: May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this Leeds extension inquiry, which affects all these local authorities, may last something like 50 days, that some of these urban districts have employed two counsel, engineers, and experts of all kinds, and that it may mean to them a 2s. or 3s. rate fighting at this inquiry, at a time when the money is needed for housing, for health purposes, and for unemployment?
    Dr. ADDISON: I entirely agree, and it would be a useful thing if these councils would not rush into the cost of employing expensive counsel and expert witnesses. I am informed, as a matter of fact, that the West Riding Council were prepared to come to an agreement with the City of Leeds that they would not employ counsel and expert witnesses, but these various councils persisted in this extravagant course, and that is what I am hoping we shall get them out of.
    Mr. RAE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the City of Bradford have refused to come to such an arrangement with some of the small authorities who are willing to work on those lines?
    Dr. ADDISON: I know there are a lot of Yorkshiremen who seem anxious to spend a lot of money fighting one another.
    Mr. LUNN: And you help them.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am doing all I can to try and get them to arrive at some more sensible arrangement.
    Mr. RAE: Is not that all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should exercise his powers to defer the inquiry until the special Committee has been appointed to report to the House on the whole question?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot use powers I do not possess. I have to administer an Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament requires me to hold an inquiry, and I have no option in the matter. Until the Act is altered I am bound to administer it.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this very extravagance to which he has

    1733
    alluded constitutes a special reason, which he has admitted would entitle him to postpone the inquiry?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have answered that. Opposition, of course, is constantly present.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Extravagance.
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot be a judge of extravagance before it is incurred. I am doing everything I can to induce authorities to avoid incurring these great costs. If I could prevent them I would, but I have no power to do so.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In view of that statement and the general sense of the House that he ought to have this power, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in an Emergency Bill?

    METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD CHARGES.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the conditions affecting the Metropolitan Water Board and the causes alleged to render necessary the proposed substantial increase in charges; whether the effect of the increases in assessments in the Metropolitan area will more than meet the deficit of the Metropolitan Water Board and thus render unnecessary any increase in charges; whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that an application has been made by the Metropolitan Water Board to be taken out of assessment; and, if so, whether he will refuse to grant such application?
    Dr. ADDISON: An inquiry such as my hon. Friend suggests has already been undertaken by a Departmental Committee, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of their Report. The charges of the Water Board cannot be increased without legislation, and I understand the Water Board are considering the question of introducing a Private Bill for this purpose next Session. I am not aware of any such application as is referred to in the latter part of the question.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Does it not amount to a matter of nearly a million pounds?
    Dr. ADDISON: I must have notice of that.

  IRELAND.

    SHOOTING CIVILIANS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Frank O'Dwyer and Edward O'Dwyer, sons of William O'Dwyer, farmer, of Ballydavid, near Bansha, were dragged from their father's house by uniformed men on the night of the 18th October and shot dead; that shots were fired into the bedroom whore the aged father and mother were lying; that on the same night Patrick Doyle, of Bally gar, near French Park, County Roscommon, was dragged from his house and shot by uniformed men who arrived in motor lorries; whether he still accepts responsibility for these acts; and, if not, what steps are being taken to punish the perpetrators and prevent their repetition?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The circumstances attending the deaths of the two brothers O'Dwyer are at present under investigation by a military court of inquiry, and, until the finding of that court is known, I am not in a position to make any further statement. The death of Mr. Patrick Doyle has already been investigated by a court of inquiry, which found that Mr. Doyle met his death by a gunshot wound inflicted by some person or persons unknown. The whole available evidence was carefully considered by the court, and, in view of the fact that their finding contains no charge or imputation against the forces of the Crown, the latter part of the question does not arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the court which investigated the case of Mr. Doyle was largely composed of the people who are responsible in this part of the country for the conduct of the armed forces of the Crown, and can he tell me whether the court which has inquired into the deaths of the brothers O'Dwyer is also composed of the persons who would be accused if these charges were brought home?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to both supplementary questions is in the negative. These military courts of inquiry

    1735
    are composed of at least three British officers of the Army in Ireland, and are selected according to the customary rota of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland.
    Major O'NEILL: Is there now any censorship upon news coming from Ireland published in the British press, and, if not, in view of the fact apparently that most of these charges are without foundation, would it not be desirable to take some steps to see that they do not get into the press in the way they do at present?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously state to the House that the people of this country are to accept a tribunal of convicted persons, or the leaders of them, to decide these matters which are in controversy; and will he prosecute the journals in this country that are publishing these statements, as he is prosecuting Irish newspaper proprietors? May I ask whether some of these statements are not made by Unionist papers—organs of the present Government? Will we have an impartial inquiry into all these things so that the public may be able to judge for themselves?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to the very long series of supplementary questions, it is impossible to deal in supplementary answers with a series of allegations, as to every one of which I deny the accuracy.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will be there.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In reference to the case of Patrick Doyle, who died from gunshot wounds, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself has read the minutes of evidence of that court, and will he tell me there is no evidence to show—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must put those questions down.

    POLICE CASUALTIES.
    Mr. SWANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the majority of the police casualties in Ireland are due to the open attack of the Sinn Fein detachments on strongly fortified blockhouses?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Only a very small proportion of the casualties sustained by the police in Ireland have been due to open attacks on police barracks, to which I presume the hon. Member refers. As a rule the police barracks is an ordinary house situated in a row of houses. The majority of the casualties to policemen have resulted either from cold-blooded assassination of unsuspecting and sometimes unarmed policemen, or from ambushes of small police patrols in which the attackers have had all the cruel advantages of concealment, surprise, overwhelming numbers, and in many cases expanding bullets. The exact figures are as follows:—
    Murdered by persons in ambush, 77.
    Murdered in attacks on barracks, 10.
    Assassinations, 38.
    Wounded by persons in ambush, 117.
    Wounded in attacks on barracks, 31.
    Wounded in attempted assassination, 47.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number of assassinations of innocent civilians?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of any assassinations of innocent civilians, except by those who assassinate innocent policemen.
    Mr. G. TERRELL and Mr. DEVLIN rose. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    Lieut. Colonel CROFT: On a point of Order—
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hogge.

    "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL."
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what is the precise charge on which the directors of the "Freeman's Journal" are being, court-martialled?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The directors of the "Freeman's Journal" are charged under Regulation 27 (a) and (b) of the Regulations under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act with spreading a false report, and a report intended or likely to cause disaffection. As the case is now sub judice, the hon. Member will

    1737
    see that it is not possible for me to furnish him with further information at the moment.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the fact that the reason the "Freeman's Journal" is prosecuted is because it attacked the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not!
    Mr. DEVLIN: Why, if English papers publish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am going to put my question! Why, then, have English newspapers that have published similar reports not been prosecuted?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not responsible for English newspapers, or for what they publish.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You dare not do it!
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there an attempt to hide the truth by intimidating the Press in Ireland as well as the people?
    Mr. DEVLIN: And by intimidating the people.

    WEEKLY INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY.
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the secret weekly intelligence summary issued to the units of the 6th Division of the British Army of Occupation in Ireland is employed as a means of propaganda against Sinn Fein; and whether propaganda of this nature is necessary for restoring law and order?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The Secret Weekly Intelligence Summary issued by the 6th Division is not issued as propaganda. It is issued to a limited number of subordinate units and contains information to assist those units to deal with an organisation which declares itself at war with the British Government. In this case a copy has fallen into the hands of the rebels and it is they who are endeavouring to use it as propaganda.
    Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that this circular is being used to inflame the antipathy of the British troops towards Sinn Feiners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is issued to give information to the troops engaged in suppressing the rebellion movement in Ireland.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    BRITISH FORCES.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister what was the total strength of British and Indian naval, military, and air forces stationed in Mesopotamia, both on the 1st August last and 1st October last; and further, what is the present total weekly cost of maintaining these forces in Mesopotamia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The figures on the 1st August were approximately 80,000, and on the 1st October, 101,000; and the present cost per week is £591,700.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister what Government Department it is intended shall be charged with the administrative duties of Mesopotamia and Palestine; and, in the meantime, to which Minister should questions concerning those territories be addressed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on Monday last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford.

    TERMINATION OF WAK (DATE).
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether the date on which the War will end has yet been fixed; and, if not, can he give the reasons for the delay in bringing the War to an end?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Termination of the War (Definition) Act, 1918, provides that the date of the termination of the War shall be as nearly as possible the date of the deposit of ratifications of the last Treaty of Peace. There will be no unnecessary delay in the ratification of the Turkish and Hungarian Treaties, which are the last two outstanding treaties to be ratified.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there any reason why the Turkish Treaty should not be introduced immediately into this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said there will be no unnecessary delay. The House will be aware how the time of the House has been occupied up to the present.

    EDUCATION ACT.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that local economic conditions do not warrant the application of the Education Act coming into force on the 1st January next; and if, in consequence, he will consider the desirability of postponing its operation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not quite correct to say that the Act of 1918 comes into operation on the 1st January next, as the greater part of it is in operation already, but I recognise that the process of giving full effect to its provisions must be more gradual than I hoped when the Act was passed. I do not think legislation on the matter is required.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: May I ask if that applies to the Scottish Act?
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, is it not a fact that in Scotland the local authorities have refused to adminster the Act?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not, but I shall require notice of that.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand, then, that the operation of the Act has been delayed because we have spent so much money on other things outside education?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not in the least follow from the answer I have given.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will legislation be introduced for the purpose of postponing those parts of the Education Act which can be conveniently postponed, having regard to the great strain on our resources?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said that legislation, in the view of the Government, was unnecessary.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it because of the opinion of many in this House that education should not be given to the working-class
    1740
    families similar to what they give to their own, that they are now opposing the Education Act?

  PEACE TREATIES.

    COAL (GERMANY).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what is the quantity of coal which, under the terms of the Spa Agreement, should have been delivered to France by Germany up to the 30th September last; and what is the amount that had actually been handed over at that date?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen on the 19th instant with regard to the carrying out by Germany of her obligation to deliver coal to the Allies under the Spa Agreement. I have no exact information as to the allocation of the coal by the Reparation Commission, but I believe that approximately 78 per cent. of the total deliveries goes to France and the remainder goes to Belgium, Italy, and Luxembourg.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not material information, which this country should have, as to whether Germany is carrying out the arrangements entered into? Cannot our Government find out from the French Government what quantity of coal has been delivered up to a given date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That information is material and is in the possession of the Government, and I gave it to the House in the answer to which I referred the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Sir F. HALL: Is that up to the end of September?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have given it up to the latest date.

  KENYA COLONY.

    UASHIN GISHU RAILWAY.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the specification for the

    1741
    construction of the Uashin Gishu Railway in Kenya Colony was not put out to open tender, and to whom the contract has been entrusted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson, for Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given to the question of the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 14th of Juno. The construction contract has not yet been completed.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this contract will be put out to open tender in the ordinary way?
    Colonel WILSON: If the Noble Lord will refer to the answer to the previous question on the subject, and also the question and answer of June, to which I have referred him, he will see a very full answer is given.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that no arrangement will be entered into with any firm until this House has had the opportunity of considering why this large contract has not been put out to public tender?
    Colonel WILSON: I will convey the suggestion to my Noble Friend.

    KILINDINI WHARF.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what form the specification for the construction of the wharf at Kilindini, Kenya Colony, has taken; and if it has been put out to open tender?
    Colonel WILSON: The specification for the new Kilindini wharf is not yet completed. Invitations to tender will be sent to a large number of firms, including those who were invited to tender for the original scheme in 1914.
    Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Public Works Department has not been entrusted with this specification, in view of the saving to the public purse by giving it to them rather than to a private firm?
    Colonel WILSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.

    LABOUR ORDINANCES.
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the recent ordinances in British East Africa, which provide for the industrial conscription of the natives, the total period for which the natives may be called out is not 60 days but 84 days in each year?
    Colonel WILSON: The position is fully set out in Cmd. 873. A native may be called upon for work of a public nature up to a maximum of 60 days in any one year, unless he is fully employed in any other occupation or has been so employed during the preceding 12 months for a period of 3 months. In addition, he is liable for work for the benefit of the community of which he is a member up to a maximum of 6 days in any one quarter.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Do yon get that from Moscow?
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in claiming exemption from the forced-labour ordinances of British East Africa, a native will be entitled to show that he has worked for three months during the preceding year on his own gardens or plantations and to claim exemption on these grounds?
    Colonel WILSON: If a native has been fully employed in cultivation for himself for three months during the preceding twelve months, he is exempt from the provisions of the Native Authority Amendment Ordinance, 1920. If he belongs to a native community, he is liable for work for the benefit of that community under the Native Authority Ordinance, 1912, which gives effect to native custom on this point.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake that a copy of that Ordinance shall be sent to Trotsky?

    LOCAL RATES.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Health on what date in the near future he proposes to publish the information promised, showing the approximate amount to be raised in England and Wales by local rates for the period 30th

    1743
    September, 1920, to 31st March, 1921, and the amounts that were raised for the period 30th September, 1913, to 31st March, 1914, giving in each case the amounts attributable to expenditure on housing and education, respectively; whether he will dissect the figures so as to show, among other things, the amounts in the pound of the rates now required by local authorities to meet the current cost of education in addition to Imperial taxation for education; and what, therefore, is the aggregate amount raised, or to be raised, for education by means of Imperial taxation and local rates for the period under review?
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope to be able to present within the next fortnight the paper mentioned in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 21st instant, among other information. It will show for some typical places the amounts in the pound of the rates being raised in the current financial year for purposes of education and certain other services. As regards the last part of the question, I understand from the Board of Education that the information referred to for the present financial year cannot be stated until after the conclusion of the year.
    Sir J. D. REES: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman have houses made of concrete, which cost one-third of the price of bricks, occupying a quarter of the time, and would figure much more satisfactorily in these accounts?
    Dr. ADDISON: I wish it did! At present there are 22,000 houses being built, mostly in various forms of concrete, and I am sorry to say they do not cost much less than brick houses. I wish they did.
    Mr. J. JONES: Would not the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that cardboard is used in the building of houses for working people?

    POOR LAW RE-ORGANISATION.
    Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Health when he expects to introduce his Bill for the re-organisation of the Poor Law; and will he allow ample time for full public discussion of this measure between its introduction and the Second Reading?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot as yet fix a date for the introduction of the Bill. I will bear in mind the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the large number of dwelling-houses which continue to be kept unoccupied in order to secure a higher sale price, he can now fix an early date for the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which empowers local authorities to compulsorily rent such empty dwelling-houses?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is hoped to proceed with this Bill immediately after the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary of State for War if officers and men who have purchased their discharge from the Army have afterwards had their discharge stopped by their commanding officer as the competent authority; and will he consider measures to have the hardships suffered by wives and children of these men taken into consideration by a revision of this Regulation?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): The answer to the first part of the question is, as regards non-commissioned officers and men, in the negative. Discharge by purchase is not invariably sanctioned, but the circumstances of each case are taken into account, and the discretion in any particular instance is with the General Officer Commanding. It is not possible for officers to purchase their release from the Army. As regards the second part, full consideration is always given to cases where the applications are based on grounds of extreme compassion.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what is the proportion of staff officers to other ranks in the

    1745
    British Army of Occupation in Germany; and what is the corresponding proportion in the French Army of Occupation in Germany?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The proportion of staff officers to other ranks in the British Army of Occupation in Germany is less than ·2 per cent., and I am informed that the corresponding proportion in the French Army is approximately ·4 per cent.

    RE-ENLISTMENT (PARENTS' ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that a large number of young men were induced to re-enlist in the Army in 1919 on the understanding that the allowance to their parents would continue to be paid; if he is aware that in a number of instances the allowance has been discontinued; if he will state the reason why it has been discontinued; and whether any other payment is being made in its place?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer which I gave last Monday to the right hon. Member for Woolwich East. In all cases where men enlisted on condition that certain allowances were continued, the provision is made, as will be seen by a reference to the Army Order, for the recognition of such rights.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman seed me a copy of the Army Order?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I shall have great pleasure in doing so.

    SALMON FISHERIES.
    Mr. PERCYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if and when it is proposed to introduce a Salmon Fisheries Bill; and if the same will consolidate the provisions of the various Salmon Acts now in existence?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): A Bill dealing with fisheries in general is being prepared, and it is at present contemplated to take this opportunity of consolidating the law as to salmon and freshwater fisheries. It is hoped to introduce the Bill during the present Session,
    1746
    but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a definite statement on the subject.
    Mr. PERCY: Will the hon. Member undertake that as soon as the Bill is printed copies of it will be sent to the various fisheries authorities concerned, so that they may consider it?
    Mr. PARKER: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will that Bill apply to Scotland and Ireland?
    Mr. PARKER: I am afraid that I cannot say.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    EX-SOLDIERS, CANADA (EXCHANGE).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-soldiers in receipt of pension now living in Canada are being prejudiced by the low rate of exchange; that in one case a man who is entitled to a monthly pension of £2 11s. 6d. is receiving only £2 0s. 9d.; and whether arrangements will be made to ensure the payment of the full pension due in each case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Arrangements are in force under which men resident in Canada before the Great War, who joined the British Forces and have now returned to Canada disabled, may elect to receive pension at the same rates and under the same conditions as men discharged from the Canadian Forces, and thus become independent of fluctuations in the rates of exchange.
    In the case, however, of Imperial pensioners who have emigrated since the War these arrangements do not apply. Pension is in their case paid by cheque issued in sterling and the actual amount for which this can be negotiated is governed by the current rate of exchange in the country to which they have emigrated. My right hon. Friend has no power to pay Imperial pensions otherwise than at the rates laid down in the Royal Pension Warrants in order to compensate for an adverse rate of exchange.

    ARMY CYCLISTS CORPS (PRIVATE A. V. PLANT).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Pensions whether Mrs. Plant, mother of the late Private A. V. Plant, No. 1798, Army Cyclists Corps, has been refused a pension on the ground that her son's death was not attributable to his military service although he joined up in September, 1914, contracted malaria in Salonika, and was in hospital there; whether Private Plant was discharged from the Army in March, 1919, and, within a fortnight of his discharge, during the course of his civil employment, caught his leg in a machine, which accident caused a recurrence of malaria, from which he died in April, 1919; and why a pension has been refused to Mrs. Plant when, had it not been for the malaria which her son caught on active service, there is no doubt that he would be alive to-day?
    Major TRYON: My right hon. Friend is causing further inquiry to be made into the facts of this case and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to ask what business will be taken to-morrow and Friday?
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Government of Ireland Bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EMERGENCY POWERS BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 26 th October].
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  EMERGENCY POWERS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of Proclamations of Emergency.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 59.

    Division No. 334.]

    AYES.

    [3.50 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Edge, Captain William

    Lorden, John William

    Armitage, Robert

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Astor, Viscountess

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Barnston, Major Harry

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Barrand, A. R.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Gardiner, James

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Bigland, Alfred

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Matthews, David

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Grant, James A.

    Moles, Thomas

    Blair, Reginald

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Blane, T. A.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morris, Richard

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

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

    Mosley, Oswald

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Murchison, C. K.

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

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

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Bruton, Sir James

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

    Neal, Arthur

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

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

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

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

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

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Casey, T. W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Higham, Charles Frederick

    Parker, James

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

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

    Clough, Robert

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

    Percy, Charles

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Rae, H. Norman

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rankin, Captain James S.

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

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jesson, C.

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Roberts, Sir S (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

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

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Seager, Sir William

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

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

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

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

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

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Donald, Thompson

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Vickers, Douglas

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Waddington, R.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wallace, J.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Sugden, W. H.

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Wise, Frederick

    Taylor, J.

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Wason, John Cathcart

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

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

    Tickler, Thomas George

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

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Briant, Frank

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Spencer, George A.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawson, John J.

    Swan, J. E.

    Cairns, John

    Lunn, William

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Tootill, Robert

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, Alfred (Lanc, Clitheroe)

    Myers, Thomas

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Devlin, Joseph

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Wignall, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wintringham, T.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Rafffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Robertson, John

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

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Sexton, James

    CLAUSE 2.—(Emergency Regulations.)
    (1) Where a proclamation of emergency has been made, and so long as the proclamation is in force, it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council, by Order, to make regulations for securing the essentials of life to the community, and those regulations may confer or impose on a Secretary of State or other Government Department, or any other persons in His Majesty's service or acting on His Majesty's behalf, such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem necessary for the preservation of the peace, for securing and regulating the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, and other necessities, for maintaining the moans of transit or locomotion, and for any other purposes essential to the public safety and the life of the community, and may make such provisions incidental to the powers aforesaid as may appear to His Majesty to be required for making the exercise of those powers effective.
    (2) Any regulation so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall not continue in force after the expiration of fourteen days from the time when they are so laid unless a resolution is passed by both Houses providing for the continuance thereof.
    (3) The regulations may provide for the trial by courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the regulations; so, however, that the maximum penalty which may be inflicted shall be imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term of three months, or a fine of one hundred pounds, or both such imprisonment
    1782
    and fine, together with the forfeiture of any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed.
    (4) The regulation so made shall have-effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be added to, altered, or revoked by regulations made in like manner and subject to the like provisions as the original regulations; and regulations made under this Section shall not be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
    (5) The expiry or revocation of any regulations so made shall not be deemed to have affected the previous operation thereof, or the validity of any action taken thereunder, or any penalty or punishment incurred in respect of any contravention or failure to comply therewith, or any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such punishment or penalty.
    Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask what Amendments it is proposed to take on this Clause?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I propose to take is the second in order standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and of other hon. Members which proposes to leave out the words "for the preservation of the peace." The next Amendment, in the name of the same hon. Member, to leave out the words "and other necessities,"

    1783
    will follow. Then I propose to take the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes), to leave out the words "and for any other purposes." After that I propose to take the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), to add the words
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any regulations abrogating any existing law or imposing any form of compulsory service."
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "for the preservation of the peace."
    4.0 P.M.
    This, in my view, raises the most important point in this emergency measure that we have yet discussed. I would remind the Committee that when the Bill was introduced we had speeches from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and the ease they all put for the passing of this Bill in so short a time was based altogether upon other purposes than those which are conveyed in these words. The Leader of the House, in introducing the Bill, used these words:—
    "What is the nature of those powers and the emergency It is obvious that if such a contingency arose it would be necessary for the Government, in order to prevent people in this country from being starved, to take under their own control, and keep it all the food of this country. Without that power the nation might starve."
    A little further down the Leader of the House said:
    "The House of Commons must realise that the time might come when if we had very cold weather there might be huge stocks of coal held up and kept up by those who owned them at extravagant prices, and only available to those who could pay extravagant prices. It is obvious, if we are to deal with a situation of that kind, we must have the power, if necessary, not merely to take possession of that coal, but to ration and distribute it amongst those of the nation who require it. It is equally obvious that we must have under our control the means of transferring these necessaries of life. We must have the power to commandeer, for example, any vehicle of any time which is necessary to transfer these essential commodities from whore they are not required to where they are most required. That is the kind of power we are asking for in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Oct., 1920, cols.,1400–1, Vol. 133.]
    I take it that, in epitome, describes the purpose of the measure which we are discussing. At any rate, it is fa to say
    1784
    that from no responsible Minister who has yet dealt with the Bill have we had any reason other than the reason with which I understand every Member of the Committee agrees, namely, that in an emergency of that kind the Government must take steps to see that the people are fed, that there is no favour shown to any one particular class, and that the essentials of life are maintained. When we come to the second Clause of the Bill we have introduced something new and something which entitles us to ask the Government precisely what they moan. The Committee will remember that the Prime Minister himself, speaking on the Second Reading, visualised what might have happened last Saturday and Sunday had the railwaymen come out on strike. He then said:
    "So serious was the situation that we really had to discuss the question whether we should not have a Saturday sitting of the House and take steps for a meeting of the House of Lords, because we should not have been justified in going on for a single day without having the powers which are contained here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th Oct., 1920, col. 1452, Vol. 133.]
    At that moment it was actually contemplated, should the railwaymen come out on a sympathetic strike, to take certain powers, and we are entitled, before we agree to the conclusion of these words in this Clause, to know what kind of powers the Government contemplated taking on the Saturday prior to the Sunday on which the railway strike was to materialise, because it is obvious, and only fair to say, that if the Government had had this Bill in their minds for so long they must have had in their minds the kind of Regulations that they require, and if those Regulations are in any way different from those already obtained then we are entitled to the information. The Committee has to bear in mind that so far as we are aware the Government at this moment have sufficient powers to preserve the peace. There is no good purpose to be served by recalling in detail any one particular strike, but it is a fact within the cognisance of the Committee that from time to time we have had very big strikes lasting a very considerable time in which, with very few exceptions, the ordinary powers in the hands of the Executive have been quite sufficient to preserve a peaceful state of affairs throughout the country. Therefore, we want to know, and we must know, what new powers the Government seek to obtain under the cover of this

    1785
    phrase. If it be true, and I take it that nobody objects to the proposition, that the Government now have the means of dealing with the public peace, one begins to prospect as to what is required under the new powers now sought.
    I want to ask some questions which I hope my right hon. Friend can satisfactorily answer. During the War we have been familiar with the powers of D.O.R.A., powers secured for a particular purpose Under the powers of D.O.R.A. we had some very remarkable happenings in the country, and those happenings might easily again suggest to the Government methods of dealing with them similar to those used under D.O.R.A. Supposing, for instance, we had, as we have now, a coal miners' strike and that the miners engaged in it got as far out of hand as any strikers in any previous strike. Do my right hon. Friends contemplate, for example, taking powers to prevent miners' leaders and other strike leaders from going to any particular parts of the country? I can conceive it possible that my right hon. Friend might say that it would be dangerous for my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) to go down to his constituency and address there railwaymen who might be out on strike, or that it might be dangerous for Mr. Smillie, the miners' leader, to go from Scotland, his own territory, to South Wales to address a strike meeting. That was done, of course, under D.O.R.A. Certain areas were proscribed and certain public men were not allowed to go into those areas to address meetings. Under this Clause you give the Executive further and greater powers to deal with what they call the preservation of the peace. Is that the kind of power that they mean to take? Do they mean to take the power of search, for example, as was taken under D.O.R.A., and to interfere with the correspondence and communications of men who are supposed to be engaged in shepherding or engineering a particular strike at the moment? If it be not that kind of thing that the Government have in their minds, why put in these words? If the words do not cover anything but the powers already in their hands, then why use the words? Why not take them out?
    It is quite obvious that if there be a strike imminent or a strike which has actually matured, the Government have
    1786
    power immediately to issue the Regulations about which we have been talking. Those Regulations are bound to be Regulations to meet the situation. It is quite true that the Government may be perfectly cool in their own view of the situation and may come to cool and mature conclusions, but everybody knows that Regulations drawn up and promulgated at such a time are more likely to provoke than to allay trouble. As a matter of fact, the Government now have sufficient power to deal with any situation, and, if the Government would accept this Amendment, I am perfectly certain that it would relieve the minds of a great many of us who, while on the side of law and order in any industrial dispute, would not like to see the Executive endowed with the power of a greater interference with the personal liberty of the subject throughout the length and breadth of the land. After all, we have the experience of the past to guide us. I do not remember any strike or any situation in the country where greater powers than those already possessed by the Executive were required, and, in view of the fact that this Bill is being discussed at this precise moment, I venture to suggest that, unless my right hon. Friend can give some substantial reasons why further powers are required and at the same time state explicitly what they have in their minds in asking for these further powers, the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: The anxiety just expressed by my hon. Friend opposite is not entirely confined to the other side of the Committee. No doubt it is true that the purpose of the Regulations is to secure the essentials of life for the community, and the Attorney-General no doubt would say that the powers for the preservation of the peace which are to be enshrined in the Regulations are powers strictly ancillary to the main purpose of securing the essentials of life for the community. If that be his answer, I cannot conceive the object of putting in the words "preservation of the peace" at all. If the words were left out, we should still have two things. We should still have the power to make Regulations for securing the essentials of life for the community, and, in addition, Regulations for securing and regulating the supply of those

    1787
    different services and commodities. I think that this particular phrase in the Bill is subject to a good deal of justifiable suspicion. The liberties which we possess in this country under our constitution are clear and defined liberties arising out of a long series of legal decisions. They are not, and have not been for many a day, subject to arbitrary action on the part of the Executive. No doubt the preservation of the peace is important, and liberty is important, but the task of our lawmakers and judges has been to reconcile the preservation of the peace with the maintenance of individual liberty. That task has been accomplished by ages of legal development, and, as one result of that, we have in this country the situation that the Government, and the servants of the Government, in dealing with disturbances, can use that amount of force, and no more, which is strictly necessary for the purpose in view. If that is exceeded, then the servants of the Government have to answer for their actions in the courts of law. The Executive, in times of stress, is often apt to take short views, and that, I think, is where the possible peril of this particular phrase in the Bill comes in—the real danger of upsetting that nice balance and the justice of our constitutional law.
    I do not know what is the purpose of this particular phrase. I am sure that the Attorney-General will not suggest that any of us on this side, or, perhaps, on the other side, are against the Government's having any powers which are really necessary for the preservation of the peace. What we fear is that the executive, in moments of panic, may take special powers which they say are for the preservation of the peace, but which, in the long run, will have a wrecking influence on the very peace which they hope to maintain. After all, the only purpose of the power given by this phrase in the Bill is to give to the executive the right to make some action legal which would be illegal in the present state of the law, and I really think that that alone calls for some reply from the Attorney-General. It means that the executive can supplant the law in regard to the maintenance of the peace which has grown up through a long series of legal decisions. It means that they can supplant that by a temporary
    1788
    law inscribed in Regulations which may be born of panic and haste. I do not desire, if I can possibly help it, to press this question to a division, but I think the learned Attorney-General will recognise that, as this is a measure which is intended to be permanent, there arises here a very grave constitutional doubt. I think the Committee ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hogge) for having raised it, and I think they will expect a proper reply to the very relevant points which he has placed before them.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Again I am afraid that the discussion has rather branched off into such a discussion as one would anticipate if the regulations, and not this Bill, were before the Committee. May I remind the Committee that, when powers are taken in a general way to make regulations such as these, it is very easy to conjure up all sorts of absurd things that might be done, all sorts of improper things that might be done. Surely, however, the Committee will realise that you cannot refuse the power to make proper regulations because that power might, in conceivable circumstances, be abused. It is true that the power asked for might be abused, but I am sure the Committee will approach this from the point of view that the Government, be it a Labour Government, or whatever Government it may be, will make a reasonable use of the powers given to it. It is true that, so far far as the preservation of the peace is concerned, we have ample powers now for the use of force; but regulations may very well be made with regard to the rationing of food, or the distribution of food, which would involve, if we were to prevent disturbance, other regulations not in any way connected with the distribution of food in itself. They might, for instance, entail the shutting of public-houses at an hour which the law did not enforce, and there are all kinds of things that one can conceive. But even if to-day I could not mention any instance of what might occur, none the less I should have said that it was a power which ought to be given. It is not putting unrestricted power into the hands of any Government. At the very worst, as we all know, a regulation could only be in force for a matter of seven or eight days before Parliament got control of it. Therefore it is

    1789
    not as though we were asking for some uncontrolled power. All that we are asking for is that, amongst the regulations which we ask power to make, there shall be regulations, if necessary, for the preservation of the peace—regulations which may not' be necessary for the mere distribution of food, which may not be necessary for securing equality in the distribution of food, but which may be necessary in order to preserve the peace. I hope, therefore, that these words will be allowed to remain in the Bill.
    Major HAYWARD: I have listened with great attention to the speech of the Home Secretary in the hope that I should find some justification for the retention of these words. I must say, however, that it has done nothing to remove the great apprehension of alarm that I had in regard to them. In my judgment, these are the really dangerous words in the whole Bill, and if they were removed, so far as I am concerned, most of my objection would be removed. My objection to them is that they equip, not this Government particularly, but any future Government, with power to make any regulations for the preservation of the peace, and, if those regulations are broken, a criminal offence will be committed, so that it will be quite possible to create a criminal offence out of any action which is perfectly legal under the general law of the land. The reply which the right hon. Gentleman gives to all these questions is, indeed, the only reply that he can give. He says that we cannot contemplate what will happen in the future, or what future governments are going to do, because, naturally, he does not know. All that he does is to hope that they will be actuated by reason in their action. My eminently genial and eminently sane right hon. Friend will not always be sitting on the Government Bench, and it is not only conceivable, but it is not improbable, that circumstances might arise in the future, and governments might be in power in the future, which would use this particular power, not merely for the preservation of the peace, but in such a way as would bring about disaster, and would cause breaches of the peace far more serious than they contemplated. There are the cases indicated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), and one could go on enumerating cases that might very probably occur in any industrial dispute
    1790
    where an emergency existed. One can well understand that an executive might think it right to prohibit many actions, words, speeches, advice, which at present are perfectly legal. That is not at all inconceivable, and not improbable. It is not enough to tell the House of Commons that you must trust to the reasonableness of the future actions of the executive. You are asking us to equip the executive with these powers, and we ought, in doing so, to define and limit them properly. My objection to these words is that they are not properly limited and not properly defined; they are altogether too wide as they stand. May I put the further question: Are they necessary? I should like seriously to ask the representatives of the Government what action they can possibly require to take for the preservation of the peace which they have not already ample powers for taking. I should like to ask them what action or words of, say, a trade union official, which are perfectly legal now, they want under any circumstances to make criminal?
    Mr. SHORTT: It would not be criminal.
    Major HAYWARD: It would be criminal. It is with very great trepidation that I dissent from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but if a regulation is made that certain things cannot be done, and if that regulation is broken, it becomes a criminal offence, and anyone who breaks it might be subject to imprisonment with or without hard labour for three months. I ask: Is it necessary? Is there not, under the law as it stands at present, ample power to deal with everything that can conceivably be necessary for the maintenance of the peace? My right hon. Friend says that it can only be for five days at the outside. As the Bill stands, however, it will be for three weeks at the least, because the regulation operates from the time when it is laid before the House of Commons, and then for 14 days. There are the five days for calling the House together, and there are a further 14 days. There may possibly be some Amendment to that, but that is how it stands at present.
    Mr. SHORTT: It has been amended.
    Major HAYWARD: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, but we have not yet arrived at the place where that is dealt with. It follows on in Clause 2.

    1791
    The regulation is to be in operation for 14 days, or until Parliament decides one way or the other. The Bill also provides that any act done under a regulation shall be perfectly valid whether the regulation is revoked or not, so that one might have this state of things—that a regulation might be made, there might be a breach of the regulation, and somebody might be committed and imprisoned under it, and then, even if Parliament comes and declares that regulation to be invalid, the man is not released, but remains in prison. In these circumstances I appeal to the Government to reconsider these words, and, if they cannot consent to oimt them, further to limit or define them, so as to give more security against the contingencies which may arise in the future.
    Mr. LAWSON: The ingenuity which has been shown by the Government speakers in keeping off this particular Clause, and this particular phrase of the Clause, is proof to me that this is the crux of the Bill. I have not had the slightest doubt from the first that here you have the whole heart of this Bill. Indeed, I am wondering exactly what new form of violence the Government mean to perpetrate upon the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman may laugh. I do not think the Government can be reasonable as far as this matter is concerned, and I think that the only reason why we should try and save them from the results of their own folly is that some of our people will probably be involved at some time or other. It has been stated that the Government at the present time have certain powers. Indeed, they have more power now than they had 12 months ago for dealing with any possible disturbance. I am a Member of a Standing Joint Committee. The Standing Joint Committee in this country previously were responsible, or mainly responsible, at any rate, for the control of the peace, and they were to some extent trusted. To-day they are not trusted at all, for they have practically no power, the powers that they have had having been filched from them during the last 12 or 15 months by the Home Office and by other Departments. We have gone through strikes before. I have been concerned in large strikes, and there has been no trouble, nor even a tendency to trouble. I think it is about ten years since there was any
    1792
    trouble worth speaking of save in a mining area. It is during a mining strike that this Bill is foisted upon the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there has never been any trouble or any tendency whatever towards trouble. In spite of that, and in spits of the fact that there has been a sense of responsibility among responsible men in the various parts of the country, from the very first since the Government got power there has been a tendency to distrust those very men.
    Take an occasion when there is a strike. Immediately that emergency occurs the Government issue their Proclamation, They take to themselves certain Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman says we have to wait and sec what the Regulations are. They are not asking us to pass a Clause like this, involving a principle like this, without contemplating Regulations which are going to be effective when they are laid before the House. In previous strikes they have had the help of responsible leaders or workers in the various parts of the country. Does the Government think that if you control from Whitehall and issue a Proclamation and lay down certain Regulations they are going to get the co-operation of the representatives in the particular districts for something which they will do which may involve other people? In my opinion, for what our influence is worth as things stand at present, we use our influence not only to maintain the peace but to create a good spirit and a spirit of good humour whatever the conflict may be, and sometimes we have to take a very strong stand to maintain it. We have done that up to the present. If they pass a Clause like this they cannot expect men of responsibility to do what they can to maintain peace. The real power is out of their hands and it centres here in London. I said yesterday that the Government were making a science of lightning strikes, so far as this Clause is concerned, by removing the power out of the hands of the Standing Joint Committees and the Watch Committees. They reveal a distrust of the working class community who have been elected on these councils in recent months which will instinctively lead these people to refuse to accept responsibility in such a crisis. After all you can get what Regulations you like and pass what Bills you like, but the co-operation of working class

    1793
    men in a responsible position will be of more value than any Regulations or Bills you can have, and if there is a refusal to accept co-operation you will precipitate the very thing which you want to avoid. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing to quarrel about in this Bill and that our quarrel is with the Regulations. We quarrel with the Bill because they are asking for this power under this part of the Clause. We will support the omission of this part of the Clause which speaks about the preservation of the peace, for in days gone by we have maintained the peace. I support the Amendment.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I cannot help thinking that the Government would be wise to consent to the omission of these words. The argument of the Home Secretary that it does not very much matter what limiting or defining words you insert here because Parliament will have effective control over the Regulations when they are introduced, appears when pushed to its logical conclusion to go to a very dangerous length, because any limitation would be altogether unnecessary. But what I want to point out to the Government is this. These Regulations can only be made after a Proclamation has been issued, and the conditions under which a Proclamation can be issued are those which are stated in the first Sub-section of Clause 1. I should have thought it was eminently desirable that the power of making Regulations which is conferred by this Clause should be in terms and in substance commensurate with the emergency which is described as the proper foundation for the Proclamation. It is no ground for the issue of a Proclamation under Clause 1 that there is a danger of disturbance of the peace. The Proclamation cannot be justified by that. It can only be justified if the conditions as to the supply and distribution of commodities essential to the life of the community are complied with. That is how the emergency is defined on which the Proclamation is based. If I had been concerned in drawing this Clause, I should have thought it very desirable to omit these words, because it appears to me that the whole object which they serve is met by the subsequent words of the Subsection. Suppose we leave out the words, "for the preservation of the peace." "Such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem necessary for securing and
    1794
    regulating the supply and distribution of food, etc., for maintaining the means of transit or locomotion, and for any other purposes essential to public safety and the life of the community." As far as I am concerned, I should not be prepared to omit those words. I think they are right and reasonable words. If those words "essential to the public safety and the life of the community" are retained, it appears to me to lose nothing in point of substance, whereas you lose a good deal in point of grace and, indeed, of logical consistency, by inserting a new category, necessarily ambiguous in its definition and possibly very vague and wide in its scope—the preservation of the peace.
    The Regulations, it appears to me, and the power of making Regulations, ought to be commensurate with the need which leads to the issue of the Proclamation. If, as I quite agree, we secure the actual maintenance and proper distribution of supplies and food and means of transport and any other purposes essential to public safety, you have all that any Government really needs to deal with the exigencies of the case. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson). I think some of his apprehensions are, perhaps, exaggerated, and some of the dangers which he fears are not likely to occur, but we are dealing with a very sensitive state of opinion. It is extremely undesirable to introduce words which may arouse and oven inflame Opinion, perhaps beyond what is reasonable or necessary, when they are not absolutely needed for the exigencies of the case. I submit to the Attorney-General as an old lawyer, though not quite so old as I am—but we are both old lawyers, more or less—that he would get all he really needs if he omitted these words, provided he retains, as I think he ought to retain, and I should be prepared to support him in retaining, the concluding general words, "any other purposes essential to the public safety and the life of the community." At the same time, he will avoid the risk of misunderstanding, I will not say of abuse—I do not think serious abuse is likely to occur-but misunderstanding and distortion of the intentions and purposes with which this legislation is passed by Parliament.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I need not say that any argument or suggestion which proceeds

    1795
    from my right hon. friend is quite certain to receive most careful and respectful attention. But I am bound to say that the criticism upon these words, to which he has now lent the great weight of his authority, is based to some extent at least upon a misapprehension. It has been laid down again and again in the courts that where powers are given by statute to the executive it must be assumed that they will be exercised reasonably. You are not to construe a statute upon the footing that the power which is given to the Government is going to be, or is likely to be, exercised in a ridiculous or unreasonable or grotesque fashion, and I have not the least doubt that my right hon. Friend would agree with that proposition. Nor do I share for a moment the more imaginative apprehensions which have sometimes been expressed and frequently indicated in the course of this Debate. But we know very well that in this House, before the power is given, and on the question whether the power shall be given, the argument proceeds on the assumption that it will be, is meant to be, and if I followed what was said in the earlier part of the Debate, is desired to be exercised in a fashion which is unreasonable.
    Mr. LAWSON: I never said so.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am suggesting that that proposition was implicit in the argument. However that may be, we are to approach this Clause, as I submit, from the point of view that the powers which are to be conferred upon the Executive will be exercised reasonably, honestly, and in good faith. That being so, how far have we got on the Bill as it now stands? The Committee has already decided, and the House has already decided by the vote upon the Second Reading, that it is not only desirable but essential in the public interest that certain machinery shall be provided in order to enable the Executive promptly and effectively to deal with what the Bill speaks of as an emergency. To that end it is provided that when the event happens a Proclamation may be issued, and when the Proclamation is issued certain Regulations may be made. We have got so far, and that particular matter is no longer, at any rate at this stage of the Bill, a subject of controversy. That being so, the Committee is not considering now
    1796
    what are the detailed Regulations to be made, but what are the categories within which those Regulations are to be confined. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) said, and I respectfully agree with him, that the Regulations which are to be provided for in the second Clause are to be "commensurate with the purpose which is described in the first Clause." "Commensurate with." I accept the phrase; but "commensurate with" does not moan "identical in so many words with." What is the purpose that is mentioned in the first Clause? The purpose is to deal with action committed or immediately threatened, of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated by various modes of interference, or one of them, to deprive the community of the essentials of life. Is it unreasonable, is it fantastic, to suppose that in the course of committing the action which is to be dealt with, and in the course of the steps which are taken to meet that action, there may be some novel encroachment upon the public peace? It is not merely fair, but it is somewhat obvious to reflect that incidentally to that which is done upon the one side or the other it may be, in the necessities of the case, some special arrangement will have to be made for the preservation of the peace.
    We are not saying by this Clause that Regulations under this head shall certainly be made. What it says is that in the classes of Regulations which may be made the Government is not to be debarred, is not to be excluded, from the making of Regulations under the head of the preservation of the peace. I do sincerely submit to the Committee in general and to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) in particular that it is a reasonable thing that the Executive should not in the classes of topics to which the Regulations may refer be debarred or excluded from Regulations under the head of the preservation of the peace. It would appear from the remaining part of my right hon. Friend's speech that he is prepared to go a large part of that distance with us. H e says that in the more general words towards the conclusion of this Sub-section we have a phrase which would be sufficient to cover what may be reasonably contemplated under this head. That is to say
    "essential to the public safety and the life of the community."

    1797
    It may be so. But I am not sure that it is so, because I can conceive that there might be circumstances in which it would be necessary to make Regulations for the preservation of the peace, although the nature of that which was being dealt with fell short of endangering the public safety and the life of the community. My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that such Regulations for the preservation of the peace might be made under the powers given by these words relating to the public safety and the life of the community. Suppose it to be so. Suppose that my right hon. Friend is right, and that we had limited ourselves to those words. I thought indeed that he was going on to suggest—such was his line of argument—that such Regulations might even be made under the final and yet more general words
    "and may make such provisions incidental to the powers aforesaid as may appear to His Majesty to be required for making the exercise of those powers effective."
    I say, suppose it to be so. Is it not more frank, is it not more fair, that when we do deliberately contemplate the possibility, I put it no higher than that, of making Regulations, among other things, for the preservation of the peace, the Bill should expressly and clearly say so, and that we should not for that purpose shelter ourselves under any more general phrase? I put it upon a broad ground. I recognise, we all recognise, in one of the cogent phrases which my right hon. Friend used that we are dealing with a sensitive state of public opinion. Nobody is blind to that fact, and looking at the matter calmly and dispassionately I do most seriously say that it would not be right, when the Committee is imposing limitations upon the special powers which the Government may think it necessary to exercise, that it should say to the Government, "You may regulate upon this matter, upon that matter, and upon the other matter, but we are going to prevent you, we are going to debar you, from making Regulations for the preservation of the peace."
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The very lucid speech of the Attorney-General has made it clear that this is but another stage in the struggle which has been going on in the latter part of this Parliament to curtail the power of the executive, and to preserve the powers of the Commons assembled hero as the representatives
    1798
    of the people. Whether we agree with this Clause or not, we must admit that there is a fundamental difference between what has been hitherto the practice of the law and the custom of government in this country and that which it is suggested should now be set up. We have struggled to reduce the power of the executive, the power of issuing orders in Council, and have sought to retain power in this House for deciding these and other matters of similar importance. You may have two methods of Government. You may have a method of Government by the executive, no doubt moving swiftly and expeditiously and possibly more satisfactorily than that by the common law, but, on the other hand, we Englishmen in the past have struggled to reduce the power of the executive, and we say that although there may be delays and disadvantages, it is safer for democracy that the regulations which govern our land shall be based on the common statute law, which has to pass through its various stages in this House and another place. It is deplorable that in these days the Government are seeking to remove what has been an effective part of our method of government, and which Englishmen have prided themselves upon in comparison with other countries. In other countries the executive have these greater powers, and they can ride rough-shod over the liberties of the people when emergency arises, but it is undesirable that we in these days should give up the control of Parliament over matters of vital interest to the security of our people.
    No one denies the need there may be for extensive powers being granted to the executive, but let the House grant those powers to the executive when the occasion arises, and not seek permanently to revoke and reverse that which has been the custom in the past It seems to me that this is a measure not so much of defence as of defiance. In the past we have acted on the assumption that strikes and disorders were exceptional occurrences, whereas under the new atmosphere which appears to be created by this Bill it is suggested that strikes and disorders are to be a permanent part of our country, and we are making permanent legislation to deal with them. This creates a wrong atmosphere. It creates an atmosphere which will tend towards the strikes and disorders which we seek to obviate. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman

    1799
    said that we were conjuring up all sorts of imaginary and fantastic happenings, we do realise the dangers of the situation. If the House is not sitting, the executive may act for five days until the House assembles, and another seven days must elapse before an Order in Council can be revoked. Therefore, 12 days may elapse during which the executive will have free power, uncontrolled and untrammelled by this House or by anybody else. It is unnecessary and unreasonable to ask for such extensive powers, and the House ought to be very jealous in refusing to give those extra powers to the executive. The experience of the past few years has shown that the House is willing to give the executive, when the occasion arises, any powers they desire, and at the very shortest notice. It is desirable to safeguard the rights and liberties which we have built up in generations gone by by the constant struggle of the people against the executive, and it is unfortunate that we should be asked to reverse that policy and to give away that which has been won at so great a price.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before we go to a Division we are entitled to more information than has been vouchsafed to us by either the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General. Yesterday an Amendment was accepted to Clause 1, leaving out the words "or other necessities," presumably because four categories had been defined; food, water, fuel and light. My right hon. Friend had no objection to taking out words which were indefinite and, therefore, likely to lead to the kind of questions which we have been putting. The present discussion deals with the words "preservation of the peace," and it raises a question of the new powers which the Executive seek to obtain. The only reply we have had is that we are raising suppositions, difficulties, and we are told that all that is being done by the insertion of these words is to take power to deal with still another category, the preservation of the peace, and to make such regulations as may be required in particular emergencies. My right hon. Friend has not replied to one argument which needs comment. We have had enormously serious industrial happenings in the past. We have had a coal strike which lasted 17 weeks when men, women
    1800
    and children were at great extremities of hunger and poverty as a result of that lengthened strike, and when they were in a condition of mind and temper which obviously would have prompted them to break the peace, and yet in these extreme circumstances the Executive was armed with quite sufficient powers to deal with that state of things. If I remember rightly, I do not think there was an occasion on which you had to bring in special constables. The ordinary police force, and in some cases the military, were all that were required, and the military were only required in very exceptional storm centres, in exceptional times, to maintain law and order. The Attorney-General, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, said that the words "essential to public safety and the life of the community" were not sufficient for the Government purposes. Why? The Government in an emergency of that sort want to maintain public safety and the life of the community. They propose to maintain the life of the community by providing for the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel and light. Therefore the only other thing that concerns us is the safety of the public. What is it my right hon. Friend has in mind"? The main argument of the Prime Minister in his speech on the Second Reading was that even at this moment things had been so critical that the House of Lords and this House might have had to be summoned to sit on Saturday. The Government must have had in mind at that time the kind of powers they wanted. If they had not, then they cannot ask us to believe that this is a mature Bill.
    Is the House of Commons not entitled to know, before endowing the Government permanently with that power, what they had in their mind beyond the powers for the preservation of peace. In the circumstances one is entitled to assume that the Government do want powers beyond the powers which they are at present obtaining. Suppose you had a railway-men's strike, it is conceivable that the Government might prevent every responsible railwaymen's leader from going to a strike area and speaking to the men. The areas could be proscribed and the men prescribed, and these would be regulations for what is called the preservation of the peace. We would support

    1801
    the Government in maintaining the safety of the community, but we are not prepared to give special powers in matters of opinion affecting the individual liberty of the subject. My right hen. Friend has got more respect for a Committee of the House of Commons than to say simply, "You must wait and see the regulations." This is a Bill which the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend say has been contemplated by the Government for months. Therefore, they must have been thinking about it. That is not what they had in their minds, and if they want the consent of the Committee we ought to know before we come to a decision. Personally, I must go to a Division, unless my right hon. Friend gives us some idea of what they have in their minds. These regulations will always be made in a hurry, and many men engaged in industrial disputes might find themselves laid by the heels and put in prison before they had ever read the regulations or knew in what they were offending. It happened under Defence of the Realm Act over and over again.
    Mr. SHORTT: That they went to prison?
    Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps not. I do not want to exaggerate. Those men, at any rate, were frequently arrested for an offence the nature of which they did not know. If you are going to make regulations for the preservation of peace under this Bill, they are going to be made in a big emergency when feeling is very hot, and if, under the regulations, you got some of the well-known leaders of organised industry, instead of co-operating with the Government to avoid the continuance of the strike, laid by the heels, then you are going to promote and provoke strikes, and in view of that we shall press for a further reply from the Home Secretary as to what really is contemplated under this particular power.
    Mr. MACMASTER: The first Clause provides for the issue of a Proclamation in conditions of emergency. The second Clause declares what should be the purpose of the Regulation. The object of the Regulations is there declared to be to secure the essentials of life to the community. That is the broad general power that is given to the Executive. It is in a subsequent portion of the same Clause that certain specific provision is
    1802
    made for the delegation of power to a Secretary of State or a Government Department, and in connection with the delegation of power we find these words "the preservation of peace." It seems to me that the primary object in the whole of the latter part of the second Clause is to make provision for what should be inserted in the Regulations. That would have to do with the delegated power, and entirely with the delegated power. It is when these Regulations come up for consideration by the House that all these matters may be criticised and settled. Meantime, all the Government are asking for is the power to make the Regulations in certain conditions. If they make the Regulations they must forthwith communicate them to the House. When they are communicated the House has power to consider them. All this criticism which might be urged against the Regulations in certain cases would be urged then, or if there was special objection to the delegation of powers to a Secretary of State or a Department of State that would be urged then. But conceivably, in certain circumstances, the delegation of powers might be necessary, and I do not see the danger to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. ADAMSON: If this Amendment goes to a Division I have no alternative but to support it, unless we can have some further undertaking on the part of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. The part with which my hon. Friend's Amendment deals is one of the most important parts of the measure under consideration. The Government recognise it. It must have been in the mind of the Prime Minister when he spoke on the Second Reading. He said:
    "So serious was the position that we really had to discuss the question whether we should not have a Saturday sitting and take steps for a meeting of the House of Lords, because we should not have been justified in going on for a single day without having the powers which are contained here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 25th October, 1920, Vol. 133, col. 1452.]
    I wonder why the Prime Minister made a statement of this kind if it was not that he wanted to place restrictions on certain sections of the citizens of this country. I believe the Bill is an anti-strike Bill, and for the purpose of limiting the powers and activities of the trade union movement of this country, and that under the

    1803
    powers that the Government are taking by this measure they will be able to restrict the activities of certain sections of the citizens of this country in a way that under the present law is not possible, notwithstanding the very wide powers under the present law. Unless the Bill is modified to a greater extent than we have been able to secure in the Committee stage it is just possible that the Government will be in the position to restrict persons in my position in carrying put their duty to their particular constituents. When the last ballot was being taken on the unfortunate dispute in which we are at present engaged, I was asked by members of my own organisation to go down and discuss with them the proposals that had been put forward by the mine-owners and the Government. I went down and discussed with them at numerous meetings these proposals. I gave them my own personal opinion regarding them, and advised them as to how they ought to vote. But if the Government had been armed with the powers which they now ask for, I should not have been in a position to have gone down, unless with the consent of the Government. The powers under this Bill, if applied, would have prevented me going down unless with their consent.
    Mr. SHORTT: Not at all.
    Mr. ADAMSON: What is to prevent the Government, if they know that I am going down to my constituents to advise them against a settlement on the lines suggested by the Government, from preventing me with the powers under this Bill from going down? I will give you another instance. Numerous letters have come to me during recent days on matters concerning the strike. With the powers which this Bill will confer there is nothing to prevent the Government having all my correspondence opened.
    Mr. SHORTT: The Bill makes no difference.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I think it does. My association is now running a little weekly bulletin and a number of people, myself included, are asked to contribute short articles to that bulletin. There, again, the Government, with this Bill passed, could prevent the publishing of that bulletin and could prevent any of us from writing articles for the guidance of our
    1804
    people. These are serious things for the trade union movement. We are entitled to put these points to the Members of the Government and to get a reply upon them. I hope that before the Division is taken we shall have some further statement from the Home Secretary.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have the greatest difficulty in seeing what there is fresh in the speeches to which I have listened, but at the same time I should very much regret it if I were thought discourteous by a single Member. I will, therefore, endeavour to make myself plainer. The last two speakers have treated this Bill as though it dealt with strikes and nothing else. Nothing is further from the truth. It is not a strike-breaking or an anti-trade union Bill. Really it is wasting the time of the Committee to answer arguments which are based on the assumption that this is an anti-trade union and a strike-breaking Bill, because it is nothing of the sort. It has been put to me, "Well, you have had this Bill in preparation for some time, and the Prime Minister said on Saturday that we would perhaps find it necessary to have a Saturday sitting to get the Bill through." That is perfectly true. We have for months considered this Bill, not in the light of any particular set of circumstances or any particular emergency, but in the light of any emergency that we thought might arise. We thought of all the sots of circumstances we could, but on Friday and Saturday, when we were considering the then position, we were not considering this Bill. It is perfectly true that we did consider what regulations it might be necessary to put before the Cabinet for their consideration, and then to put before Parliament. But I ask hon. Members opposite, what on earth was there in the position on Friday or Saturday to suggest to us that we should require any Regulations? There was nothing to suggest it, and we never even considered on Friday and Saturday Regulations with regard to the preservation of the peace, because there was nothing to suggest to us that there would be any broach of the peace. That does not prevent us, when considering the Bill in peace time, not in regard to any particular set of circumstances, from showing that such an emergency might arise. When it does arise we shall require to deal with it. We were faced on Friday and Saturday with a possible stoppage of

    1805
    the means of communication, which would involve the necessity, perhaps, of commandeering food and providing the means of distributing it. Those were the considerations we had before us and the Regulations were considered, but there was no question at all of a breach of the peace, and we never considered what might eventually become necessary, namely, Regulations under this particular Bill. These words may become necessary; it may be necessary to take steps. I do not think the right hon. Member who spoke last seriously suggests that, because he might go to advise his union that certain proposals of the Government should be objected to, we could prevent him from doing so. It cannot be so. No such thing has ever happened. If my right hon. Friend really desired that he and his anion should starve the community, or if my right hon. Friend really desired that he and his organisation should commit breaches of the peace and he went down to incite to it, we do not want this Bill; we would deal with him quickly enough.
    Mr. SPENCER: If, after the statement repeatedly made by the Home Secretary that it is not intended in any way to break up legitimate strikes, he will accept an Amendment providing that no part of this measure shall apply to a strike which is carried on according to the present law, then we might have some faith in the statements which have been made; but if no such assurance is forthcoming from the Government, we shall be led to draw the only inference possible, namely, that underlying the intention of the Government is the prime intention of stopping legitimate strikes. It was stated yesterday from the Front Opposition Bench that we had a maximum of suspicion of this Bill and of its intentions. We most certainly have. We have suspicions about the power which any responsible Minister of the Crown is going to assume for the purpose of keeping peace until Parliament could meet. This Bill invests a single Minister with unlimited opportunities to use that power in whatever way he may deem necessary for the purpose of keeping the peace. That opens a wide door for the full play of a Minister's ambition or prejudice in relation to a possible strike. I am not going to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would use it, but the fact remains that he could
    1806
    take those powers and could govern this country by the worst form of legislation possible, namely, government by mere Regulation. We are not only suspicious of the power to be assumed, but we are suspicious about the application of that power to different persons. I am going to propound a conundrum. Assume that we get over this coal difficulty and that at the end of two months the Government give notice of their intention to reduce the miners' wages by 2s. a day, that the miners refuse to sell their labour at that price, that a great strike follows and that during that strike there is a breach of the peace. Who is to be held responsible for the breach of the peace? Is it the Government or the coal owners who have given notice to the workmen that they will not employ them any longer unless they sell their labour at a lower price? In circumstances of that character the Government could not use the powers. But if, on the other hand, the workmen were to ask for a further 2s. advance in wages and that was not forthcoming, then the Government would use their powers against the workmen, and not against those who locked them out, and in the first instance were responsible for the breach of the peace.
    Mr. SWAN: I regret to say that the explanation of the Home Secretary has not removed the apprehension that many of us have as to the menacing powers which are being sought. Instead of these powers for the preservation of the peace attaining the object which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, they will make obdurate employers more obdurate. The sweeping powers which would be behind the various employers when working men have reasoned grievances and present them will make those employers just as obdurate as this House is to the reasoned statements that hon. Members make time and time again. Large numbers of the community are continuously living in a state of siege, and it is because of that that trade unionism came into existence. The powers conferred by this Bill will take away the right of working men to have their own organisation. Very often men with legitimate grievances have no alternative but to take the advice of their leaders and to come out on strike. Under this Bill a Minister has power to arrest that leader, to give him three months' imprisonment, and to fine him £100. I

    1807
    am not suggesting that that is the intention of the Home Secretary, for I know him too well for that. The Home Secretary knows as well as any of the hon. Members who cheer him the obduracy of certain employers, and if any loophole is furnished to them they will refrain from making any concession. What does the Prime Minister suggest as the way to meet all these emergencies. He suggested a little while ago that unrest was caused by unjust conditions and inequalities, and that oppression was responsible for revolution. He said that the way to deal with that position was to remove the causes. I suggest that this Government has had abundant opportunities to remove the causes which gave rise to unrest, but instead of doing so they seek to intensify them and to add to the oppression of the people by introducing such a measure as this. I suggest such a measure is not necessary, and that you should trust the common sense of Labour and employers to deal with these inequalities. When certain employers want to make an attack upon Labour, is there any suggestion in this measure or any intention on the part of the Home Secretary to issue regulations whereby those affected are thrown out of work will be paid. You suggest the preservation of the community. I ask, which community? The intention is to provide for the community who already have more food and necessaries of life than they have the capacity to consume.
    If the Government desire to deal with the causes of unrest let them tackle the question of poverty in the country. One of our Members asked a question the other day as to how many profiteers had been sent to prison for profiteering, and the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was that not one profiteer in the land had been sent to
    prison. But it is suggested when any agitator comes along and complains of grievances that you should have power to send him to prison and to fine him op to £100. We suggest that this Amendment ought to be accepted, not indeed that it will make any great difference to the working classes but because these tremendous powers ought not to be given to the Home Secretary or any other Government Department. [HON. MEMBERS: Bolsheviks.] An hon. Member opposite says, "Bolsheviks." I say that you are the Bolsheviks, and you are responsible for the unrest and otherwise you would not introduce a Bill of this description. Carry out the policy of making this country a place fit for heroes to live in, and there will be no need for a measure of this description with all its tyrannical powers. Speaking of Bolsheviks I say hon. Members opposite are the Bolsheviks.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): The hon. Member should address the Chair, and not hon. Members.
    Mr. SWAN: I know that the Deputy-Chairman (Sir F. Banbury) has been one of the arch-Bolsheviks whenever we have introduced measures to remove the grievances of labour.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not make reflections on the Chair.
    Mr. SWAN: What I said was not intended to be offensive. We believe that this measure encroaches upon the rights and privileges of labour, and that is why we oppose it and support the deletion of these words.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out" stand part of the Clause.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 335.]

    AYES.

    [5.40 p.m

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

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

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Armitage, Robert

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Blair, Reginald

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Borwick, Major G. O.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

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

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Chamberlain, M. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Barrand, A. R.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Clough, Robert

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Purchase, H. G.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jesson, C.

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Reid, D. D.

    Craik, Ht. Hon. Sir Henry

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Renwick, George

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Rodger, A. K.

    Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

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

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

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

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    Donald, Thompson

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Seager, Sir William

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Seddon, J. A.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Lynn, R. J.

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.

    Simm, M. T.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Macmaster, Donald

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

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

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

    Sugden, W. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Gardiner, James

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Mason, Robert

    Taylor, J.

    Gilbert, James Daniel.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Moles, Thomas

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Grant, James A.

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Turton, E. R.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Waddington, R.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Morrison, Hugh

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Mosley, Oswald

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

    Gregory, Holman

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Waring, Major Walter

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Murchison, C. K.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Neal, Arthur

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

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

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

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

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

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

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Parker, James

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Wise, Frederick

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pearce, Sir William

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

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Percy, Charles

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Hinds, John

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

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

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hood, Joseph

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Younger, Sir George

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cairns, John

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Devlin, Joseph

    Briant, Frank

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    1810

    1811

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lunn, William

    Swan, J. E.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Myers, Thomas

    Wignall, James

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

    Newbould, Alfred- Ernest

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

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

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wintringham, T.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Robertson, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Irving, Dan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Major Mackenzie Wood and Mr. Waterson.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. D. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Lawson, John J.

    Spencer, George A.

    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and other necessities."
    I hope it will not be necessary to make a speech on this Amendment, because, as far as I can see, although I believe the Home Secretary thinks otherwise, it is practically the same as one that was accepted yesterday on Clause 1.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment is not consequential at all. The words "or other necessities" in the first Clause deal with the question of such a state of interference as would cause a state of emergency, and it might very well be that there might be some other small necessity the interference with which would not be sufficient to justify an emergency; but here we are concerned with the regulations dealing with the supply and distribution of matters that are necessary to life, and if there did happen to be some small matter of necessity, as well as food and fuel, that could not very well be distributed, we should have powers to deal with it.
    Mr. S. WALSH: What are those small matters of necessity besides food and fuel?
    Mr. HOGGE: I think my right hon. Friend is right, and I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and for any other purposes."
    The Attorney-General has been rather unfair in suggesting that I moved an Amendment to prolong the Debate. The best answer to that is that a larger number of Members went into the Lobby in support of the Amendment than in support of any other that has been moved. I move this Amendment not for the purpose of pressing it to a Division, but in order that it may make this part of the Bill perfectly intelligible. The previous parts of this Clause deal with payments and the
    1812
    distribution of food, fuel, etc. Can the Home Secretary indicate for what other purpose these powers might be exercised?
    Mr. SHORTT: I really think the Debate on these words was covered by the Debate we had on the words "for the preservation of the peace," and I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend want me to repeat what I then said.
    Major BAINES: I was not here at that moment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I will, if the hon. and gallant Member likes, repeat my arguments.
    Major BARNES: In the circumstances, I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall be Construed to authorise the making of any regulations abrogating any existing law or imposing any form of compulsory service."
    This Clause gives the Government power to make regulations which may be very wide and comprehensive, and we move this addition to limit those powers, or at least to make sure that they shall not apply to two cases, the first of which is that they shall not abrogate or supersede legislation which has been secured, and, in the second place, to make sure that they shall not provide for compulsory service. We have grown up under considerable freedom as far as service is concerned, and only during the War did we know what compulsion of this sort meant. Under the stress of war, of course, we accepted many things that under other conditions and in other times we should not have accepted. We also think that if the Government try this it will be doomed to failure from the beginning, because they would have to deal with persons who would be organised, and so

    1813
    would find it very difficult to compel them to do anything which they did not want to do. People belonging to any self-respecting trade union worth its name would simply laugh at this Bill or at regulations made under it. I venture to think that the people affected would be either miners, railwaymen, or transport workers, and these are highly-organised men who would simply treat with contempt any regulations of this sort to compel them to do what they did not want or intend to do.
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot accept the words as they stand, hut I think I can meet my hon. and right hon. Friends opposite with regard to the two fears which they have advanced. In the first place, they want, as far as I understand it, to put their fears into concrete form, to preserve their rights under the Trades Disputes Act, and to see that nothing is done to prevent the right to strike, and perhaps when I tell them what I am pro-pared to do, they may alter their opinion and may believe there is some little grain of truth, even in a Member of this Government. It may be necessary for us temporarily to vary or modify the terms, for example, of the Unemployment Insurance Act for the good of the community, and of course in a sense all emergency legislation, being irregular and something that could not be done in ordinary, normal times, is to that extent an abrogation of the law, and therefore these words are much too wide. Now, perhaps, my hon. Friends will read the succeeding Amendment on the Paper, which deals with persons taking part in strikes, namely:
    "Provided that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person; or persons to take part in a strike or to incite or induce any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    What I would suggest is this, that the Amendment with which we are dealing should read in this way:
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any Regulations imposing any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription."
    That would at any rate prevent any fears that there would be industrial conscription and that the Government could deal with any other than volunteer assistance. The next one I would suggest should read:
    1814
    "Provided that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other "person or persons to take part in a strike,"
    The words in the Amendment on the Paper, "to incite or induce," might be taken to cover cases where direct violence was urged, which would be contrary to the existing law. The words I have suggested entirely prevent what they are afraid of, namely, any kind of compulsory employment of men against their will, any kind of forcing men to work, and they specifically preserve to them the right to strike and the right to lead a strike.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I ask whether the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would consent to withdraw it, in order that the Home Secretary may move another Amendment in the words he has suggested?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I am sure we are very pleased to hear the statement of the Home Secretary, but, at the same time, it is essential that we should have the fullest information in relation to this matter, I want to ask the Home Secretary whether, under this Amendment, persons in His Majesty's service, such as the Post Office for instance, will be compelled to do any other kind of work than their own work as Post Office officials? I want to be certain you are not going to utilise people in His Majesty's service, who have joined for work, for instance, in the Post Office, in other directions.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not in a position to answer that. Clearly, one would not be entitled to take sorters out of the Post Office or clerks out of the Post Office and send them down the, pit or put thorn into shipbuilding yards. I cannot say definitely there is nothing they would be called upon to do, but it would have reasonably to be within their contract of service before they could be called upon.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The class of work my hon. Friend has in view is the taking of postal servants, or other men who are in the service of the Crown, to do the work of men on strike, because if you had a condition of affairs like that it would be a very serious matter. It would be just one of the things that would be likely to cause trouble, and that is the reason for requiring to get as much information as possible before we finally part with this

    1815
    Amendment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for the Newton Division (Mr. R. Young) I am pleased that the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has seen his way to modify the Bill to the extent that he has done. It goes a considerable way towards meeting us on this matter, and, in indicating the manner in which he will be prepared to deal with the following Amendment, he also goes a considerable way to meet us on another very important part of the Bill so far as the trade union movement of this country is concerned, and I was going to suggest to my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment that he might withdraw his in favour of the one proposed by the Home Secretary. If there is any doubt still existing in our minds as to the change that is implied, we might take the opportunity of discussing it further on the Report stage.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. If necessary, we can discuss the Home Secretary s Amendment on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1) insert the words
    "Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any Regulations imposing any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Might I ask the hon. Member (Mr. Kiley) whether he wishes to move his Amendment as it appears on the Paper, or in the form which the Government have indicated they would wish it moved?
    Mr. KILEY: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the Minister in charge of the Bill.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, add:
    "Provided also that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."—[Mr. Kiley.]
    Captain BAGLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "as soon as may be" and to insert instead thereof the words "without avoidable delay."
    1816
    The object of my Amendment is to substitute an intelligible direction for a set of words which has literally no meaning at all. The words "as soon as may be" have made their appearance in many Bills of late, but the present occasion is a very important one, and therefore I take leave to draw attention to these words. This Bill, of course, confers enormous powers on any Ministry. Under it, a Labour Ministry with a few amateur Lenins and Trotskys in it might easily reduce the condition of this country to the condition of serfdom which exists in Russia to-day. As soon as these Regulations are made, they have all the power of an Act of Parliament, and carry penalties for non-observance. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that these Regulations should come before Parliament at the earliest possible moment. The Sub-section recognises that in one way, by providing that the Regulations after being laid before Parliament shall not continue in force for more than 14 days, unless Parliament passes a Resolution providing for their continuance. That is all right so far as the period which elapses after they have been laid before Parliament; but how long is to elapse from the time the Regulations are made, and are therefore in force, until the time they are laid before Parliaments The Bill says they shall be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be." What do those words mean? If they mean "as soon as possible" why not put that into the Bill? Let me put a homely example to the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing I were to borrow from him a ten-pound note and gave him a written solemn promise that I would pay him back as soon as may be; I would like to know at what stage in my affairs he could go to law and recover the money. "As soon as may be" means nothing at all; it might be a week or it might be a month.
    Sir G. HEWART: I have sometimes heard it said by persons who have the misfortune not to be intimately connected with the practice of the law that mere lawyers have a habit of splitting hairs, but, upon my word, I never remember anything quite like the suggested contrast between the meaning of the words "as soon as may be" and the meaning of the words "without avoidable delay" The hon. and gallant Member painted a gloomy picture of what might happen if he borrowed from me a sum of ten pounds

    1817
    to be repaid "as soon as may be." I should be inclined to ask him a corresponding question. I wonder what would be likely to happen if he borrowed ten pounds to be repaid "without avoidable delay."
    Captain BAGLEY: A delay which can be avoided can be ascertained, but the words "as soon as may be" mean precisely nothing at all.
    Sir G. HEWART: I do not agree. The words "as soon as may be" are rather stronger than the words "without avoidable delay." The words "as soon as may be" mean without any delay at all, and, except that I object to the word "delay," I should be glad to accept the Amendment. The words "as soon as may be" are more than equivalent.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, in Sub section (2), to leave out the word "fourteen" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
    Sir G. HEWART: We are prepared to accept "seven."
    Mr. YOUNG: While we are glad to get some concession, we think we are justified in asking the Government to realise the importance of this Amendment. A great deal may be done in seven days, and, as there are certain penalties for indiscretions, shall we say, committed under the Act, it seems to me that five days when the House is sitting are quite sufficient time. I do not know whether or not my colleagues will agree to the course suggested.
    Sir G. HEWART: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that we were prepared to reduce this period of fourteen days, and we suggest to the "House that seven days would be reasonable. The Amendment says five days. I hope we are are not going to have any serious controversy as to a difference of two days. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, and move the insertion of the seven.
    Mr. YOUNG: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "fourteen," and insert instead thereof the word "seven."—[Mr. R. Young.]
    Mr. MYERS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
    "and such Regulations shall not continue in force unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses in each succeeding period of seven days providing for the continuance thereof."
    We propose by this Amendment to ensure that the Regulations proposed to be put into force in the state of emergency to which the Regulations are to apply should be reviewed, when in operation, by this House every seven days. It is recognised and conceded, I believe, that these Regulations will only be put into operation in very exceptional circumstances. We claim that these Regulations will be very drastic, far-reaching, repressive and restrictive, and that they will limit the freedom of individuals in every kind and sort of way. In respect to Regulations of this character, drastic in their operation and so far-reaching, we should have an opportunity, as frequent as possible, of reviewing the circumstances under which they are to remain in operation. Having regard to these circumstances, we suggest that every seven days would be a reasonable time, when we would be able to express our opinion as to whether the Regulations should or should not be further continued.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am bound to say that I think my hon. Friend—with whose object in moving this Amendment I entirely agree, if I may say so—has based his argument upon a slight misapprehension. What is the scheme of the Bill as now amended? For the purpose of securing effective control in this House over the contents and life of such Regulations, the scheme is this: That if Parliament is not sitting at the time when the Regulations are made, Parliament has to be summoned within the specified interval, that is, within five days, and these Regulations are, as soon as may be, to be laid before Parliament and they are to have no continuance after the expiration of seven more days unless Parliament so resolves. Hon. Members by the Amendment now proposed seek to super-add to that scheme something further, obviously with the intention of further limiting the possibility of the life of the Regulations. The

    1819
    Amendment proposes that these Regulations, after being authorised by a Resolution of this House, shall not continue in force unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses in each succeeding period of seven days providing for the continuance thereof. I think that upon reflection the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment will perceive that so far from giving Parliament any further control, the effect of the Amendment is rather to limit the control of Parliament. The Resolution referred to, the Resolution required to be passed by both Houses of Parliament, might very well be a Resolution continuing the Regulations for three days, or even for a less period, or for a longer period. The matter would be in the hands of Parliament. I suggest it is quite unnecessary to provide that there should be a recurrent Resolution at intervals of seven days and neither more nor less.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: One can quite understand that it is possible to read into words many meanings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is rather saying to my hon. Friend: "As a matter of fact it is we who are very anxious to protect you, and your Amendment really makes it worse." That is the substance of the argument. But surely it is a wide stretching of the imagination to suggest, as is suggested here, that if Parliament means to review something, it is taking power out of the hands of Parliament! What can happen, supposing this Amendment is not accepted? Parliament is sitting. Parliament can, by the action of the Government, be prevented from re-considering the matter. It is quite true that a vote of censure could be moved, but everyone knows what Parliamentary procedure is. Everyone knows perfectly well that if the Government were to say, "The business is 'so and so,'" that that is always an easy method for the Government to get out of any obligation; whereas, if the words of the Amendment are accepted, there is an obligation on the part of the Government to enable Parliament to review the situation every seven days.
    Surely, if there is any substance in the statements that have been made from the opposite Bench that this Bill will only become operative in various specially delicate and difficult circumstances, in a
    1820
    great national emergency—that is the substance of every speech made from that Bench—because we have been repeatedly told in answer to our queries: "Does the House and the country imagine that this thing will be used in trifling affairs?" our answer is that "it is only in great national emergencies." We are, I suggest, entitled to say that if that is the intention, only to use the powers of the Act in great national emergencies, that surely it is not too much that Parliament should have the opportunity of reviewing the matter at least every seven days. There is no doubt about the importance of the regulations. There is no doubt about the drastic nature of the powers. All we say is, if it is alleged that Parliament must keep control, that we believe the acceptance of these words will go a long way at least to ensure that Parliament, as distinct from the Government, shall be able to make a review every seven days.
    Sir G. HEWART: Might I add just one word in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure that he also—and there is no quarrel as to the object we have in view—is under a misapprehension. If a given Parliament, when certain regulations happen to be made and laid before that Parliament, desires to limit the operation of those regulations to seven days, it can do so. It can limit the operation of those regulations to three days, and by a further resolution can make it three days more. All I am saying is that these words are imposing a limitation upon Parliament. If an emergency should unfortunately so long be continued that a renewal of these regulations from time to time became necessary, and a recurrent review were required at the end of each week, the same Parliament would conduct the review. It can do something more drastic if it likes under the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, so can the Government.
    Sir G. HEWART: The Government cannot pass a resolution.
    Mr. THOMAS: Well, let us visualize the actual operation. Parliament is, say, in session, specially called within the five days provided by the Bill. Some emergency has arisen. Regulations are drafted and submitted to the House the day that Parliament meets. They are accepted by the House without any limitation, because

    1821
    anyone who has been in this House any length of time knows perfectly well—they could not conceive otherwise—it is against Parliamentary experience and Government procedure to assume it, that in such a contingency as this the Government itself would say: "we want these powers for three days." Of course they would not say anything of the kind. What they would say to the House would be, "we want these powers," and they would say nothing about the period. All we ask in this Amendment is that if the matter goes on over the seven days it shall be the duty and an obligation, I repeat an obligation, on the part of the Government within the seven days, or on the seventh day, to review the circumstances as they are then. To this suggestion the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, "Oh, surely, Parliament could do that on the second or the third or fourth day." I admit that, but I am dealing with experience, and the practice of these things. We all know perfectly well that is exactly what would not happen. By the acceptance of these words it would be compulsory. Put it in another way: suppose, again, it is a great emergency such as we are told this Bill will only deal with. It is not too much to ask that if there were circumstances that would warrant the special convening of Parliament to consider and agree to regulations already drafted, that surely in seven days something might arise out of that great crisis which would warrant Parliament reviewing the situation? All we are asking is that you will protect the House of Commons itself, and compel the Government of the day, whoever they are, to take Parliament into their confidence in an emergency of this kind at least every seven days.
    Sir G. HEWART: I may be extraordinarily stupid, but with the best will in the world I must confess I fail to find any substance in this proposal. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was in the House when it was intimated that the Government were prepared to accept, and did accept, an Amendment which provides that no Proclamation of this kind can be in force for more than one month. Therefore, we have now the limitation of one month. The position at the beginning of the period is that if Parliament is not sitting it is to be summoned within a period of five days. The regulations are to be laid before Parliament
    1822
    "as soon as may be," and they can have no force or effect after the expiration of seven days from that time without a resolution of the House of Commons. Therefore, it follows that within a period at the outset of eleven days, if the emergency continues, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament will be necessary. In that resolution it would be perfectly open to both Houses of Parliament, looking at the circumstances of the time, to say, "We will by resolution approve these regulations, but we will only approve them for five days." The matter is entirely in the hands of the Houses of Parliament. Is it to be said that there might be such a change of view that even that provision would be no check, and they might want to reduce the period?
    Mr. THOMAS: I can quite conceive of Parliament doing that, because in the interval they would have had experience of the regulations. It is all very well for Parliament to "bolt" the regulations on the arguments used, but it is another thing for Parliament, with five days' experience, to see the effect of the Resolution. I can quite conceive of the House of Commons, after five days' experience of the application of some regulations, altering its mind entirely as to the justification of the continuance of what they have already sanctioned.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am afraid I cannot continue these conversations, but I must point out that if my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the provisions of the Bill he will see that the ingredient of experience will already be possessed by Parliament at the time of passing the first Resolution.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Already the right hon. Gentleman has met us on the previous Amendment by reducing the period, but I am a little surprised that he is not now disposed to meet us on this point. So far as we are concerned, we believe if these Regulations, once they have been agreed to by this House, continue in operation for 14 days—which means possibly three weeks—a very serious situation may arise. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has taken into account the possibility of these Regulations being placed in the hands of those who may administer them harshly, and thus cause a considerable amount of irritation and trouble in the country. In

    1823
    our view, in circumstances like that, it would be fatal if the Regulations continued in operation for three weeks. We think it is the safest thing to do to have a limitation of 7 days instead of 14 days. If we found that a mistake had been made in the framing of these Regulations it could be remedied within 7 days under the terms of our Amendment, but if 14 stands it may have a very bad effect. We have to keep in mind that it is possible the Regulations might not be administered exactly in the spirit in which they are framed, and it might be necessary to review them at shorter periods than 14 days. We think they ought to be under review every 7 days, and I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to meet us on this point.

    Division No. 336.]

    AYES.

    [6.40 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Spencer, George A.

    Briant, Frank

    Hogge, James Myles

    Swan, J. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

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

    Cairns, John

    Irving, Dan

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Myers, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wintringham, T.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Robertson, John

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

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

    Sexton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil Maclean.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Brown, Captain D. C.

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

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Bruton, Sir James

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Armitage, Robert

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

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

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

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Casey, T. W.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

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

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Donald, Thompson

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Clough, Robert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Blair, Reginald

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Mr. HAILWOOD: Supposing the House was in recess, under this Amendment these Regulations would have to come before the House of Commons every seven days, and this would mean the summoning of Parliament just simply to confirm the Regulations once every seven days, which seems to me to be quite an impracticable proposal. I would suggest that the Attorney-General might insert the words, "until Parliament might so determine by Resolution," and that would leave it open to the House of Commons to move a Resolution to determine the continuance of the Regulation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Aves. 60: Noes, 290.

    Forrest, Walter

    Lorden, John William

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Gardiner, James

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lynn, R. J.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Seager, Sir William

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macmaster, Donald

    Seddon, J. A.

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

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

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Simm, M. T.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Stanton, Charles B.

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

    Mason, Robert

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

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

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Moles, Thomas

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Sugden, W. H.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Taylor, J.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Haslam, Lewis

    Morrison, Hugh

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Townley, Maximillan G.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Neal, Arthur

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

    Turton, E. R.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

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

    Waddington, R.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Wallace, J.

    Hinds, John

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Hood, Joseph

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

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

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

    Ward, William- Dudley (Southampton)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

    Waring, Major Walter

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

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Parker, James

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Whitla, Sir William

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

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

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Percy, Charles

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Jesson, C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wise, Frederick

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

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

    Reid, D. D.

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

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

    Renwick, George

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Younger, Sir George

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Rodger, A. K.

    Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "revoked," to insert the words, "by Resolution of the House of Commons or."
    I think there is something like general agreement in this House that some additions to the powers of the Executive are necessary, on the lines, at any rate, of some of the proposals of this Bill. There is, too, general regret that it should be necessary in any way to limit our
    1826
    ancient liberties. Nevertheless, with the new dangers that present themselves to us at these times it seems certain that the Government must be made strong enough to cope with great cataclysms when they arise. That, at any rate, is my view, and I have tried to carry it out in the votes I have given on this Bill. There is also an almost universal feeling that we must not, in our endeavour to protect ourselves against dangers

    1827
    which may arise, put our ancient liberties unnecessarily at the mercy of the Executive. The great protection it seems to me is that all these powers should be fully controlled by the House of Commons as representing the whole people. We have recognised that in the Bill before us and in the provision enacting that the Regulations as quickly as possible must be brought before the House of Commons and can only continue to have the force of law if they are supported by Resolution of the House of Commons. When they have once been enacted, and enacted in all probability for thirty days—because there is very little doubt that the Executive will always strive to show that the Regulations should be enacted for the full time allowed by law—when they have been enacted for thirty days an Executive may proceed to make a use of them which was never foreseen by Parliament, which was not contemplated when Parliament authorised them, and which does not commend itself to the general feeling of the country. That is not by any means a chimerical or imaginary danger, for we may not always have in power a Government possessing the sweet reasonableness of the present Government. We may indeed have one holding very extreme views on one side or the other, and in that case, during the thirty days, there might be a great abuse of the powers entrusted to them by the House of Commons. Therefore I suggest that the House of Commons should retain always the power to revoke or to alter these Regulations. The words I propose would give to the duly elected representatives of the people the power of always controlling the exceptional powers which they put into the hands of the Executive.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am rather surprised no one has risen from the Government Bench to give reasons why these words should or should not be accepted. May I make an appeal to right hon. Gentlemen to allow them to be put in? I cannot see any reason why the Government should object to them, and I do not see many grounds upon which strict constitutionalists in the House would prefer to have them included. After all, in theory according to the phraseology of our ancient procedure in this House, everything is done "by the duly elected representatives of
    1828
    the people." There can surely be no objection, therefore, to liberty being given to the House of Commons to revoke these regulations. If the Home Secretary cannot accept the words, I shall be interested to hear his reasons.
    Mr. SHORTT: The Amendment cannot possibly be accepted as it stands. Both Houses are accepted as necessary for the original framing and confirming of the regulations, and any subsequent action must therefore be by both Houses of Parliament. If you have a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament confirming certain regulations it will be necessary that both should join in the resolution for revoking them, or in seeking to get some addition or modification in an Order in Council. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to amend his Amendment so as to make it read "both Houses of Parliament" instead of "the House of Commons," then I will be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do not see any objection to that, and I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer. I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and then move it in another form.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I now beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "revoked," to insert the words "by Resolution of both House of Parliament or".
    Sir J. BUTCHER: What will be the effect of this alteration? Does it mean that although the Home Secretary in the first instance may introduce resolutions which have to be confirmed by a Resolution of both Houses, there can be no alteration of the Regulations unless by a Resolution of both Houses.
    Mr. SHORTT: My hon. and learned Friend is forgetting the word "or" at the end of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "revocation" ["expiry or revocation"] to insert the words "otherwise than by the failure or refusal of either House of Parliament to pass a Resolution as hereinbefore provided."
    7.0 P.M.
    This Amendment raises the question of the validity of the regulations in the period between the time when they are

    1829
    made and the time when they receive the assent of Parliament. That time may not be more than a few days, but on the other hand it may extend to a period beyond twelve days, and it is very necessary that we should look to the position which will arise in the event of these Regulations, after having run for twelve days, being negatived by the House of Commons. As the Bill is now drafted, if a man were charged with an offence under these Regulations and sent to prison and afterwards the Regulations, or the particular one under which he was charged, failed to get the assent of the House of Commons, his conviction would still stand and the man would remain in prison. That seems to me to be a preposterous state of affairs, and I cannot think that the Government would allow a Bill to pass where such a thing could happen. Not only does that arise in the case of a man being sent to prison, but many men might be fined or have their goods forfeited under the same provisions and still there would be no remedy, even although afterwards the House of Commons and Parliament said that these Regulations should never have been made and refused to pass them. If the words which I have suggested are inserted, the Government would know that they are taking a risk and they would be very careful first of all to haves the Regulations approved by Parliament at the earliest time and secondly to see that they do not put in these Regulations or at any rate they do not act under any provisions of these Regulations unless they are quite certain that the House of Commons and the House of Lords will assent to them. If there is any doubt about any of the particular provisions, they can wait until, they have got the assent of Parliament, and the Amendment which I put forward 7 submit is a reasonable one and I hope the Government will look favourably upon it.
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot possibly accept these words. I think it would have been much better if the Mover had quite frankly and plainly said what it was to do, namely, that no Regulation shall be a valid force until it has been confirmed by Parliament. We think it necessary, and it might very well be that an emergency may arise in which it is essential to do things, and therefore we propose that the Regulations should be a valid
    1830
    force immediately they were promulgated and for a certain period. If they fail to be confirmed by Parliament they cease to operate. You have to legislate not for the peculiar case where the Government of the day might have a majority in Parliament behind them, but you must legislate on the assumption that the Regulations are of such a character that the supporters of the Government will confirm them when they come before Parliament. One effect might be that you may have a state of great emergency when Parliament was not sitting, when immediate action was essential for the good of the community, and you would be unable to take it because no Government dare act upon the Regulations if these words were put into this Bill.
    Mr. A. SHAW: The Regulations would be perfectly useless if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted. He has mentioned specific cases that might arise, and I venture to think that in such cases the Home Secretary would, in the case of imprisonment, advise release.
    Major BARNES: It may be that we have had our attention concentrated too strongly upon the possibility of injustice and hardship that might arise by the Regulations. But there is no desire on the part of the Amendment and those who support it to make the Regulations have no effect. Would the Home Secretary explain to us the full meaning of Sub-section (5) of Clause 2:
    "The expiry or revocation of any Regulations so made shall not be deemed to have effected the previous operation thereof or the validity of any action taken thereunder or any penalty or punishment incurred in respect of any contravention or failure to comply therewith."
    I quite agree that the executive would not make regulations that they would not be able to carry through the House. But if such a state of things did occur, the effect of this Section would be to make penalties and punishments in force under those Regulations valid. But the Section does not finish there. It goes on to say:
    "In respect of any such punishment or penalty."
    Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General would relieve our minds and tell us whether persons who have suffered under these Regulations exposed to penalties and punishments, will they have rights, will they have the right of appeal? That is the position. We have

    1831
    been dealing with an Indemnity Bill which was passing through this House a little while ago in which we found difficulty to get any right of appeal for persons affected under that Bill. If the Attorney-General could tell us whether people under these Regulations will have open to them any right of appeal against a sentence, if he could give us that assurance it will entirely remove our case.
    Major-General SEELY: I have supported this Bill because it gives the ultimate power to Parliament and thus safeguards the liberty of the subject. Perhaps the Home Secretary or the the Attorney-General will satisfy us as to what would be the effect in the case of a person imprisoned under the Clause when we are considering. I do not think this Amendment entirely meets the point, although it is designed to that end. There should be some words that make it certain that if this House rejects the Regulation the unfortunate sufferers who have offended against it should have at least some redress
    Mr. SHORTT: If I may say so, I think it is highly improbable. In the case such as has been put before me by my right hon. and gallant Friend, where clearly the House disapproves the Regulations and said they ought never to have been made, that was a very different matter from the House saying that this was right for the first few days and not for any longer. Assuming the case that the Regulation ought never to have been made, it is clear, and I cannot conceive of anything else being done than the exercise of the prerogative and immediate release of a person who happens to be in prison. Technically they had broken what was the law at the moment, but, having regard to the circumstances, it is inconceivable that any Home Secretary would do otherwise than advise His Majesty to release him. The real safeguard is that immediately Parliament says these Regulations should never have been made no steps will be taken under them.
    Mr. HOGGE: What rights would they have? What remained to these people who were treated in that way? Supposing a man had been imprisoned for six days, what rights has that man got? What about any loss?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is highly improbable that a man would be there six days. If valid and if acted upon, he would be imprisoned, and it is only because Parliament has refused to make that law that he is entitled to be released at all. I do not know what my hon. Friend means by loss.
    Mr. HOGGE: He may have lost a considerable amount of business in the interval; he may make claims for compensation. What would his rights be in that case?
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Is it intended that these cases shall be heard in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, or is it intended to set up courts-martial?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Regulations would decide that. I cannot tell you. It is no use asking me what it is intended to do. I am dealing with the case where the Regulations cease to continue by being revoked by Parliament.
    Major-General SEELY: I think my hon. Friend can withdraw his Amendment in the case where Parliament plainly disapproves of the Regulation, and those who have suffered under it can receive clemency.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am not satisfied. Supposing under the operation of this Act someone was arrested and detained for the minimum number of days, I do not fix myself to a figure—supposing he was the head of a business in which many men and women employed were dependent upon him, and as a result of that arrest and detention he suffered, and other people suffered as a consequence, and Parliament then, after Debate, cancelled the Order under which that man was arrested; has the man who was detained in that way any claim to compensation for the loss due to the perfectly unjust operation of what might be panic Regulations?
    Mr. SHORTT: There are no rights.
    Question put, "That the words, otherwise than by the failure or refusal of either House of Parliament to pass a Resolution as hereinbefore provided,' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 257.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Committee to an Amendment, which was made to Clause 2 a short time ago, which alters entirely the whole scope and meaning, not only of Clause 2, but of the Bill. At the end of Sub-section (1) these words were added:
    "Provided also that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    As far as the first part is concerned, which provides that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, I personally have no objection to it. I do not know what the feeling of the Committee was, but I think there were very few hon. Members present at that time. So far as that goes, however, I have no objection, and never have had any objection, to people striking if they think it right to do so. I have always been in favour of the liberty of the subject, and, if any person wishes to strike, I think he has a perfect right to do so. But it is quite a different thing when you go on to say
    "or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    We know perfectly well what "peacefully persuading" means. It means the assembly of a large body of persons, some of them connected with the strike and
    1836
    some not, and it enables those people, whenever they see any person who is exercising his right as a free-born British subject to go on doing work which he wishes and thinks it right to do, to knock him on the head. It is all very well to say that that is not peaceful persuasion. How are you going to prove it? I have taken part in strikes myself. I took part in the railway strike only last year. We had a large number of voluntary workers who came to feed the horses, and when they got outside the gates they were assaulted. This grew to such a pitch that one evening they came to me and said: "We must get rid of the women who are here helping us to look after the horses, because we cannot be answerable for their safety." Consequently, I got a motor omnibus and sent all the women away, and endeavoured to carry on with men. The men were assaulted. It is all very well to say: "Very well; you can go to the police." The police have no power, if they see a mob, to disperse it; and if a person is assaulted in a mob, how on earth is he to know who it was that assaulted him? Even if he sees the man who did it, he is unable to identify him, and the police cannot be in every place at every moment. Therefore, I propose, when we take the Report stage later on, to move to omit these last words, "or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    I sincerely hope that the Labour Members will not oppose such an Amendment. It must be remembered that this Bill is not compulsory. It only enables the

    1837
    Government under certain circumstances to take certain steps. We will presume a strike, perhaps one in which passions become heated on both aides. As far as regards that part of the Amendment which allows people to strike, I have no objection and I do not think anyone in the House probably has any either, but I have a strong objection to perpetrating in cases of emergency one of the very worst defects in the Trades Disputes Act, namely, peaceful picketing. I was in the House when peaceful picketing was put into the Trade Disputes Act. We all know the arguments which were used and every one of them has turned out to be false. Instead of someone saying, "My dear fellow, don't do that," we all know what takes place. We all know, and none better than hon. Members opposite, what peaceful picketing means. Why did not the Home Secretary put this in his Bill if he intended to accept it? It could not have been his intention to accept such a drastic Amendment as this when the Bill was introduced. The whole House, with small exceptions, has come here today intending to support the Government through thick and thin. We now find that at the last moment, in a small House, hardly anyone knowing what was going to be done, an Amendment which takes the whole strength of the Bill away is accepted. All that remains now in the Bill is that property may be commandeered. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it is not what the House understood was going to be done with the Bill, and therefore I earnestly hope that on Report hon. Members will support me if I move to leave out the words, "or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part."
    Mr. HOGGE: I am sure the Committee will sympathise with the right hon. Baronet having had insult added to injury in so far as he had to sit silent in the Chair and accept an Amendment which he now proposes to oppose on Report. These are the little ironies that come to every one of us in this House. I wish to put a question to the Home Secretary about a condition of affairs which I do not think is completely covered and about which I should like some information. What would be the position, assuming that Parliament had been by Proclamation dissolved and we were entering upon a General Election period in which there was a long interval of time. If the emergency
    1838
    outlined in the Bill arose, would the Act then operate? Would anyone have power to put into force the powers you are taking in this measure? I will put a concrete case to show what I mean". Assume for a moment that on account of a series of strikes the Government went to the country, as has been suggested, A great many people have suggested recently that the Prime Minister might appeal to the country in connection with the present strike in order to get a decision in favour of the views that he holds towards the industrial crisis. Supposing the industrial forces of the country accepted that as a challenge and at once called a general strike? There you would have a case of emergency—a perfectly proper thing to do in face of a snap General Election or anything of that sort. What power is there in the Bill to meet an emergency of that kind, and if there is any power, would the Act run in those circumstances and might you not therefore have a period in time than the greatest disturbance might be expected which would not be covered at all by the provisions of the Act?
    Mr. SWAN: I rise to move the rejection of Clause 2 because all the speeches which have been made have not removed our apprehension as to the menace which is aimed at the working classes of the country. We think it is a deliberate attack upon all our privileges, and if such powers as these had existed, I cannot conceive the depth of degradation that the mass of the working people would be in. When working men come to discuss their grievances under such powers as this Clause gives the Home Secretary, they are always faced with the possibility of being put into prison and huge fines imposed on them. What would the Labour movement think if those representing them allowed a Clause like this to go through? We suggest that these powers are to be applied to the wrong people. It can be an attack upon no other class but working men and women. If it had been intended to deal with those people who have held the nation up to ransom for the last six years by diminishing the value of their food and raising the cost of living, we could have understood the desire of the Government to prevent a blockade. We think this Clause is intended to maintain a blockade which is in continuous existence upon working men and women because of low wages and high prices In

    1839
    the past we have only improved our conditions socially and in every other way by effort upon effort and strike upon strike, vindicating our claims to more leisure, more bread, and better wages. Now the Bill seeks to take away the only means which organised Labour has to ventilate its grievances and vindicate its claims to a better share of the wealth which it has produced. We think that it is most intolerable that any such measure, in the light of the great promises which have been made to the country, should be brought into this House. It has been said that other countries, such as America, possess these powers. We know that powers like these were operative in Russia, and when the rank and file of the working people protested against the unjust conditions they were imprisoned and taken to Siberia. We do not want to see any emulation in Great Britain of the terrible conditions that existed under the Czar. We hope that measures will be introduced which will prevent a certain section taking away the liberties and rights of the working people either to organise or protest against these grievances.
    There has been a lot of talk about responsibility and the great responsibility of the Government. I want, and I am sure all on this Bench want, to see the Government recognise its responsibilities and its obligations to the State, but here instead of recognising its obligations it looks upon those who represent organised labour and the masses of the working people as having nothing but obligations or duties without any regard to their rights. We expect to have something more than duties. This Bill does not recognise the rights which the working people have got and have been denied. The only chance we have had of ventilating our grievances has been through Trade Unions. If the working people have got to be amenable to the law, laws must be introduced and put upon the Statute Book which will be fair to all classes in the country. This is remote from any such thing. We have been fleeced by high prices and low wages. The Government has never made an attempt to arrest the encroachment upon the people by profiteers. I am sure no one knows better than the Home Secretary, with his vast experience in dealing with Joint Committees and adjudicating
    1840
    between workmen and employers, the menacing power which such a measure as this give to certain obdurate employers. These people, with their settled minds, and the legal advice behind them, will analyse the powers and instead of approaching the question of wages, hours and conditions with the object of removing grievances, furnished with such powers as this Bill gives, they will refuse until the workers are goaded into revolt.
    I am not going to make any reflection on the Home Secretary as being desirous of putting any such vicious powers into operation. I know the commendable judgment he has exercised in dealing with disputes and he has earned the admiration of both sides, and especially of the miners of Durham, but he cannot always be Home Secretary. Whether he be or not, we consider that such powers as these are too sweeping and too drastic to be under the control of any Department or any Minister, therefore we cannot but oppose this Clause. The Prime Minister suggested that the intention of the Bill was to see that food was distributed equitably in the case of a strike Recently we had a demonstration outside this House of 15,000 unemployed. Was there any attempt to introduce these emergency powers in order that the grievances of the unemployed could be abated, and that they might get food, fuel, clothing or any of the essentials of life? We claim that the law is administered more as if the Government were custodians only of those who have more wealth than is good for them. Can it be expected under these circumstances that we will humiliate ourselves and accept all kinds of indignities without protest? There are such things as trusts and combines which do incalculable harm, and make it impossible for a large section of the community to get the necessities of life. Why have the Government been so negligent for years regarding the vicious influence of the trusts and combines upon the community? Is it the intention of the Government under Clause 2 of this Bill to deal with those people who have made enormous fortunes during the last 5 years? So menacing have these people become that although the Government had been silent, they were eventually compelled to have an inquiry as to the wealth of these people, and it was found that less that 1 per cent. of the nation had made fortunes

    1841
    amounting to £4,180,000,000, Have the Government grappled with these people, and put them in their proper place? Have they dealt with them in regard to the seige and blockade which they have made upon the poor? They have been allowed to laugh with impunity. A handful of the nation, 200 millionaires, were allowed to increase their already vast fortunes during the War to the amount of another £200,000,000. Did the Government grapple with these people? No! The only people that are to be affected by this Clause and its emergency powers are the working people.
    This is class legislation in spite of all the eloquent speeches of the Prime Minister. The way to redress wrongs is to remove the wrongs. The unemployed people to-day are saying they want work, and the responsibility rests upon the Government to provide work for these people so that they and their families may live in comfort. In spite of all the promises and fine speeches that have been made, there is no promise or prospect that the interests of the community are to be protected in regard to the question of unemployment. There is no prospect of the grevious wrongs of the unemployed being remedied. The only policy left for us is to move the total rejection of this Clause, because we believe that it cannot add to peace, but that it will cause discontent and revolt. Arising out of the negotiations with the employers in the present dispute to-day, assuming that they are not prepared to accept the proposals which the miners' leaders have been making, and one of my friends suggests that the policy is wrong and the only way by which it is possible for us to get our claims met is by continuing the strike, what will take place? There are powers in this measure given to the Home Secretary to see that the individual who makes any such speech is put into prison. Assuming also that certain employers are seeking to effect economy and they consider that the only way is to dispense with a section of the men in their employment, while on the other hand a workman suggests that this policy is wrong, and that if the employer pursues such a policy the workers should strike. There again the Home Secretary could, under the powers of this Bill, put that man into prison and fine him £100. These powers are more drastic than those which made trade unions illegal.
    1842
    Can the Government expect that those who are the leaders of organised labour can allow such a Clause as this to go through without protest? It is intended, deliberately, to break the spirit of the trade unions, and make them acquiesce in such things as long hours and low-wages. It is stated that there are many people who are suffering to-day from lack of food. Will those people who are in possession of large numbers of acres of land, and who have never attempted to put that land into use in order that it might find work for the unemployed and food for the nation, be dealt with? Will those people who use their land mostly for game purposes, and invite people down to see what good shots they are, come within the ambit of this law? Will those people who have allowed their food-producing land to go out of cultivation when they might be producing the necessaries of life be tackled? We know that the Government, composed as it is, has no intention of dealing with such people.
    Mr. WALSH: They say they will do that.
    Mr. SWAN: We are not so sanguine of any such intention. They do not intend to rope in these people. They have had abundant opportunities to show their magnanimity and generosity.
    Mr. WALSH: And their radical intentions.
    Mr. SWAN: The best way to protect the community would have been to pass the Unemployment Bill which we introduced, in order that every man and woman willing to work would have the light to work, and at wages which would enable them and their families to obtain the necessaries of life. The Government turned down that Bill. We also suggested that in order that we might have an A-1 population it was advisable to provide for fatherless children. The Government turned down that proposition. When the Government turn down humane, reasonable proposals of this kind, which have been repeatedly made by the Labour party, we cannot believe that they will act in a more generous spirit under the terms of this Clause. If the working people have responsibilities they have rights also, and the least we can expect of the Government is to recognise those rights and to see that the workers have opportunities of life, and that they should not have to live under such an arbitrary and menacing Measure as this. Hence I move the rejection of the Bill.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. WIGNALL: I heartily support the rejection of this Clause. I was moved by a noble impulse in listening to the very piteous appeal made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) in connection with the sad picture he drew and the indignant protest he made against the Government for protecting the right of the worker, and also by his resolve to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage that will at least, if carried, give him a peaceful night's sleep. He is very troubled about the idea of peaceful persuasion. I would not attempt to infer that the right hon. Baronet does not know the distinction between peaceful persuasion and picketing. The sad stories he related in connection with his experience of strikes relate more to picketing than to peaceful persuasion as we understand it. Peaceful persuasion is generally conducted in the meetings and in the workshops before the strike takes place. When the strike has taken place the picketing process comes into operation. No doubt the right hon. Baronet dislikes it very much. I have been moved with a noble impulse to give my Noble Friend an opportunity to join with us and get great numbers of his colleagues to come into the Division Lobby with us to reject this Clause, which will carry with it the obnoxious and abominable suggestion of the Home Secretary to introduce a safeguard to which we have a right. With that safeguard in it we shall still oppose the Clause, so that the Noble Baronet could join issue with us, and if he objects to the proposed Amendment, here is a chance, which he does not often get to throw in his lot with us and repudiate the conciliatory efforts of the Home Secretary. I do hope that the Home Secretary will remain firm in standing by his declaration, not as a concession to us on the Labour Benches or as a favour or a bribe to shorten the discussion, but because it is a right which, as a trade union body, we possess, and that he will retain that right not with-standing the threats of the right hon. Baronet and others.
    Coming to the preservation of the peace, while the discussion was in progress I was casting my mind back over the years that have passed and the very many incidents with which we have all more or less been concerned, and I have been puzzling my brains to try to recall
    1844
    something in the way of necessary powers which the Government do not possess for dealing with industrial disputes, and which they have not exercised through these years. I have seen meetings broken up, crowds dispersed, trade union officials arrested and sent to prison on more than one occasion for something that has been brought against them. I have seen the police in hundreds and thousands. I can remember one particular instance—I could remember a dozen—where I was so closely watched and guarded by police that I really felt that I was a man of some importance, because wherever I would go there was a policeman near by, and there were regiments of soldiers standing all along the place, guarding property, I suppose. I have seen gunboats in the river. All these things were done for the preservation of the peace. I am not finding fault, but when one goes over past history in our active life in our trade union movement, one wonders what is there left in the way of new powers that can be given to the Government that will deal with matters as they arise.
    We have been informed, sometimes emphatically and at other times very persuasively by the Home Secretary and his supporters who have used strong arguments to try to convince us, that this Bill has nothing to do with the trade union movement at all. If it has nothing to do with the trade union movement then it has nothing else to do with any other movement in existence in this country. I am convinced that there is more in it than appears on the surface, and time alone will reveal what it really is. We have been told that the Government will draw up its Regulations, and they will be submitted to Parliament, which then will decide. We know all that is meant by that. We know, judging from the tone of some of the speeches which we have heard, what will happen. If the Government drew up the most drastic Regulations that were ever conceived, placing the trade unions in the most difficult position that could be imagined, and we came here as representing labour and poured out our indignation upon these Regulations, and had the House crowded with Members, although we could make out a good case that these Regulations were unnecessary and unjust, we know that the Home Secretary would tell the House that the Government, in view of the position of the country, believed

    1845
    that these Regulations were absolutely essential for feeding the people, and for the safety of the community and the preservation of the peace of the nation, even to the extent of sending to prison some of those who had participated in a trade union movement in the country, and do you think that the House as constituted to-day would vote against the Government and reject the Regulations? Why the whole thing is a farce.
    Mr. WALSH: Of course it is.
    Mr. WIGNALL: The S.O.S. would be sent out. The big battalions would come rushing in to the rescue of the Government, and no matter whether the Regulations were good or bad, as the Government had made them the House would endorse the action of the Government.
    Mr. WALSH: The faithful Commons.
    Mr. WIGNALL: Yes, faithful to the end. I do think that this Clause should be deleted, and I shall vote against it.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I think that the Committee has grave reason to complain of the action which the Government have thought fit to take, altering entirely the Bill as the result of a manuscript Amendment which is unknown practically to the great majority of Members of this House. The Clause provides that where a Proclamation of emergency has been made it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to make Regulations for securing the essentials of life for the community. Therefore it is an extraordinary emergency which must have arisen, and yet the Government have thought fit to accept an Amendment providing that the Regulations for securing the essentials of life to the community shall be prohibited from preventing the peaceful picketing of our railway stations, for example, or our docks. When an emergency of that kind arises passions grow and excitement is occasioned. In the course of trade disputes in the past large crowds have assembled at railway stations and docks by way of peacefully picketing the approaches to those places. Here we have a Government Amendment providing that regulations shall not be made in times of emergency forbidding crowds to assemble, for example, outside our railway stations.
    1846
    That is to say, that if I or any other hon. Member should go to a railway station to secure, say, a milk supply for the children of London, for the transit of bread, or anything else, we might have to pass through large crowds of men who, from the point of view—
    Mr. WALSH: Have you ever done it?
    Sir W. DAVISON: I have done it frequently. I think little of crowds of men. I talked fairly and straight to them and they talked fairly and straight to me. But other people have not been so fortunate in that way as I have, and friends of mine who were engaged in the last railway strike in dealing with the horses at one of the big stations were roughly handled.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Member aware that the railway companies have been requested on numerous occasions to allow the men while out on strike to feed the horses and they were prepared to do it at their own expense, and I submit that the statement which has been made is an insult to the railwaymen.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I am stating what is a fact. The point is that this Amendment did not refer to the peaceful picket-ting of stations and docks. If the Government will introduce words to show that the peaceful persuasion applies merely to the workshops or to the hall where the question of the strike is being discussed, I have nothing more to say.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Hon. Members who have spoken from the Labour Benches have stressed the point that this is an attack on Labour. I submit that it goes deeper than that, and is an attack not merely on one section of the community, but on the liberties of the whole of the people, and is an interference with rights which have been built up over a long series of years by our forefathers. It is giving more power to the Executive. Right through the last two Sessions the Government have sought to magnify the power of the Executive. They seem to forget that the period of emergency during the War, when the Executive had enormous power given to it, is now past, and that we should be getting back to normal times.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 58.

    Division No. 338.]

    AYES.

    [8.20 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Hailwood, Augustine

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

    Armitage, Robert

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford. Luton)

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ramsden, G. T.

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

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Randles, Sir John S.

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

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Blair, Reginald

    Hinds, John

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn. W.)

    Reid, D. D.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Renwick, George

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

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

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Rodger, A. K.

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Casey, T. W.

    Jesson, C.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Seager, Sir William

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

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Seddon, J. A.

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

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

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

    Shaw, Wlillam T. (Forfar)

    Clough, Robert

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Simm, M. T.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Courthope, Major George L.

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

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Sugden, W. H.

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

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

    Taylor, J.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Lorden, John William

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Vickers, Douglas

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Lynn, R. J.

    Waddington, R.

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.

    Wallace, J.

    Donald, Thompson

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

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

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Maddocks, Henry

    Whitla, Sir William

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mason, Robert

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

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moles, Thomas

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wise, Frederick

    Gardiner, James

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murchison, C. K.

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

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Neal, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Colonel Gibbs and Mr. Parker.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Myers, Thomas

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

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

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cairns, John

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Robertson, John

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Sexton, James

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Irving, Dan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Finney, Samuel

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Spencer, George A.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Lunn, William

    Swan, J. E.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    1848

    1849

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Waterson, A. E.

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

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Wignall, James

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Tootill, Robert

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Wintringham, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Shaw and Mr. Tyson Wilson

    CLAUSE 3 (Short title and application).
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.
    (2) This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    That Sub-section states "this Act shall not apply to Ireland" and I should very much like to know why that is so. If the Government of Ireland Bill had been placed on the Statute Book, I would have moved to amend this Sub-section to say that it was not to apply to Southern Ireland. I can in a way understand why the Government do not apply this Bill to the South and West. But why is this Bill, with all its virtues and which has been received with such joy by the supporters of the Government not been applied to Northern Ireland? We are told that everything in the North-East of Ireland is perfectly peaceful and one would almost think that they never have strikes in Belfast. I seem to remember a rather drastic strike which occurred in Belfast last year, when a Soviet formed of trade union leaders took complete charge of Belfast and ran all the public services for the relief of the inhabitants. I remember also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place when his country is being discussed, tried to intervene in that strike, and was sent to the rightabout very quickly. There was great solidarity of labour on that occasion, and the strike was very orderly or comparatively orderly. Belfast was a paradise when the Soviet had control compared to what it was during the religious riots. The North-East of Ulster is industrialised, and if this Bill is all the Government says it is and a heaven-sent piece of legislation for securing milk for babies and food for nursing mothers, why is it not being applied to Ireland? I think it was the Attorney-General who spoke for the first time since the Armistice about women and children.
    I should like to know if hon. Members from Ireland who have voted consistently with the Government for this Bill are going to support the proposal that it shall
    1850
    not apply to Ireland. I see an hon. and gallant Member present (Major Malone), who, although he does not sit for an Irish constituency, is an Irishman and represents one of the London divisions. Is he going to support this proposal that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland? I have not seen him once in our Lobby. Is it the case that the Government do not really care what happens in Ireland? We know that over great areas in Ireland the railways are stopped and parties of armed military and police were sent on to the trains in order to break down the resistance of the railway men. We know that for some time that policy was dropped, but the Minister for Transport went over to Ireland recently and told the Railway Executive that they were not going to have that nonsense, and ever since parties of armed soldiers and police have been applying for passage in trains, and railway servants who do not carry them are dismissed. Apparently the Government, from statements in this House, view with complete composure the stoppage of the whole economic life of Ireland if only it can break down the Sinn Fein party. Is that why they do not apply this Bill to Ireland, or is it because there is no law of any sort in Ireland except the law of the bayonet and the knout? I would like an explanation from the Government. I am sorry to see that on a Bill of this importance that the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Solicitor-General are not present. I hope the Home Secretary, who, I presume, had something to do with the drafting of this Bill, though I cannot understand why he and not the Food Minister had his name on the back of it, will tell us why this proposal—
    Major P. D. MALONE: In answer to the challenge of the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that I am not going into the same Lobby as that into which he intends to go on this occasion. No doubt he is influenced by the name that I bear and by the influence that he has had over my namesake on the Benches opposite.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish I had.
    Major MALONE: Although I bear that honourable name, I will not go into the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would I be in order now in opposing the Report stage being taken?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): That will come later.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I in order in protesting against the Report stage being taken now? Although I have searched through Erskine May, it is not absolutely there laid down that the Report stage of a Bill that has been drastically amended in Committee shall not be taken on the same day, but it does say that it is not usual, except with the general consent of the House. The Amendments made in Committee on this Bill have been very far-reaching, and the phraseology is complicated, and I think we ought at least to see the Bill as amended in print before proceeding with the Report stage. I say that there is not the general consent of the House to take the Report stage now, and I think I could muster 60 hon. Members in the Lobby against taking it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I think there was the general consent of the House to taking the Report stage now.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of Proclamations of emergency.)
    (1) If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on 80 extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by Proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a Proclamation of emergency) declare that a state of emergency exists.
    No such Proclamation shall be in force for more than one month without prejudice to the issue of another Proclamation at or before the end of that period.
    (2) Where a Proclamation of emergency has been made, the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament, and if Parliament is then separated by such Adjournment or Prorogation as will not expire within five days, a Proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within five days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by that Proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "scale," to insert the words "whether by financial operations or the exercise of a monopoly and the artificial raising of the price, or the withholding of supplies, or failure to produce, or otherwise."
    Frequently during the course of these proceedings we have been assured by the Government that this Bill was not an attack upon trade unions, that it was not an anti-strike Bill. If they were correct in making these statements I expect they will have no difficulty in accepting my Amendment. On this side we are rather suspicious that the provisions of this Bill are intended only to be applied to the trade unionists and to the working classes of the country. That has been strenuously denied from the other side, not only by the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, but by numerous speakers who have taken part in the proceedings. If it is correct that it can be applied to all sections of the people, I venture to suggest that the Home Secretary should have very little difficulty indeed in accepting this Amendment. A threat to withdraw labour unless a higher price is paid is no worse than the withdrawal of any of the essentials of the national life from the market unless a higher price is paid for them. Therefore, unless the provisions of this Bill are to be applied to that section of our people covered in the Amendment, as well as to the working classes, we are going to have the continuance of one law for the rich and another for the poor. So far as we on these Benches are concerned, we are going to do all that we can to prevent one law being given to the rich and another to the poor in the coming days. We believe that that has gone on too long, and that whatever the law of the land is it should be applied equally

    1853
    to all sections of the community. Therefore I hope this Amendment will be given effect to so that the great trusts, trading combinations, and financial combinations, will be brought within the provisions of this Bill as well as the working classes of the country. During and since the War the profiteer has again and again been holding up the essentials of national life until a higher price has been paid.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Hear, hear; all classes.
    Mr. ADAMSON: As a matter of fact the Government themselves have not been free from profiteering. Again and again we have had the question of Government profiteering brought up in this House, and there is very little doubt indeed but that the Government have profiteered on some of the things that they have controlled during the War. I think that at one period we had the Food Controller boasting that he had made a certain amount of profit on the year's transaction. I want to ask the Home Secretary not only does he intend to apply it to those provided for in this Amendment, but to the Government themselves in the event of them holding up any of the essentials of life until they get a higher price paid for them. Recently we have had the Government being challenged on the price they have been charging for sugar. We have had one who is engaged in the sugar industry pointing out in various parts of the country that the Government could afford to sell the sugar at a much cheaper rate. According to that gentleman, the Government themselves have been holding up the essentials for national life and have just as much need of this Bill being applied to them as to any other section of the community. If we are to have even-handed justice, the Food Controller and perhaps the Home Secretary may some day be brought within the provisions of this Bill. At least, I hope the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment and make it possible for him to be brought within the provisions of this Bill if the Government intend to continue in the evil' course they have indulged in on certain occasions.
    This week the newspapers have been telling us that the Rubber Growers' Association has decided deliberately to curtail the production of rubber by 25 percent.,
    1854
    the reason being that the price of rubber has fallen seriously in the market. In the interests of the shareholders they think it is a very good thing to curtail production. That is ca'canny with a vengeance, but when it is applied to that section of the community that is not the term used. The term used on these occasions is that it is in the interests of the shareholders, and is quite respectable and permissible. It is only when the workers of the country decide to withhold their labour until they get a higher wage for it that it is described as ca'canny. I hope the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, will have no difficulty in accepting this Amendment, because in our opinion, unless the Government are going to carry out this Bill in the way it has been said on that side they will carry it out, namely, with even-handed justice to all sections of the community, then we shall have possibly a serious state of affairs arising in this country.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am bound to say I can-not follow the speech with which my right hon. Friend brought forward this Amendment. I cannot conceive that he has so misunderstood the whole Bill as that speech would leave one to imagine. He apparently is under the impression that anybody who does anything to cause a state of emergency is to be immediately prosecuted. The Bill provides nothing whatever of the sort. The Bill simply provides that where something is done which is calculated to deprive the community of the essentials of life, then regulations can be made. It does not say in the least that people who are doing that which is causing the emergency are necessarily doing something that is criminal. The criminal part comes in whore regulations are made for feeding the people, and for commandeering lorries or food, for example, and people interfere with the lorry or the distribution of the food. But the mere fact that there is a strike on a railway or a strike in a mine, and that causes a state of emergency, does not make a strike illegal any more than if you have financial operations which starve the community. That is not necessarily illegal, but you would have to make your Regulations.
    With regard to this Amendment, it is impossible as it stands. It absolutely weakens the Bill instead of strengthening

    1855
    it, and it is impossible to have it now without adding to it words such as "or withholds his labour or takes part in a strike," or something of that sort, because what is the result of these words if you put them in? Let me remind the House that there is not a single thing enumerated in this Amendment which is not covered by the Bill as it stands. The Bill says, "if at any time any action "—not any action by any particular kind of individual, but any action "by any person or body of persons," whether they are financiers, producers, great employers of labour, or workmen, is immaterial. It is any action by any person. That is as broad as it could be, and was deliberately made so. But if you are to limit it by inserting words such as those in the Amendment, you at once limit the words entirely, and the Court would hold that words which are not included in the enumeration are not intended to be included in the Bill. Even if I were prepared to accept this Amendment, which I am not, I could not accept it without adding words "including any thing done By the workmen."
    Mr. TILLETT: We will accept that.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am sure the hon. Member would, because he is reasonable, but I should not like to say the same for my hon. Friend's colleagues all round him. I am sure he would, and his long experience shows him perfectly well that I am telling the truth, and always have done in regard to this Bill. I cannot accept this Amendment. It weakens the Bill, is absolutely unnecessary, and I cannot believe that my right hon. Friends opposite think it is necessary. It would be a little bit of valuable propaganda out side, but they know it would not alter this Bill in the slightest.
    Mr. J. JONES: I do not claim, of course, to be a lawyer, and to understand all the technicalities of the law, but I suggest that, as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, the House in the first Clause has already accepted all the implications contended for in the principle contained in the Bill. That is to say, you have made up your mind, and the House is agreed, that in certain eventualities the Government shall have the power to do certain things. Those certain things are to provide that certain
    1856
    public necessities shall be provided for in the event of an emergency arising. That Clause has been carried. We are now asking in this Amendment that even-handed justice shall be meted out to all sections of the community. The House has decided that it is wrong for bodies of workmen to do certain things. Of course, not being a lawyer, I cannot enter into the technicalities of what is right and what is wrong, because lawyers do not agree on what is right and what is wrong; it all depends on the side for which they are appearing. But, so far as we ordinary common or garden people are concerned, we have a general conception of what we consider right or wrong. In this case we are asking that all sections of the commmunity who take advantage of their opportunities to hold up supplies of the essentials of life to the people shall be placed equally before the law.
    That is the purport of this Amendment, and we get from one of the principal law officers of the Crown a complete evasion. He says to us that if we are willing to accept that workmen shall be placed in the position of potential criminality because they break the law, he is quite willing to include the words. I am one who is supposed to be an extremist inside the party of which I happen to be a member, and if he will guarantee to include all sections of the community in the provisions of the Bill definitely, and not by mere statements of skeleton arrangements inside the proposed measure, if he will undertake to put financiers, manufacturers, and people who control the supply of commodities on equal terms with the workman, we will risk the chance to the workman. Some of us happen to have appeared in courts of law as prisoners in the dock, and I am prepared to face again the consequences involved if necessary, but not on principle, not because I like it, but because I have to. But I do suggest that when people are talking about even-handed justice, we know the governing class have a way of evading the law. What chance would we have against an association such as the rubber manufacturers, or the Federation of British Industries, or any other national organisation of employers in proving that they were guilty of an offence in withholding supplies or in deciding that short time should be worked in their particular industry? Is there any law either now in existence or projected

    1857
    that can say they are guilty of any crime if, in consequence of the condition of their industry, they refuse to go on any longer producing?
    What control has the workman over production? Only in this sense, that he may run the risk of losing his job if he does not work hard enough to suit the convenience of his employer. In so far as we are concerned, if it is wrong for a body of workmen to adopt a policy of saying, where they may have the power under extraordinary circumstances, to decide that they will not produce as much as they might do, if that can be brought forward against them as an offence, should not the same offence be operative against a body of employers who, in consequence of the international condition of their industry, say that it is impossible for them to continue because they cannot find the capital necessary for development, or that the trade will not stand the possibility of increased production? So far as we are concerned, if the same offence was going to bear the same penalty, if all sections were going to be treated alike, we would not have the same suspicion of the Bill; but we know by actual experience, by our own experience inside the trade union movement, and in continual negotiations with employers, and in the circumstances of each particular industry, that without justification those concerned are able to keep back supplies and to deprive the community of the things that are essentially required.
    What has happened in connection with this present strike of miners? Before the strike had started and in connection with our own union of 25,000 members, members got notice at once, although many of the firms concerned had supplies of coal that would last for a month. Our men were sacked. They were thrown into the streets, and why were they deprived of the essentials of life—because that is what it means? Their wives and families were brought into a condition of semi-starvation. We have had to advance them money from our funds to maintain them during the period that the strike has been on. This was not because there was an immediate shortage of coal, but because the employers thought they would get the men up against the miners; that they would divide one section of workmen against the other. Is that a crime, or
    1858
    will it be a crime under the new Bill? Suppose on the top of that a body of employers say: "These men are in the wrong." They are going about now saying to the people the reason why you are in the condition you are is because of the miners strike! [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to get that applause. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have got it!"] It demonstrates beyond the possibility of doubt that behind this Bill there is something more than the safeguarding of the mere supply of the necessaries of life for the people. There is the spirit of venom and bitterness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not charge the representatives of the Government on the "opposite Bench with having that bitterness, but I am charging their supporters who occupy a most extraordinary position, and who would like, if they could, to destroy the trade union movement in this country, and organised labour politically and industrially. But they are out for a big job if they try to do that.
    9.0 P.M.
    I would suggest to them that the mere fact of these things happening now without this Bill gives us the impression that greater things will happen if they get the change under the Act. Consequently we are asking that, if you are going to decide or decree that the welfare of the community shall be provided for, that the essentials of life shall be guaranteed that the women and children shall not starve, that you shall deal out to those who have the power, which we have not got, to control industry at the very outset, and who at the very beginning can decide whether men should work or idle, whether they shall live or starve—place them, I say, within the purview of this Bill, and do not leave their position to the possibility of a legal quibble. We know when we go into courts of law where we stand. But to lock out workmen is not to he guilty of an offence! Give us the force of law. The employer gets the law on his side in protecting his workshop. He can get the military, if necessary, while we who strike have to depend upon the efforts of the men who have no legal protection when they are peacefully picketting. The man who goes on picket as a rule has to run all the risks of losing his individual liberty, while other men are now being enrolled at from £1 to £2 a day to blackleg in the case of a possible strike. Pay our men £1 to £2 per day and you will

    1859
    have no strike. [HON. MEMBEES: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, the Government have to guarantee the volunteers so-called, who are nothing better than blacklegs, this £1 to £2 per day, and they are paying them now, and these men are not doing any work. I suppose that is the policy of economy with efficiency.
    We want, therefore, inside this Bill to have the protection of the law. If you are going to argue, and we have been arguing to-day, for the supremacy of the law, remember, we have been up against men who deny the right or the law, and who say that they have a better method, and better machinery, to enforce their claims than any constitutional machinery we may advocate. I want, I say, to ask those who represent the Government and who are better legally equipped than ever we can hope to be—our knowledge of the law is got from the wrong side of the dock!—we want to ask these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to make this law so definite that no man can misunderstand it. Put the profiteer in the same place as the dock labourer. Say: "If you are withholding goods from the people, if you are profiteering at the public expense, if you do anything that interferes with the liberty of the community you will have to go through the mill the same as any other profiteer would have to do if he exercises similar power." This is all we are asking for in this Amendment, and I hope the House will give us that right. Although we may not be able to quote the law and the prophets, I trust we shall be able to get a little justice before this Bill finally becomes law.
    Captain LOSEBY: The hon. Member who has just sat down is either very stupid or competely dishonest. The same thing might be said for the Amendment, and the Mover, who has either completely misunderstood the very simple and very clear words here, or has deliberately misrepresented them for the purpose of deceiving this House or deceiving the country. I have my own suspicion that it was done with the deliberate object of deceiving the country. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who is a very able speaker—
    Mr. J. JONES: Thank you.
    Captain LOSEBY:—might not be a lawyer, but we have heard him on many
    1860
    occasions in this House, and we know-something of his intelligence. We cannot believe that he is so stupid as he pretends to be. What does this Bill say? It deals with any person or body of persons, not necessarily trade unionists at all, and only when action has been taken on such an extensive scale as to be calculated to interfere with and endanger the existence of the community; in that case, and in that case alone, can certain action be taken to protect the community of which the hon. Gentleman forms a part. I am not going to argue with him. I am just going to follow him in one point he raised quite deliberately for the purpose of prejudice. It is perfectly true that there are employers in this country who are a disgrace to the country. It is true that there are employers who limit production, and they are not the friends of the community. This may also be true of certain individual colliery owners. I expect it is because they are only human beings, but they do not come within this particular Bill.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Why do they not?
    Captain LOSEBY: I will deal with that point. The same reproach can be levelled against workmen. We have, of course, much more sympathy with them when they deprive the community temporarily of the essentials of life, because we recognise that it is their only weapon, and they must, therefore, raise that weapon. That, however, is not the point, because they do not come within the law. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously suggest that if it were possible to say, "We will deal with this person and with that person," it could be done under this Bill? This Bill does not touch a particular individual case, and it only deals with one particular national crisis. Hon. Members opposite know that they are misrepresenting the position entirely, and I only rose to enter my protest against what I know, and they know, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of the situation.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: On this subject which has been raised by the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson) and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I think it is necessary to ask one question. I want to know whether it is contended by them because of the enormous fall in the price of rubber in consequence of which a certain organisation

    1861
    has decided to reduce the output, that that that should constitute a state of emergency in this country under this Bill. That is what the arguments which have been used amount to, and it has been given as a reason in favour of this Amendment. If they apply this argument to the rubber industry, would it not equally apply to the reduction of 30 per cent. in the output of the building trade as against the pre-War level? One only needs to quote those instances in order to show that it is impossible to conceive that hon. Members who have raised this point really can believe that it has anything at all to do with the Bill. It is the old game of party politics, and for these reasons I hope they will not press this Amendment, because if they do the result will only be a decisive verdict upon that all-important subject as to whether labour is fit to govern.
    Major MOLSON: I was ratehr sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), which was so different from the conciliatory and moderate speeches made by the members of the Labour party and all other parties in the House who have spoken on this subject, and I regret that any question of class should have been brought into this matter. I think this Bill is one which is really for the benefit of the whole community: in fact I believe it is more for the benefit of the poor than the rich. I am very sorry that any class question should have been allowed to enter into our discussions on this point. With regard to profiteering, I am as much against it as any member of the Labour party and I would like this measure considered simply on its merits as a Bill for the benefit of the whole country, and for the protection of the poor members of the community in cases where a strike holds up the necessities of life I wish to enter my protest once more against any class questions being introduced in our discussion of this subject.
    Mr. SEXTON: If hon. Members below the Gangway wish to make out that commodities are not held up. I will give them an example. It is an admitted fact, and I am informed by experts on the Cotton Exchange that it is true that raw cotton is considerably cheaper this year than it was in pre-War days. In spite of that a sufficient supply of cotton cannot be procured. The warehouses are bursting with clothes, and yet they are being held up in
    1862
    order to keep up the prices of wearing materials.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I am very sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood my argument. I can quite see the immorality of proceedings which hold up goods in order to increase the price, but I am asking the Labour Party whether it is a fact that they believe the holding up of rubber is a question of an emergency for the purposes of this Bill. If it applies to lubber and cotton, do they believe that it also applies to the building of houses? I suggest that neither of these two things constitute a national emergency under this Bill.
    Mr. SEXTON: That is our quarrel under this Bill. This measure deals with organisations which are perfectly legitimate in their objects, which temporarily hold up an industry in order to improve their conditions. I want to know will the same rule apply to the owners of warehouses who are holding up goods in order to increase prices at a time when people want cheap clothes? I do not mind if this principle applies all round. I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford (Captain Loseby), and I respectfully protest against a lecture from him, and I think it is a deplorable fact that the Trade Unions and Trade? Unionists of Bradford have returned a representative of such a character.
    Mr. PERCY: I would not for one moment accuse any hon. Gentleman opposite of either trying to deceive himself or anybody else. I have listened with very great attention to most of the speeches which have been delivered on this Amendment. I have to acknowledge with a sense of personal gratitude, as a Member of this House, that the speeches that have come from the opposite side have been thoroughly honest and mostly very able. Every man cannot see a subject from the same angle. We have all been brought up in certain conditions of life and consequently are apt to look at matters only in the light of our own experience. It is not every man who has the unique ability to look at questions from different angles and different points of view. May I remind the hon. Members that the question raised by this particular Amendment is whether this is an Act applying to only one section or to certain sections of the community who are included in the working classes, or whether

    1863
    it is intended to apply to everybody who, by any kind of action, prevents the necessities of life reaching the community. If I for one moment thought that this Bill was intended to apply to only one class of the community I would offer it my most active opposition. I would ask hon. Members to analyse the Bill very carefully. I would give them one (illustration. A good deal has been said about rubber and about certain action which has been taken to secure a temporary reduction in the production of rubber. I would ask this question. If rubber producers find that they have to sell their rubber at less than actual cost and thereby lose part of their capital, are they not entitled to protect themselves against absolute loss, and would their doing so be considered an offence against this legislation? I do not know that rubber would come under these provisions, because it is not an essential of life. Let me therefore put a concrete case. Suppose the mine-owners agreed in combination that they must get higher prices for their coal and that if they could not get them they would shut down all the mines—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is becoming very discursive. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendment.
    Mr. PERCY: I will only say, then, (hat, as I understand it, this Bill is intended to apply to all who, to whatever class of the community they belong, do anything to prevent the necessities of life reaching the public.
    Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Like the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I know very little about the law. The only experience I have had in it I got, like him, as a prisoner in the dock. I do, however, know something about the cotton industry, having been engaged in it for about 35 years, and when I hear an hon. Member say that raw cotton is below the cost it was before the War—the price is now four times the pre-war price—I wonder really what sort of expert advice hon. Members on the Labour Benches employ.
    Mr. SEXTON: Men in the same class as yourself.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It may be so, but the advice is very bad, and it seems to me somewhat on a level with that given to
    1864
    the hon. Member who spoke of 1,000 mills having stopped in Lancashire, when what was really meant was spindles! The only difference between the two is a difference of 100,000 to 1, and that, I suggest, is a pretty fair margin, even for a mistake by a Labour Member. I regret that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) should have made the statement that certain employers were deliberately stopping men on account of the coal strike, before the coal strike began. At a time like this, it would be far better to state positive facts only.
    Mr. J. JONES: I can prove it.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It would be far better for the hon. Member to say that a particular firm, owing not to the Coal Emergency Act, but purely and simply because they wished to create ill-feeling or to set one section of men against another, had deliberately caused unemployment; and it would have been far better for him to have given the name of the firm, and so let the House know who these men are. I have attended many meetings of employers. The discussion there has been on the question, not how to discharge men, but rather how to keep the works going in the spirit of the appeal of the Prime Minister. Employers have been compelled to shut down, not because they had not the coal to carry on—for they had plenty of coal—but they have been compelled to cause unemployment, much to their regret, because they have had to carry out the instructions of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act. I think it would be better if we were to try at this period to create a better and not a worse feeling between all sections of the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Drop the Bill!"] With regard to the dispute we have on now, to me it appears that neither the Government nor those opposed to them thoroughly understand the position, or the present dispute in the coal mining industry would not have dragged on so long as it has. All of us should realise the value of time, and we ought not to take up time in discussing things, but ought to come to decisions and to realise how much depends upon what we are doing. We ought to remember that time lost can never be regained. We ought to try and work together in a better spirit than we have done in the past.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: This Bill as it stands is a purely class Bill. It has been brought in to break up the working-class movement in this country; it is a Bill to break strikes.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not on the Third Reading now. We are dismissing an Amendment.
    Mr. MALONE: I am speaking to the Amendment which is now before this House. This Bill is a purely class Bill. This Bill, if it becomes law, as it will become law because of the tame majority behind the Government—this Bill is a Bill, unless it is amended or altered, to put down the working-class movement in this country, to break up strikes, to break up the trade union movement and, what is more important, break up the striving of the working classes to power in the control of industry which they work. This Bill shows the weakness which the Government and the employing propertied classes behind them feel. They are beginning to realise that they represent only 5 per cent. of the population of this country, and this Bill, unless it is amended or altered, is a Bill in the interest of this 5 per cent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I point out that you, Sir, have already called the hon. Member to Order for making a Third Reading speech. Is he not defying your ruling and discussing the Bill and not the Amendment?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am waiting for the hon. Member to direct his remarks to the Amendment.
    Mr. MALONE: With all respect, I do not consider my remarks are any more away from the point than the speeches—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps I had better read the Amendment—
    "After the word 'scale' insert the words 'whether by financial operations, or the

    Division No. 339.]

    AYES.

    [9.35 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Finney, Samuel

    Irving, Dan

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lunn, William

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Cairns, John

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

    Myers, Thomas

    Cape, Thomas

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Robertson, John

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Rose, Frank H.

    exercise of a monopoly and the artificial raising of prices, or the withholding of supplies or failure to produce or otherwise.' "
    The Question is that those words be inserted. Will the hon. Member make his remarks without making a Third Reading speech.
    Mr. MALONE: I will continue to develop the argument which I was putting before the House until I was interrupted. The object of this Amendment, if I am right in interpreting it, is to endeavour to prevent the Bill from being a purely class measure, which it is at present. It is a class measure put forward by the Government representing 5 per cent. of the community, the propertied classes in this country, to down the remaining 95 per cent. Actually there is no need for this Bill, because the means by which this oppression is carried out is entirely in the hands of the propertied classes. The police, the Army, and the forces which are at the disposal of the Home Secretary are controlled by the upper classes, and they have already the power they think necessary in order to carry out the oppression which they intend to carry out under this Bill. It is idle to say that this Bill is applicable to all classes. It cannot be applied to all classes. The soldiers who are to blockade the coal mines, the police officers who are controlling—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERcalled the attention of the House to continued irrelevance on the part of Mr. Malone, Member for East Leyton, and directed the hon. Member to discontinue his speech.
    Question put, "That the words 'whether by financial operations, or the exercise of a monopoly and the artificial raising of prices, or the withholding of supplies or failure to produce or otherwise' be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 214.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

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

    Sexton, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wintringham, T.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Waterson, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil Maclean.

    Swan, J. E.

    Wignall, James

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester. W.)

    Neal, Arthur

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

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

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

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

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Gregory, Holman

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

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Percy, Charles

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rae, H. Norman

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

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hinds, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Reid, D. D.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hood, Joseph

    Renwick, George

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

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn. W.)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

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

    Rodger, A. K.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Seager, Sir William

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Jesson, C.

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Johnstone, Joseph

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

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Simm, M. T.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

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

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

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

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

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

    Sugden, W. H.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

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

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Taylor, J.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

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

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

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

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Vickers, Douglas

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lorden, John William

    Waddington, R.

    Edge, Captain William

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

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

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Elveden, Viscount

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Maddocks, Henry

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mallalieu, F. W.

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

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    M alone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Forrest, Walter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mason, Robert

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Matthews, David

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wise, Frederick

    Gardiner, James

    Moles, Thomas

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

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

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

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

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Younger, Sir George

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Murchison, C. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Emergency Regulations.)
    (1) Where a Proclamation of emergency has been made, and so long as the Proclamation is in force, it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council, by Order, to make Regulations for securing the essentials of life to the community, and those Regulations may confer or impose on a Secretary of State or other Government Department, or any other persons in His Majesty's service or acting on His Majesty's behalf, such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem necessary for the preservation of the peace, for securing and regulating the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, and other necessities, for maintaining the means of transit or locomotion, and for any other purposes essential to the public safety and the life of the community, and may make such provisions incidental to the powers aforesaid as may appear to His Majesty to be required for making the exercise of those powers effective.
    Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any Regulations imposing any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription.
    Provided also that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike.
    (2) Any Regulations so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall not continue in force after the expiration of seven days from the time when they are so laid unless a Resolution is possed by both Houses providing for the continuance thereof.
    (3) The Regulations may provide for the trial by courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the Regulations; so, however, that the maximum penalty which may be inflicted shall be imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term of three months, or a fine of one hundred pounds, or both such imprisonment and fine, together with the forfeiture of any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed.
    (4) The Regulations so made shall have effect as if enaered in this Act, hut may be added to altered, or revoked by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament or by Regulations made in like manner and subject to the like provisions as the original Regulations; and Regulations made under this Section shall not be deemed to be Statutory Rules within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
    (5) The expiry or revocation of any Regulations so made shall not he deemed to have affected the previous operation thereof, or the validity of any action taken thereunder or any penalty or punishment incurred in respect of any contravention or failure to comply therewith, or any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such punishment or penalty.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word
    1870
    "Regulations" ["nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any Regulations"], to insert the words, "abrogating the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to. 1906, or any of the provisions contained therein, or".
    Throughout the whole of the discussions on this Bill, members of the Government, and many of their supporters, have repeatedly informed us that there was no intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to interfere with the rights of the trade unions as they now exist under the trade union law. During the Committee stage a proviso was inserted consisting of certain words from the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. It seems to those of us on this side who represent directly the organised workers, that, either by intention or otherwise, we have been placed in a very unfortunate position, and I want to try to induce the Government to amend the proviso to which I have referred by the insertion of the words which I have moved. In an Amendment moved, I believe, by a supporter of the Government, the right to strike and the right to peacefully persuade—
    Mr. SHORTT: Not by a supporter of the Government.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Member for Central Hull.
    Mr. HENDERSON: By one of the London Members—I think it was the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley). By that Amendment the right to strike and the right of peaceful persuasion were maintained. Those are two rights under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1900. There may be in the House those who think that those Acts ought to be repealed. I believe the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) introduced a Bill earlier in the Session with that object in view. The right hon. Baronet has never hidden his position with regard to trade union law. He was through the fight in 1906, which we remember so well, and he has never concealed his position. If you want to repeal the Trade Union Acts the repeal ought to be carried out in an open, straightforward manner. We should not be told, as we have been told over and over again, that there is no intention on the part of the promoters of the Bill to interfere with the Trade Union position and then in

    1871
    some covert and indirect way have taken away from us the rights that the law gave us when we had an open fight on the question in 1906. To carry forward a certain part of an Act and to leave other provisions in it not carried forward will be in my judgment a temptation to Judges to say that when this Emergency Powers Act was passed it was the intention of the legislature to preserve the right to strike and the right of peaceful picketing, but not to carry forward any other powers contained in the Act from which these provisions are taken. I believe the Government have said more than once that they do not intend to interfere with our position. We on these Benches think if the proviso is left as it stands now without the Amendment I am submitting we shall be placed in the position that the old mischief will be once more brought up against the trade unions, and their funds will be no longer immune from attack. In Subsection (4) of the Act of 1906 we have this proviso:
    "Nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of the trustees of a Trade Union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 9, except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of a Union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute."
    I want to ask whether, having carried forward the right to strike and to peacefully persuade, we preserve this other right that I have referred to in this Subsection. I hope the Government will recognise that this is of such importance to the whole of the 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 trade unionists in this country that any right in the Act I have referred to or the Act of 1871, that has stood so long, being taken away or being interfered with in any way by this measure will be a most unfair way of attacking the trade unions, and I hope the opportunity I give the Attorney-General by moving this Amendment will make it clear once and for all that no right whatsoever under the Trade Union Acts is tampered with or interfered with in any way.
    Sir G. HEWART: The speech which the House has just heard may be thought to illustrate at least two things. In the first place, it seems to me to illustrate the extraordinary suspicion with which, in certain quarters of the House, every part of this Bill is regarded. We have had
    1872
    during the course of the afternoon, and on earlier days also, many proofs that there are those—I refer, for example, to the lively speech we listened to a moment ago from the hon. Member (Mr. Jones)—who think quite sincerely—I do not doubt their sincerity for a moment—that, under the guise of accomplishing a general and public-spirited purpose, this Bill is intended to be an instrument directed against a particular part of the community. That suspicion appears to be exemplified by the speech we have just heard. Secondly, I think that speech illustrates another thing, I mean the peril which good-natured Ministers incur when, in order to satisfy opponents, or, in the phrase we heard an hour ago, in order to save valuable time, we insert superfluous words so as to make it perfectly clear to the most suspicious mind that something which is apprehended is apprehended wrongly. In the course of the discussion, anxious as we have been from the first to avoid the importation of any unnecessary heat and to put a short end if we can to unnecessary controversy, we have accepted from time to time Amendments from the other side which did not alter the structure or affect the purpose of the Bill, but did to a certain extent make clearer that which was involved in the phrasing of the Bill already. In particular this afternoon the Home Secretary accepted certain words—there was a slight modification introduced into them which did not affect the substance, of the matter—making it clear that it was not within the compass of the proposed regulations to impose any form of compulsory military service or anything which is called, I think, industrial conscription. That concession was followed—
    Mr. WALSH: Concession?
    Sir G. HEWART: Yes, concession, because it is putting something into the Bill to avoid something which I should have thought it would not have been unreasonable to hope—the Debate showed that it was unreasonable to hope—the Government might have been trusted to avoid. That is done, and as soon as that is done there is another proposal. It has been said again and again, and it has been said with considerable emphasis to-day, that the primary object of the Bill is to make it impossible any longer in this

    1873
    country to strike or, however peacefully, to induce other persons to strike. Of course, that is not the object of the Bill, it is no part of the object of the Bill, and as was said quite clearly—the words "quite clearly" are superfluous in speaking of what is said from that source—as was said by the Lord Privy Seal in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, this is not, in any sense of the term, a strike-breaking Bill. This Bill is not intended to make illegal a strike which, apart from this Bill, would not have been illegal. What is intended is to create machinery, prompt, effective, sufficient, to deal with the situation which is created, whether by industrial dispute or by other action of a certain nature and upon a certain scale, and to put the Executive Government in a position to deal with the situation so created. One might have thought that that was sufficiently declared. However, it was insisted with great vehemence that clear words should be put into the Bill which would, as it were, register and express the pledge which had been given. Accordingly, a proviso was inserted in the Bill which says—I am speaking from memory, but I think I am substantially accurate—that nothing in this Bill is to make a strike illegal or to make it illegal for a person peacefully to persuade to a strike. Be it so. Now comes the sequel, and I do in all seriousness and carnestness invite the attention of the House to the sequel. Because we have done that, because we have made it plain upon the face of the Bill that the purpose which was announced by my right hon. Friend in moving the Second Reading is the true purpose of the Bill, what is the criticism now made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson)? He says, "Ah, look at the peril of this situation. Now you have in the Bill an echo, a phrase, a reminiscence of a particular Trade Union Act." He even permitted himself to say that His Majesty's judges would be tempted, or might be tempted, by the fact that that particular phrase was to be found in this Bill, which by that time would have become a Statute, to say that all else which is to be found in the Trade Union Acts from 1871 to 1906—to be more accurate, one might say from 1871 to 1913—was by this particular Bill forbidden. Seriously, could any suspicion, any apprehension be more fantastic than
    1874
    that, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so?
    The Bill provides that upon the happening of certain events, no matter from what quarter they come, through any action, provided that it is of a certain nature and upon a certain scale, an emergency can be declared. Upon the declaration of that emergency, the power to make Regulations immediately arises, and then the scope of these Regulations is indicated, not in the sense of giving the details of any Regulation, but only in the sense of enumerating the classes or the categories or heads under which the Regulations may be made. Does my right hon. Friend seriously imagine that because in a particular Clause of the Bill we have put a proviso that no such Regulation is to interfere with certain things referred to in a Trade Union Act, everything else which is to be found in the Trade Union Acts is by this Act of Parliament done away with. To say that His Majesty's judges would be tempted to draw an inference of that character seems, if I may be allowed to say so, an extremely startling proposition. I say in all earnestness to my right hon. Friend that the words which he proposes to insert are entirely superfluous, and because they are superfluous they are perilous. Is it going to be said that because the Regulations do not provide otherwise, we propose to get rid of Magna Charta? Are we to put in words in this Clause that it shall not be within the compass of the Regulations to abrogate Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement, or some one or other of those laws which are the very foundation of our constitutional law, so far as it is written?
    Mr. CLYNES: Is this not fantastic suggestion?
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir G. HEWART: I think that there is nothing fantastic in the suggestion that that which is superfluous on one ground is like that which is superfluous on another ground. I invite my right hon. Friend, upon reflection, to think that if we were to put in words of this kind it would be an equal temptation, I will not say to the learned and experienced authorities to whom he referred, but a temptation to some others to say that it is only the little area of trade union law which is to be saved from the ambit of those Regulations, and that every other

    1875
    department of law, however vital it may be to this, that, or the other section of the community, or however important to the community as a whole, is to be material for these Regulations. Having considered that point, I hope that he will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    We have only before us the Bill as it was originally introduced. In Committee we have introduced very important Amendments. There is one very important Amendment to which it is now proposed to add something else. We have not before us in print the Amendment which was adopted, nor have we the words that it is proposed now to introduce. It is impossible to proceed in a rational way to deal with legislation under such circumstances.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Motion.
    Question, "That the Debate be now-adjourned," put, and negatived.
    Debate resumed.
    Question again proposed, "That the words 'abrogating the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906, or any of the provisions contained therein, or,' be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. CLYNES: The speech of the Attorney-General was, I dare say, intended to reassure those of us who may make some special claim to speak for organised labour. All I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends is that the speech has made us much more suspicious than we were before-It was generally admitted in the beginning of the speech that we are discussing this matter in an atmosphere of suspicion. That is not our fault. That suspicion might have been avoided by frank consultation by bringing together the two parties who have a right to consider how far there should be serious alterations in the law in relation to these emergencies. It might be avoided even now if this Bill were set aside, if only temporarily, and it ought to be set aside in view of the state of the emergency in relation to which it was introduced, hinging upon the miners' strike, being further and further removed from us, as it would appear every hour brings us nearer to a peaceful settlement of that
    1876
    trouble. The circumstances which evoked this Bill have so altered as to entitle us to appeal to the Government not further to increase the suspicions in the mind of labour by continuing to press this measure.
    Why are we more suspicious, after listening to these speeches, than before? It is because the Amendment, which would remove the suspicion, which would in statute terms give us the safeguard for which we are asking, is flatly refused, and we are asked to be content with verbal assurances by the Attorney-General. When a case goes into a Court of Law, what matters are the words precisely as they are in the Act. That is what determines the decisions of those who have to interpret the law in Courts. The speeches here in which our good intentions are expressed are never referred to in Court, and, if they were, they would in no way influence a judicial decision. The specific Acts of Parliament referred to in the Amendment, passed by the Legislature, after months of public debate, after weeks of consideration in this House, after a General Election, guarantee to labour the claim which it made in relation to such matters as conspiracy, peaceful picketing, and liability for actions committed by either members of trade unions or individual trade unions themselves; and all that my right hon. Friend is now asking the House to do is so to frame the words of this particular emergency proposal as to make it impossible in a Court of Law to deprive us of these rights which were expressed in two or three Acts of Parliament.
    We submit this Amendment because this Rill when it becomes an Act will not in itself be an instrument for Government action in regard to a state of emergency or strikes or disputes. It is the Regulations that would be the instrument. We merely ask that it will not be possible for those who have to frame the Regulations so to frame them as to set aside statutory rights which were expressed in the Trade Disputes Act and other Acts. These Regulations when framed will be framed only in relation to the action of trade union organisations, bodies of men who may be on strike, and no matter how often we are assured that all persons have to be equal before the law, I decline on the strength of our experience to accept any of those assurances no matter how well meant they

    1877
    are. It is not that we doubt the honesty of the statements as they are made, but we must judge what will probably happen in the future by what has happened in the past. Only an hour ago we asked the insertion of certain words that would expressly require persons engaged in the conduct of trade and business in the supply of food and necessities of life to be expressly brought under the terms of the Bill and the Government refused.
    A member of the Cabinet, the present Minister of Food, said not long ago—and he has made the statement repeatedly—that proper investigation by a competent committee set up under Government auspices showed that 80 per cent. of the principal trades and businesses of this country were under the dominion of trade combines and syndicates exercising a power frequently delaying supplies for reasons of profit, and frequently impeding the access of the public to the things which they need by the high prices which they fixed officially for reasons of profit. Those are the findings of that Committee, and we say that combines, syndicates; and trading companies exercising unfairly powers of that kind ought to be brought expressly within the terms of this Bill. This the Government have refused to do. I repeat that this is a Bill of Regulations not yet drafted which would be framed in a moment of panic when the whole mind of those who have to frame the Regulations will he directed against organised labour because of the struggles in which labour is engaged with capital or with the Government. I accept the

    Division No. 340.]

    AYES.

    [10.16 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hegge, James Myles

    Swan, J. E.

    Cairns, John

    Holmes, J. Stanley

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Irving, Dan

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Lawson, John J.

    Tootill, Robert

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Boss)

    Wignall, James

    Finney, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Robertson, John

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil Maclean.

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

    Sexton, James

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Atkey, A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    honesty of purpose and the good intention of those who speak for the Government, but drawing from experience I think that we are entitled to say that our position should be safeguarded expressly by the terms of this Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: My right hon. Friend refers to what happened in the course of the discussion within the last hour when we could not accept an Amendment enumerating certain specific things as being descriptive of the action referred to in the first Clause. Does he seriously contend that the words of the Bill "any action by any person or body of persons" do not cover the very matters which he desires to specify?
    Mr. CLYNES: I say that in practice they do not.
    Sir G. HEWART: Does he not perceive that to enumerate certain things, leaving out others, is to create an entirely false impression? The same remark applies to the Amendment now under discussion. Either the House is to take the view that the particular Statutes to which this Amendment refers are Statutes of a special degree of sanctity or it would be necessary to enumerate in the Bill or in a Schedule to this Bill all the Acts with which the Regulations must not interfere.
    Question put, "That the words 'abrogating the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906, or any of the provisions contained therein, or,' be there inserted in the Bill."
    This House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 227.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Percy, Charles

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

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

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

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

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Reid, D. D.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Renwick, George

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Roberts, Sri S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hinds, John

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hood, Joseph

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn. W.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

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

    Seager, Sir William

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

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Seely, Major-General Ht. Hon. John

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

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

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Simm, M. T.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jesson, C.

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Steel, Major S. Strang

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

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

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

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

    Taylor, J.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lloyd, George Butler;

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Waddington, R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Wallace, J.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lynn, R. J.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Forrest, Walter

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

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    Mason, Robert

    Whitla, Sir William

    Gardiner, James

    Matthews, David

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

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

    Middlebrook, Sir William

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

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Moles, Thomas

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

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Morris, Richard

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wise, Frederick

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Murchison, C. K.

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

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Neal, Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Gregory, Holman

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

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Parker, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    An Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) was moved, and with some alteration
    1880
    was accepted by the Government as follows:
    "Provided also that no such Regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    As far as regards the first part of the Amendment, which relates to the statement that no Regulation shall make it an

    1881
    offence for any person to take part in a strike, I have no objection. I perfectly recognise the right of every man to do what he likes with his own labour, and if he likes to strike it is not for me to argue whether he is right or not. I think that in the opinion of nearly everyone in the country he has a perfect right to do what he likes with his labour. Therefore, I do not propose to touch that subject, but now we come to another and a very different thing; for the proviso goes on
    "or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike."
    We know very well what peaceful persuasion means. On the face of it, peaceful persuasion, I presume, would be understood to mean—and I think it was stated so in 1906—that one man should say to another: "My dear fellow, don't you think it would be well if you didn't go and do this work, but came away and stayed out with me?" As a matter of fact however, peaceful persuasion is a very different thing altogether. It consists of having a large number of men composed partly of strikers, partly of other people, who are anxious to participate in a row, who assemble in a certain place, and who do not peacefully persuade, but forcibly persuade, other people from doing what they have a perfect right to do—just as great a right as a striker has to strike—namely, to use their labour in the way they think best. Everyone knows that it is impossible for the forces of the Crown to prevent that kind of thing. Once you allow three or four hundred men to congregate it is impossible to prevent violence taking place, and the people who are assaulted do not know the names of the people who assault them, whom, therefore, it is impossible to bring to justice. Look at the beginning of the Act and see what it is meant to do; because it must be remembered that this Act will not be put in force more than once, I should hope, in five or ten years, and therefore what I am moving does not in any way affect any ordinary strike or anything connected with any ordinary strike: it is only to be in force in these very exceptional circumstances. The Clause reads:
    "If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or with the means of locomotion …
    1882
    It is limited to these things, and only if it appears to His Majesty that any action is taken on such an extensive scale as to do these things. Is it to be contended that under very exceptional circumstances like that large bodies of men are to be allowed to congregate and prevent other people carrying on their lawful vocation, and so practically to render nugatory the effects of this Bill? I am sorry the Attorney-General has left the House, for I was going to point out to him—I do not know whether he left on purpose—that the very argument which he used a few moments ago in resisting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite can be applied to this Amendment. He said: "Do not put in superfluous words, because they lead to misconceptions." These words were not in the Bill; they have been put in now. We know why they were put in; it was in order to appease the Labour party. As is usually the case—I am not casting any imputations on the Labour party, for it would very likely have been the same if it had been any other party—the moment they have been appeased by certain concessions, instead of being grateful, they ask for more. That is exactly what has occurred at the present time. I mean to go to a Division on this Amendment. I think it is a very serious blot on the Bill, and I do not believe the Government intended to introduce words of this sort when they brought in the Bill. I think they render the Bill nugatory.
    Mr. SHORTT: The arguments of my right hon. Friend were addressed rather against the discretion of the police and the common sense of the courts of justice than against this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He instanced a case of assault committed upon people who wanted to feed the horses at the Great Northern railway station. I suppose his suggestion must be first of all that the police were inefficient and could not catch the assaulters, and secondly, that the courts of justice held that an assault on persons was peaceful picketing, which is absurd. These words we put in do not alter the Bill one iota. It is exactly as introduced, and as represented by everyone who has spoken on behalf of the Government. It is too late now to protest, because we have made clear that which we have always asserted, and to make that protest by raising points which have no pretensions

    1883
    to peaceful persuasion, and describing circumstances which could not be described as peaceful persuasion, and then to say that, because of some persons the police were not able to detect, or whom it was not possible to punish, therefore this Amendment is going to wreck the Bill, is an exaggeration which I do not think I need enlarge upon.
    Mr. THOMAS: The Attorney-General complained a few moments ago that there was an atmosphere of suspicion on this side of the House in discussing this Bill. If any just occasion for that suspicion were needed, it is to be found in the cheers which we have Just heard. It will be noted by the trade unionists of the country that, in spite of all that has been said, in spite of this being a women and children's Bill, half an hour before the Division is taken the people who will approve, and perhaps make, the Regulations, have given a very clear indication as to what they mean by their support of this Bill. And this, be it observed, after a war of four years. There are a few members in this House—the right hon. Baronet is one of them—who will remember that £50,000 was spent in 1905 in consequence of the judges' interpretation of a law that had been in existence for 32 years. Remember that famous Taff Vale decision was given, and was followed by a General Election, and not only every Liberal Member, but records show that 80 per cent. of the Conservative Members in their election addresses committed themselves to a view which the right hon. Baronet is now in 1920 asking this House to set aside. Let us see what is the complaint of the right hon. Baronet. Let this House observe that he and his friends are condemning peaceful persuasion and condemning the railwaymen's case. Less than throe years ago, while the War was proceeding, and at a critical stage of it the Government and the railwaymen met and came to an agreement, an agreement urged by the Government, and the right: hon. Baronet who moves this Amendment actually himself refused until a strike was proclaimed—during the War—actually to accept the provisions that the Government had made. That is why—and he knows it—peaceful persuasion is necessary to persuade people like him to do the right thing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: To what is the right hon. Gentleman referring.
    Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Baronet will know that he gave his general manager instructions not to be a party to the agreement that we arrived at with the Government. Twenty-four hours notice was given to his company, and 10 minutes before the time expired Mr. Dent had to sent out notices in order to save the strike being declared. The right hon. Baronet will probably understand very well—
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that I had voted for something in this House which—[HON. MEMBERS; "No!"] What took place between me and the general manager I could not say at the present time.
    Mr. THOMAS: I did not say anything about voting. I am trying to bring the House—
    Sir F. BANBURY: What has that got to do with it?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is this: that there was a strike, and peaceful persuasion is involved in a strike. I am trying to point out that although the hon. Baronet and his company were mainly responsible for the dispute which they brought about, he is actually moving a Clause that would prevent the men carrying out their legitimate function by law in helping in the dispute for which he was absolutely-responsible. But, Mr. Speaker, I am glad this issue is raised; because it is a justification of what we have been saying for three days. It is a justification that this measure—for the protection of women and children, remember—which the Government has been considering for months, and which they choose this particular moment to bring in—and incidentally this is the first Bill within the recollection of my hon. Friends on this side and myself that has ever been introduced affecting labour upon which the Government has never consulted labour.
    Mr. SHORTT: Why labour?
    An HON. MEMBER: Read the Prime Minister's speech!
    Mr. THOMAS: The Home Secretary asks, "Why labour?" Because the Government hitherto, and especially during the War, was at pains to consult labour at every stage.
    Mr. J. JONES: When they wanted them.
    Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the Home Secretary's "Why labour?" is, because in the methods known hitherto—it may be a new policy now—they thought it at least necessary to consult those who are primarily affected in any legislation.
    Mr. SHORTT: Primarily affected?
    Mr. THOMAS: We submit that we are primarily interested. All the evidence up till now in relation to the particular Amendment we are discussing clearly" demonstrates that. Whilst there has been a lot of talk about protecting the community, what evidence has there been up to now that, when there was a shortage of all manner of things in this country, and there was an abundance of stocks, the Government took any steps to exercise their powers? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go to a Division, because that will be a very clear indication of what an enthusiastic backing there is for this little innocent Bill to protect the women and children of this country. That vote will clearly indicate those who will have the courage to vote for what the right hon. Gentleman is expressing and those who have not the courage to do so.
    Mr. SHORTT: I would remind the House that yesterday we came to an

    Division No. 341.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Casey, T. W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Craig, Captain C. C. Antrim, South)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Gregory, Holman

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Edge, Captain William

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

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Finney, Samuel

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Fisher Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Forrest, Waller

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Cairns, John

    Gardiner, James

    Hinds, John

    arrangement to finish the Bill to-day, and I appeal to hon. Members to carry out that arrangement.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I, for one, shall certainly vote for this Amendment. Nobody has more friends than I have amongst working people, but what I object to is that hon. Members seem to think that certain organisations are the only section of the community, and they treat this Bill as if it did not deal with combines as well. Of course, goods belonging to combines or anyone else could be dealt with. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten the main purpose of the Bill, which is to make Regulations for securing the essentials of life for the community. What we object to is not that any particular Act relating to trade unions should now be repealed, but that there should be a special proviso that in making these Regulations the Government of the day should be prohibited from saying that men shall not assemble outside a railway station or outside a dock in order to prevent food or bread being distributed amongst the people.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 36.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

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

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Morris, Richard

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morrison, Hugh

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Hood, Joseph

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Myers, Thomas

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

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

    Neal, Arthur

    Swan, J. E.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Taylor, J.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

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

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Parker, James

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Irving, Dan

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Percy, Charles

    Tillett, Benjamin

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

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Tootill, Robert

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Vickers, Douglas

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Waddington, R.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Purchase, H. G.

    Wallace, J.

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

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

    Renwick, George

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

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

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Waterson, A. E.

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

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Robertson, John

    Wignall, James

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

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Rodger, A. K.

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

    Lorden, John William

    Rose, Frank H.

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

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Royce, William Stapleton.

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

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

    Lunn, William

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Wise, Frederick

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

    Maddocks, Henry

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Seager, Sir William

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Seddon, J. A.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Mason, Robert

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

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

    Matthews, David

    Sexton, James

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

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

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Steel, Major S. Strang

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

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

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

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

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Murchison, C. K.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Sir F. Banbury and Sir W. Davison.

    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

    Division No. 342.]

    AYES.

    [10.55 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

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

    Atkey, A. R.

    Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

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

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

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Casey, T. W.

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Borwick, Major G. O.

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

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

    The House divided; Ayes, 238; Noes, 58.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Reid, D. D.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jesson, C.

    Renwick, George

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Courthope, Major George L.

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

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rodger, A. K.

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

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Dixon, Captain Herbert

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Seager, Sir William

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Seddon, J. A.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Lorden, John William

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Forrest, Walter

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gardiner, James

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

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

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Maddocks, Henry

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Taylor, J.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Mason, Robert

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Matthews, David

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moles, Thomas

    Vickers, Douglas

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Waddington, R.

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

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

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

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Gregory, Holman

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Waring, Major Waiter

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morris, Richard

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Morrison, Hugh

    Weston, Colonel John W.

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

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. E.

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Whitla, Sir William

    Hanna, George Boyle

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wild, Sir Ernest

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Neal, Arthur

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

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

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

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col, Hon. Claud

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

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

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Parker, James

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Wise, Frederick

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Percy, Charles

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Hinds, John

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Hood, Joseph

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

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

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Younger, Sir George

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

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

    Purchase, H. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.…

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lawson, John J.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lunn, William

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Myers, Thomas

    Cairns, John

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

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Cape, Thomas

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Robertson, John

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Royce, William Stapleton.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Sexton, James

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Irving, Dan

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Finney, Samuel

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    1890

    1891

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Tootill, Robert

    Swan, J. E.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Waterson, A. E.

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Nell Maclean.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Wignall, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

IRELAND.

  REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am very glad that there is still left in the procedure of the business of this House of Commons an opportunity, even though it is a very limited opportunity, of raising matters of what I regard as of most vital importance to the character and honour and the prestige of this nation, because in the observations I propose to make there is only one thing involved. The honour of Ireland is not involved, because, notwithstanding the persecution, the outrages, and the infamies which are being carried on in Ireland to-day in the name of constitutional Government, we have this satisfaction, that the spirit of our people lives and that their cause is just and irresistible, and will ultimately succeed. Therefore, in raising this important matter on the Adjournment, I am not concerned so much with the interests of my own country as with the honour of England and its fair fame—for its fair fame is involved. I deeply resent the manner and the method by which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has dealt with these horrible events that are occurring in Ireland to-day. He seems to have made up his mind to become the defender of the indefensible, and to take advantage of his majority of 350, composed, I have no doubt, of well-intentioned but ignorant Englishmen. He believes that so long as he stands at that Bench, with his serried ranks behind him, to follow him into the Lobby, no matter what he says or what he does, or however unjustifiable the things are that he defends, that that is all that counts in the grave issues that are now being
  1892
  fought out between him and the lovers of liberty and humanity in Ireland. I do not care what is thought of Ireland by the hard-faced men who made money out of the War. My function in this House, and it is the only one, is to endeavour to direct public opinion to the appalling condition of Ireland to-day, and the responsibility that must be borne by the right hon. Gentleman for these horrible outrages that are commited against innocent people in Ireland. What is my first indictment against the right hon. Gentleman? No matter what allegations are made against the forces of the Crown, who are the instruments of its administration in Ireland, he denies them every one. We ask for a searching inquiry by an impartial tribunal, and he tells us that the malefactors are to be their own judges in Ireland. When the military, who are let loose, burn towns and shoot innocent people, set fire to business premises and create hell and havoc all over the land, and we ask for an inquiry, what happens? These incendiaries and murderers are men who loot the premises of business people and drive innocent women and little children in the dead of night into the fields and on to the country roadsides, and he tells us that a tribunal has been set up. The tribunal is made up of the criminals, and when the criminals have found themselves not guilty, he comes here and defends them, because he declares that that is the only tribunal whose judgment ought to be acceptable to the good sense and the spirit of humanity of the Members of this House.
  Then he goes on to tell us that if an Irish newspaper casts the slightest light of public opinion upon these infamies they will be prosecuted. He has issued prosecutions against the "Freeman's Journal" in Dublin, one of the leading organs of the country, because of one or two paragraphs of no importance that appeared in the paper. He says he is prosecuting them because they are publishing false statements. I propose to read statements made, not by the "Freeman's Journal," an Irish paper, who are liars, but by other newspapers. The

  1893
  Statements which I am about to read are either true or false. If they are true the right bon. Gentleman ought not to sit there for five minutes; he ought to resign his position as Chief Secretary. If they are false, he ought to prosecute these English newspapers for publishing false news. Which is his policy? Is it to prosecute Irish newspapers for paragraphs about simple incidents which he declares are false and to allow allegations in English papers of the most appalling character to be made against the Government of Ireland and its military machine in that country and leave them unprosecuted? We want no bluff. A nation that was not crushed by Cromwell will not be crushed by a Canadian who thumps that table. We want no bombast. We want clear and plain language, and I put it to him now. Are these things true or false? If they are true and if there is one iota of decency in English life and English democracy it will be ashamed to approve of them. If they are false, I call on him, notwithstanding the unintelligible interruptions of men who never come to the House unless at a time of all-night sittings, who think that the English Parliament is not the greatest constitutional assembly in the world, but a merry night club, to say, what is he going to do to these papers? I take the "Westminster Gazette." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is an English newspaper. Everything that is English ought to be sacrosanct to hon. Members opposite. I believe that it is owned by a Member of the Government. I think that the Government own all the newspapers. I know that they own nearly all the newspapers in England, and the most appalling possibility of the future is that they are going to own the Scotch newspapers,
  Mr. LYNN: What about Belfast?
  Mr. DEVLIN: They can get your newspapers without buying them. They are not worth buying. I have always noticed that the Coalition Government have very sound business instructions and therefore they will not buy the "Northern Whig." But the "Westminster Gazette" says:
  "The people of Bandon, co. Cork, continue in a state of terror, due to military reprisals following the Ballinhassig ambush Further extensive damage was done last night, when people were just beginning to
  1894
  feel that the terror of Friday night had passed away.
  "Shortly after eight o'clock a number of soldiers proceeded to a hosiery factory at Hill Street, burst in the front door, threw petrol freely about the place, and set fire to the building. As the contents easily caught fire, the building was fully ablaze in a short time. At the rear of the premises some hosiery was saved from burning, and a good deal of it was also looted. This morning the entire factory promises were seen to be completely demolished. The entire damage is estimated at about £50,000.
  "Mr. Joseph Brennan's private residence, Kilbrogan House, was then attacked by soldiers, who first broke some windows and glass sidelights at the door. They entered the bedroom of Shaun Brennan, who was an officer and fought in the late European War, and smashed some furniture."
  —[Laughter.] I rejoice that, coming back to this dull House of Commons, I am able to make merry the sad-faced gentlemen who have made money out of the War. The report goes on:
  "Mr. Joseph Brennan, the son of the owner of Kilbrogan House, is private secretary to Sir John Anderson, one of the Irish Under-Secretaries."
  Sir John Anderson is an Englishman, [HON. MEMBERS: "A Scotsman' "] That is better still, and I claim the sympathy of the Leader of the House. The Under-Secretaries in Ireland are the permanent governors of that country. The article goes on:
  "Hundreds of people left the town, as on the previous nights, and many slept by fences through the country all the night. A great state of fear still exists amongst the people, and early this morning many were again pre-paring to leave the town.
  "County Clare also figures luridly in the terrible picture. In the neighbourhood of Miltown Malbay the terror-stricken inhabitants flock nightly into the adjoining fields and country houses to seek refuge. A most respectable and inoffensive old man of seventy-five years, Mr. Charles Lynch, was shot dead in the yard of his own house, and a young man named Grady received a bullet wound in the log, and is in a bad condition. Hay stacks were then set on fire, including Pat Talty's thirty tons; Jas. Boland's, thirty tons; John Moroney's, thirty-five tons. Armed and uniformed men broke into the house of Mr. Thomas Blake, grocer and spirit merchant, and took away some clothes and drink. They next broke into the house of Mrs. O'Flynn, and took away several bundles of socks, shirts, bicycle tyres, etc. Finally they attacked James Burke's, cycle agent, and took away bicycle accessories.
  "There was considerable excitement in Cork last evening about seven o'clock, when several shots rang out. The streets were thronged, as is usual at that time of evening. The shots were fired by the occupants of a light military lorry which, accompanied by an armoured-car, passed quickly through

  1895
  the principal thoroughfares in the flat of the city. A mild panic, lasting for ten or fifteen minutes, was created."
  We are always told about soldiers being killed and policemen being killed. I have already stated, not here, but in Ireland, what I think of the murders of these men, but when I read the speech of the Chief Secretary here the other day, when I read the speech of the Prime Minister about reprisals and about human nature, I put it to the House, what is to be thought of the human nature that can stand armed bodies of military in armoured cars shooting recklessly, looting towns, driving the people into the fields in the dead of night and making little children terrorised with all this horror that you have created in the country. So much for the "Westminster Gazette." Let me come to the "Evening News." Hon. Members may laugh at that too. What do these newspapers say? They do not get this information from an Irish correspondent; from some inflated, rhetorical Irish pressman. They get it from a stolid English pressman sent over there coolly to examine facts and to recite them for the advantage of the British public. This is what the "Evening News" says:
  "Almost at the same time as Sir Hamar Greenwood was denying in the House of Commons that there was any flogging in Ireland another case was in progress in Co. Kerry. A motor lorry of uniformed men with blackened faces arrived in Lixnaw from Ballybunion direction. Before entering the village they pulled up at the house of a farmer. His two sons were pulled outside the door in their night clothes in a downpour of rain and beaten with the butt ends of rifles and kicked.
  "Before leaving the raiders made them stand in a pool of water almost up to their waists and left them there for some time. The lorry then proceeded to the house of a young man named Stephen Grady. Grady escaped in his night clothes, though searchlights were turned on him. His assistant, named Nolan, was knocked unconscious on the floor with a blow and subsequently brought outside the door almost nude. A tub of water was poured over him. The party then broke into a room where Miss Grady and her mother were sleeping and pulled Miss Grady out on the road, put her on her knees, and cut her hair.
  "On their return from the creamery, which they burned, the party entered the house of a man named Lovett, knocked his son on the floor with a blow, went next door and cut his sister's hair."
  Are you ashamed of yourselves? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] IS there a man with
  1896
  a single decent instinct in this House or in this country who ought not to be ashamed of it? You are able to protect your soldiers with all the machinery of your Empire. You have Sir Henry Wilson, the master mind and master hand who directs all these things, able to bring into the country hundreds of thousands of soldiers to protect the military and the policemen. What protection have the innocent villagers, men and women, against these horrible outrages? What protection have we? Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman this: If any relative of mine were flogged, if any sister of mine were treated as these poor and unprotected girls have been treated, and if any little children who had my blood in their veins were treated in that way, by Heavens '. I would not stand it, and I am not a Sinn Feiner and never was a Sinn Feiner. I have human instincts. This appalling recital of events is one that horrifies humanity, and has already made your name a by-word throughout the world. These appalling incidents are enough to make the blood boil in any man who has a single human instinct left. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman time to reply, and he can reply. He is not like the hilarious inarticulates who are laughing now. He can pound the Table and he can roar. He is sowing seeds of bitterness and anger which centuries will not eradicate.
  The crop that will grow out of all these infamies will be a crop that you will pay dear for, dearer than Ireland. I say that the honour of the Government is involved and the honour of the right hon. Gentleman who is the Governor of Ireland is involved. There is only one thing for the Chief Secretary to do, and that is to get up and say that as he has spoken so boldly in his determination to put down the murder of policemen he will be equally bold in his determination to end this horrible condition of affairs; and if he is going to punish pressmen for publishing what they believe is true, and which he says is false, then let him also bring to the bar, not of a military tribunal, but of a free tribunal, these distinguished journalists who have told their readers the story I have told; a story that must create indignation and shame in the souls of all decent men.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am not going to

  1897
  pound this box, and I hope I never do. [HON. MEMBERS: "You do!"] That is a matter of opinion. The condition of Ireland is so grievous, and no one knows it better than I do, that it is not to be treated with bombast. There is only one thing I resent in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and that is the reflection cast upon me because I am a Canadian. The record of Canada in the history of this Empire is one of which no Canadian is ashamed. There is no part of this Empire, for the last two generations, which has more loyally supported the Imperial propaganda than the Canadian people. I am bound to say, and I hope that every Canadian newspaper will repeat it, that I resent, when for the first time a Canadian has had the honour to stand at this box as Irish Secretary, that fault should be found with him because he has had the honour, as I have had, of being born in the Dominion of Canada.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I made no reflection.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member talked about the cause as just and irresistible and said it must succeed in Ireland. What cause? The Republican cause?
  Mr. DEVLIN: The cause of freedom.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Let us be precise. The Republican cause? The cause of murder? The only two causes I am opposing in Ireland are the cause of murder, which is the principal instrument in furthering the Republican cause in Ireland.
  I am not opposing Sinn Fein as a movement; I am not opposing anybody's political opinions, but I am opposing, and will continue to oppose, with the support of this House, any movement that is for the setting up of an independent Ireland and the continuance of this campaign of murder which I consider the only bar to the settlement of the Irish question. I am sorry if my method and manner offend the hon. Member. I do my best, and I hope, in spite of the difficulties that I have to face, that my method and manner will not offend any other hon. Member. The hon. Member talks about the tribunals composed of the criminals. The tribunals in Ireland are composed of British officers.
  An HON. MEMBER: Same thing.
  HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Withdraw!
  Major O'NEILL: Will the man who said that stand up?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: These tribunals in Ireland are composed of selected British officers. Nobody who knows anything about them can accuse them of having any desire except to administer justice in that country. I therefore must protest against the suggestion that the tribunals in Ireland are composed of criminals, or other than the fine flower of the British race. In reference to the newspapers, I have no control over English newspapers. I have never suppressed an Irish newspaper, and it is with the greatest reluctance that I bring an action against an Irish newspaper, but this is the ground of the first action, namely, that two policemen were shot by Black and Tans, by fellow members of the same force. I consider that a statement liable to cause disaffection in the forces of the Crown, and I cannot possibly allow a thing like that to happen without giving the newspaper owners and those responsible an opportunity of being heard before a tribunal of British officers.
  Mr. DEVLIN: These outrages are worse.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to the charges I have for the moment, every charge the hon. Member or anybody else brings to me I have investigated at once. But he has read charges which have appeared in this evening's papers. It is impossible for me to reply to these, because I cannot get the information in time. I can assure him—and the proof of what I say is this—in the past week we have dismissed over ten constables from that splendid force—
  Mr. DEVLIN: What for?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: For various offences. We dismiss everybody who deviates a hair's breadth from the strictest discipline of the famous Royal Irish Constabulary. I am the last person to wish any slackening of discipline in that force, but I cannot, and I will not, accept these accusations hurled against the constabulary and soldiers on the strength of reports in any newspapers, though I am only too happy to investigate them. Just a word about Bandon.

  1899
  Bandon is now being inquired into through General Macready and by General Macready. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He is the best man to inquire into any allegation against his own troops.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will it be an impartial inquiry?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly. No one is more interested in the troops than the General in command of them. I am profoundly sorry I have not more oppor-
  1900
  tunity to reply to these statements that are made.
  Mr. DEVLIN: It will go on again tomorrow night.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am always willing—
  It being half-past Eleven of the clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19 th October.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS (FARMERS).
  GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS (FARMERS).
HOUSING.
  SOUTHGATE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (BRICKS).
  SOUTHGATE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (BRICKS).
  CONSTRUCTION, METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA.
  CONSTRUCTION, METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  GNOSALL RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL SCHEME, MORETON.
  GNOSALL RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL SCHEME, MORETON.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  MATERNITY WELFARE.
  MATERNITY WELFARE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACTS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACTS.
  TOWN CLERKS (APPOINTMENT).
  TOWN CLERKS (APPOINTMENT).
INDIA.
  GIRLS' SECONDARY TRAINING SCHOOL, TRIPLICANE.
  GIRLS' SECONDARY TRAINING SCHOOL, TRIPLICANE.
  ARMY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANISATION.
  ARMY ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANISATION.
  PUNJAB DISTURBANCES (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).
  PUNJAB DISTURBANCES (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).
EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN IMPERIAL COUNCIL, DATED 16TH SEPTEMBER, 1920.
  Action against Punjab Officials.
  Action against Punjab Officials.
MESOPOTAMIA.
  INDIAN LABOUR.
  INDIAN LABOUR.
  BRITISH AND INDIAN TROOPS.
  BRITISH AND INDIAN TROOPS.
  SMYRNA (BRITISH MILITARY HEADQUARTERS).
  SMYRNA (BRITISH MILITARY HEADQUARTERS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE REGULATIONS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE REGULATIONS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  H.M.S. "MALAYA" (SCHOOLMASTERS).
  H.M.S. "MALAYA" (SCHOOLMASTERS).
  OUTPOST ESTABLISHMENTS.
  OUTPOST ESTABLISHMENTS.
  ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENTS, WOOLWICH (DISCHARGES).
  ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENTS, WOOLWICH (DISCHARGES).
  PAY (FLAT RATE INCREASE).
  PAY (FLAT RATE INCREASE).
  WELFARE COMMITTEE.
  WELFARE COMMITTEE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (PTE. W. G. E. TOMLINS).
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (PTE. W. G. E. TOMLINS).
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.
  WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (ADJUSTMENTS).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (ADJUSTMENTS).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (BOOT AND SHOE TRADE).
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (BOOT AND SHOE TRADE).
  EMPLOYERS' OBLIGATIONS (RE-INSTATEMENT).
  EMPLOYERS' OBLIGATIONS (RE-INSTATEMENT).
  APPRENTICES.
  APPRENTICES.
  RESETTLEMENT GEANT (SERGEANT G. ROY).
  RESETTLEMENT GEANT (SERGEANT G. ROY).
  STUDENTS (HIGHER EDUCATION GRANTS).
  STUDENTS (HIGHER EDUCATION GRANTS).
PEACE TREATIES.
  BRITISH SECTION, AERONAUTICAL COMMISSION OF CONTROL, BULGARIA.
  BRITISH SECTION, AERONAUTICAL COMMISSION OF CONTROL, BULGARIA.
  GERMANY (INDEMNITIES).
  GERMANY (INDEMNITIES).
PALESTINE.
  INTERNAL SITUATION.
  INTERNAL SITUATION.
  MUSTAPHA KEMAL (MUNITIONS).
  MUSTAPHA KEMAL (MUNITIONS).
TRANSPORT.
  STREET ACCIDENTS, GATESHEAD.
  STREET ACCIDENTS, GATESHEAD.
  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION (QUARTER'S ACCOUNTS).
  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION (QUARTER'S ACCOUNTS).
  WORKMEN'S TICKETS.
  WORKMEN'S TICKETS.
  FATAL ACCIDENT, WIMBLEDON.
  FATAL ACCIDENT, WIMBLEDON.
  BENTLEY-BORDON LIGHT RAILWAY (SPEED REGULATIONS).
  BENTLEY-BORDON LIGHT RAILWAY (SPEED REGULATIONS).
GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION).
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
IRELAND.
  COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, AMERICA (PASSPORTS).
  COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, AMERICA (PASSPORTS).
  ALLEGED FLOGGING, CUMNER, GALWAY.
  ALLEGED FLOGGING, CUMNER, GALWAY.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  OIL FUEL AND OIL SHALES (DEVELOPMENT).
  OIL FUEL AND OIL SHALES (DEVELOPMENT).
  INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS (GRANTS).
  INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS (GRANTS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  LAND VALUES DUTIES (REPAYMENTS).
  LAND VALUES DUTIES (REPAYMENTS).
  MOTOR SPIRIT DUTIES (NATALITE).
  MOTOR SPIRIT DUTIES (NATALITE).
  DEATH DUTIES.
  DEATH DUTIES.
  INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION LIMIT).
  INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION LIMIT).
KENYA COLONY.
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  KILINDINI HABBOUR.
  KILINDINI HABBOUR.
  EDUCATION (SITES AND BUILDINGS).
  EDUCATION (SITES AND BUILDINGS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE (Deputy Speaker) on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, a Motion* stands on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Earl Curzon relative to the Emergency Powers Bill. That Bill will not reach your Lordships to-day, as had been anticipated, and the Motion, therefore, will not now be moved. But if the Bill passes through the House of Commons to-day Lord Curzon will submit the Motion to-morrow in the terms as set down on the Paper.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the Government are not prepared to consider the necessity of making any such Motion to-morrow at all. I do not wish now to discuss the merits of such a Motion, but it is obviously based on the view that a Bill of this importance can pass through this House in all its stages at one sitting, and that our deliberations upon it are merely nominal. A moment of very great national emergency might justify such a course, but I trust that the noble Earl will consult with those for whom he acts in this matter and consider whether it is desirable that the House should be asked to take such a step or should be subjected to the necessity of challenging a Motion for the purpose in the circumstances as they exist to-day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble and learned friend is aware that one does not know at the moment exactly how matters stand in relation to industrial disputes or may stand in twenty-four hours time. I am sure that what Lord Buckmaster has said is very relevant to the discussion. All I now inform your Lordships of is the
*The Motion on the Paper was as follows:—In the event of a Message from the Commons being received that they have passed the Emergency Powers Bill, The Lord President (Earl Curzon of Kedleston) to move that Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting so that the said Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be passed through all its stages.
56
proposal of the Government to put this down for discussion to-morrow, when that point, of course, will be one of the most relevant matters of debate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As my noble friend opposite is well aware, speaking for myself and a good many other noble Lords, we do not desire to interfere for a moment with any course which the Government think it necessary to take in the public safety, and we should be prepared to advise your Lordships to assent to a Government Motion such as this if it be really absolutely necessary. We shall put it, as it were, upon the honour of the Government not to ask us to pass any such measure without proper consideration unless they can assure your Lordships that it is absolutely necessary in the public safety. No mere question of hurrying business through ought to be a good reason for suspending the usual operation of your Lordships' deliberations in a matter of this importance. As far as I am concerned, I am not aware that I wish to be responsible for any Amendment to the Bill. I have never seen it, and do not know what form it takes at the present time. But I think the perpetual suspension of the Standing Orders of this House is a great mistake, and should be avoided if possible. Therefore we shall have to rely upon the word of the Government to assure us that the thing is vitally necessary.

CATHEDRALS AND CHURCHES.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to move—
That this House is of opinion that an Advisory Committee, with power to consider the condition of cathedrals and churches, should not have been appointed without consultation with the Church authorities and without some proof that the provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate, or that the Church has in any way failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, a few words will be necessary to explain the purpose of the Resolution which stands in my name. Reference was made to it in a Question asked in my behalf by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, just before the House rose for the adjournment. It appears from the answer that the Office

57
of Works have appointed an Advisory Committee to consider whether the cathedrals and churches of this country should be brought within the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act. It was suggested that a mere Advisory Committee might be allowed to proceed, and that a discussion could take place when legislation was proposed. I say frankly that I object to that suggestion altogether. It appears to me that before an Advisory Committee of this character is appointed some intelligible reasons should be given why the appointment is suggested at this time.
I happen to have had a very large number of communications from lay Churchmen; no doubt the Archbishop of Canterbury will state to your Lordships the other side. Most Churchmen look upon this as the first step in an endeavour to bring within official control and supervision buildings dedicated to religious purposes and in constant use for religious services. I consider that to place, or to suggest the possibility of placing, the official hand in any way upon buildings of that character is a proposal that ought not to be entertained, and that this Committee ought not to have been appointed. I shall have to refer to a letter I wrote to the Office of Works in order to get information upon the point. But I can find no reason whatever for this possible extension of bureaucratic action; in itself it is highly regrettable.
I dare say this House is aware, though I do not intend to go into that part of the case, that Church bodies, Church courts, convocations, and so on, have thoroughly considered this matter. But, as I understand, when the appointment of this Committee was made no information of any kind was given to any Church authorities, either to His Grace the Archbishop or to any lay Churchman. I need hardly remind your Lordships that these cathedrals and churches are buildings of a very special character. They are under the control and care of a religious body—that is, the Church of England—and their maintenance and restoration are regarded as a trust of very great solemnity. It would be a great mistake if any members of this House were to suppose that this was not a matter of intense interest to Churchmen. I can assure them that it is, although I could not ask, of course, to impose upon them the numerous letters which have been written to me, probably because I happen to be chairman of the
58
House of Laity in the new Church Assembly. I shall refer later to the letter which has been written to me from the Office of Works, which I think bears out my statement. I did not write to them in the first instance; they wrote to me, and in answer I sent a letter asking them to give me some information as to why a Committee of this kind had been appointed, and I think your Lordships will agree with me when I read the letter that no reasons whatever were given.
Your Lordships are aware that the Ancient Monuments Act was originally passed in 1882 to deal chiefly with tumuli, Old Sarum, stone circles such as Stonehenge, King Arthur's Table, and matters of that kind. It is true that it can comprehend buildings, but that was the main purpose for which it was enacted. That, however, is not the immediate point to which I have to call your Lordships' attention. It is this, that in 1913, a year before the war (during which there was a necessary cessation of the consideration of questions of this kind), a Consolidation Act was passed, after inquiry, dealing with all these questions as regards ancient monuments. Not only is that Act inconsistent with the idea of the inclusion of cathedrals and churches, but they are in terms excluded from the term "ancient monuments," as are ecclesiastical buildings used for any ecclesiastical purpose. That was as late ago as 1913. It is almost contemporary having regard to what has gone on in between.
I naturally wrote to the Home Office and asked them what had occurred since 1913 that could possibly offer any basis for this new proposal to include cathedrals and churches under the Ancient Monuments Act. I may tell your Lordships this further, that when buildings are so included the Office of Works or the local authorities have certain powers of ownership, guardianship, and protection, according to the nature of the ancient monuments. Supposing cathedrals and churches were included. It would mean that no step for maintenance or restoration of our churches or our cathedrals could be taken without first of all sending notice to the official Departments; then I presume the official Departments would claim to take part in any inquiry as to whether a particular restoration or repair was necessary. To say nothing about the expense which would be involved in a matter of this kind,

59
you would call into consideration persons who are not actuated by what ought to be the main and only purpose—namely, a reverential care for sacred buildings dedicated to religious purposes and now being used for church services. In fact, as far as I understand the matter, it would mean that these inquiries, instead of being conducted, as they are now, under thy care of the Chancellors—and they are very carefully done; I had the honour at one time of being a Chancellor myself for the diocese of York—would become a sort of fighting ground for the rival views of architects or archaeologists. I do not want to say a word against either architects or archaeologists, but why, when you want to repair the parish church, you should lay yourself open to a long inquiry into the rival views of experts in architecture and archaeology I cannot comprehend.
In writing to the Office of Works I knew that they had my Resolution before them, because they referred to it, and if your Lordships will look for a moment at my Resolution you will see that it deals specifically with three matters. The first-is that the Advisory Committee should not have been appointed without consultation with the Church authorities. I do not believe there was any consultation with the Church authorities. It surely is a strong procedure that Sir Alfred Mond should take this action. I do not wish to say a word against him personally, but it is well known, as any one can read in the debates on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, that he was the advocate of nationalising Church property. Why he should set to work and appoint a Committee of this kind, without any reference to the Church authorities at all, I cannot understand. I wonder whether he knew what the Church authorities had done. I will not go into that part of the case, however, because I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury will deal with it.
The second point in my Resolution is that there should be some proof that the existing provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches have proved inadequate. Not one 'single instance is given of inadequacy. I have considerable knowledge of parish churches and cathedrals in this country. Of course, in some cases artistic ideas have been contravened, for there will always be differences on points of that kind, but, generally speaking, any one who goes round to see them will realise the reverential care with which
60
they have been safeguarded and protected. But it is with the religious side of this question especially that I am concerned.
The last point in my Resolution is that there should be some proof that the Church has failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings. I do not know that there has been any respect in which the Church has been more careful of the sacred trust committed to her than in the guardianship of her sacred buildings. And yet, without any allegation (because I wrote and asked if there was any allegation) that there had. been lack of care in the performance of her sacred trust, and without any consultation with the authorities, an independent Committee of this character is appointed in order to initiate the first steps towards what is called nationalisation—that is the favourite term, I believe, nowadays. It is a term which personally I much dislike.
I do not know whether Sir Alfred Mond made any inquiries as to the methods in which churches and cathedrals are protected at the present time. It is not a haphazard protection. Cathedrals are under the care of a Dean and Chapter, and as regards parish churches no alteration can be made without careful inquiry having previously been made and the necessary faculties obtained. In other words the care rests, as it has for centuries, in the ecclesiastical Courts under the jurisdiction of the Bishop. Is that intended to be interfered with, and, if not, what is the meaning of appointing an Advisory Committee in order to bring into all these church matters the official hand and the bureaucratic spirit? I have held many of these inquiries for faculties myself. What would become of these inquiries if you had the officials represented and various schools of architects and archaeologists present? I say without hesitation that you would make the reparation and restoration of churches almost impossible. As it is, the expense is very heavy. I know that one of the matters with which I had to deal was to bring down all the fees to a minimum point. Now you are going to send up the expense, because you have to give notices to officials, you have to hold a long inquiry instead of a short one, bringing in people who have no interest in the matter, and, according to my view, ought not to be allowed to interfere at all.
May I, in corroboration of what I have said, and to show that I have not overstated

61
the case, read the letter which was written to me on October 4 this year from the Office of Works in answer to a letter of mine asking if they could give me any reason why this proposal for an Advisory Committee was made. I put to them quite frankly my objection, and said "Now, can you give me any reason why this should be done, because I have not heard of any?" This is their answer, sent by Sir Lionel Earle, who in these matters, I presume, represents the Office of Works. First of all he sends me a copy of a letter which he had sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I need not give that, because it was not a letter written to me. Then he says—and I ask your Lordships' very careful attention to what he said about this proposal, which might, as I say, lead to the nationalisation of Church and sacred property—
"I assure you there is a very widespread feeling among all archaeological savant—"
that is what he says—
"that if Parliament thought it was necessary, as it undoubtedly did, to ensure some measure of protection to ruins of national importance, how much more important is it that some measure of protection should be given to the far more important national buildings such as the great cathedrals and some of the more important ancient churches in these islands."
Let me pause for a moment to refer to this widespread feeling of archaeological savants. I do not know how many there are, perhaps scores. I can oppose the practically unanimous opinion of all Churchmen in this country—and, when I say that, I am speaking on information supplied to me—against the introduction of official interference with their sacred duties in the supervision and control of these buildings. You always find someone in a minority everywhere, but I believe I can make that statement with perfect frankness.
As regards the words "national buildings," of course in one sense they are national buildings of great importance, but they are not national buildings such as ought to be comprised under the Ancient Monuments Act. They are of an essentially different character. They are buildings dedicated to religious purposes and intended to be devoted to religious uses. In any consideration of their apparent restoration or reform that is a leading idea which entirely differentiates them from some national monuments such as earthworks and matters of that kind to which I have
62
referred. That is an essential distinction, and I say with much earnestness and I sincerity that archaeological savants are not the people to suggest taking away from the Church the control of the sacred buildings which up to this date they have performed in an admirable manner. What is the rest of the letter? I should be sorry to omit anything—
"The control if approved need not, of course, mean a Government Department. It may come from a perfectly impartial body composed of men of culture and high standing."
The objection is just the same, whether it is one body or the other. As regards the Ancient Monuments Act the buildings come under the control of the Office of Works. Whether you have a sort of further Advisory Committee of this kind is a different matter altogether.
Here are the only cases—and I want to refer to them—of suggested defalcations in our duty—
"ertainly there are many instances, such as St.ban's and Exeter, where the fabric has not be andled in the best way in the past."
W is to decide that? Are the Church pee e to decide that in connection with religious duties and services, or are we to have some archaeological and architectural discussions, and (if I may suggest it) our cathedrals and churches turned into pylons, because that happens to be the view of the Office of Works? Let me say a word about St. Alban's because I am cognisant of the conditions. Most of your Lordships recollect—Lat least many of you may—that at one time there was a public footway between the nave of the church. and the Lady Chapel, and two great Churchmen, members of your Lordships' House for years, spent 10,000 or £20,000 a year in putting that church into condition. Do you suppose they would have done that if it had been subject to official interference? I recollect very well the prolonged inquiry. Lord St. Helier, than Mr. Jeune, was the Chancellor, and I happened to be present in the position of a humble junior counsel. The most careful inquiry was made as regards that expenditure, and no one who knows the conditions at St. Alban's as they were and as they are to-day can have anything but gratitude both to Lord Alden-ham and Lord Grimthorpe, who spent a fortune in restoring that remarkable and splendid cathedral.
I admit that if you come to the question of taste there would be difference of

63
opinion. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is going to reply. No one is more cognisant with varieties of taste. Let anyone go through our cathedrals and the mass of our parish churches and then visit those abroad. I think he would have no hesitation in saying how carefully our sacred trusts have been preserved by the Church in this country. I do not believe it is possible to make any allegation of defalcation. Here and there where you have thousands of churches, you will always find something to criticise in a particular case. It is not always easy to raise money the moment it is wanted. On the whole, however, our churches stand as a great credit to the religious feeling which has been encouraged by the work of the Church of England.
There is only one other point, and it has reference to a matter which was mentioned by the noble Marquess on a former occasion. As your Lordships know, the National Church Assembly Act was passed and the National Church Assembly meets for the first time in November of this year. If you have a body of that kind is it thinkable that you ought to appoint prematurely a Committee of this sort without a chance of consultation? I am perfectly well aware—I am not saying a word against him personally—that Sir Alfred Mond is quite sincere in his opposition to the Church of England, as he showed it on the Disestablishment Bill, but this is not a question in which any individual head of the Office of Works, whatever his private opinion may be, ought to take this action without consulting the proper authorities on the one hand and without having a case to support him on the other. Neither of these conditions exist in the present case, and I hope your Lordships will pass the Resolution that stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that an Advisory Committee, with power to consider the condition of cathedrals and churches, should not have been appointed without consultation with the Church authorities and without some proof that the provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate, or that the Church has in any way failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my name has been mentioned on a good many
64
occasions in the discussion of this matter. I am very sorry it was impossible for me to be present when the question was before the House in the early days of August, when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was good enough to speak on my behalf. What I should have desired to say then, and what I desire to say now, is that it was with feelings of bewilderment that I first saw a notice in the Press that a Committee had been appointed by the Office of Works to consider whether the powers conferred by Parliament should be so widened as to include advisory powers over ecclesiastical as well as secular buildings. My surprise was not in the least because I found the wide interest that was taken, and must be taken, by the whole nation in the subject of the care and custody of our ecclesiastical buildings of absolutely priceless and incomparable value, but because I had seen this Committee appointed without having heard a word about it from any quarter, although it was dealing with a subject with which my responsibilities are largely concerned, and which we have been handling with the most constant and prolific care for a good many years in the most public way possible.
But I supposed that when the matter was discussed we should learn what was the reason the authorities at the Office of Works or the authorities above them, the Government, regarded the endeavour of the Church to deal with this matter as so inadequate that in the middle of its work they must step in to do it instead. I thought we should have been told that, but I did not find in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanmore, who represented the Government then, the slightest indication of any knowledge of the subject. It was said that the Committee had been appointed and that they would be glad if I would nominate a member or would take some part, directly or indirectly, in it. I then corresponded with the Office of Works and Sir Lionel Earle, with the characteristic courtesy that I have found on every single occasion, replied to me on behalf of Sir Alfred Mond saying that it would be welcome were I to appoint a member to serve upon this Committee which was going to sit. I have also had communications, equally courteous, with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who is, I think, Chairman of that Committee, or at all events a member of it. I was much interested to have these communications but my question is, Why should we need

65
a Committee at this moment, on the part of the Office of Works, to consider this particular problem? If it could be said that the problem has beer left untouched by the Church for a long time, that they were evidently doing nothing in the matter and it was high time someone took an interest in it, I should have been very ready to listen to such an allegation, and, I think, to have answered it satisfactorily. But no such allegation was made; the committee was appointed to plunge into a matter which was being attended to in another way.
I will tell your Lordships what has been clone by the Church. Let nee ask, however, whether or not the Office of Works or the Government knew what we were doing. If they did know, no allusion was made to what the Church was doing; and if they did not know, it is not a good augury for the interest taken in the subject by the Government. Before the war this question was much before the authorities of the Church, and in June, 1913, the Archbishop of York and I appointed an important committee of the Chancelleries of the different dioceses, under Sir Lewis Dibdin, to look into the question as to what was being done with regard to the adequate control and custody of our ecclesiastical buildings aid to report in what way the historical and archaeological interests could be beet safeguarded. That committee produced a long and elaborate report containing no less than seventeen recommendations. The report was referred to the Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury and the Committee of the Convocation of York, with the view of understanding how it might be applied in the different dioceses. The reports of the Committees were published; they were not private documents. After the Committees had reported the Convocation of Canterbury grid the Convocation of York had debates on the subject, to which men who were the best authorities on the historical and archaeological side contributed. The recommendations from the Chancelleries were fully debated; some were modified, some were adopted, and some were thought to be, at that time, undesirable.
Meantime the war was at its height and the idea of obtaining Parliamentary sanction, which was necessary for some of the recommendations, was obviously out of the question. In addition to that, the very
66
idea of extensive building operations was not only undesirable but practically impossible, and it was quite obvious that the moment was singularly inopportune even to discuss building questions on a large scale, or even debate matters so far removed from war problems. But these things have not been allowed to slumber, The resolutions, as I have said, contained a number of recommendations for which Parliamentary sanction was necessary. Some of the recommendations, however, were such as could be carried into effect without coming to Parliament. They related to the way in which in each diocese a committee might be formed to deal with and report upon questions of archaeological, historical, or ecclesiastical interests which might arise in connection with Church buildings, and everything was done to secure that this subject, a difficult subject and needing attention, should be carefully considered in every diocese in the country.
I can understand it being said that the war has been over for two years and the results have been incommensurate with all that preparation. But is the mode for dealing with the problem the appointment of another Committee before inquiring whether any results have been achieved by former efforts? There was not the smallest allusion to our work at all. Did the Office of Works know that the matter was being considered, or did they not? I find it difficult to imagine the answer in either case. If they did not know, it is a confession of complete ignorance on a subject of proverbial difficulty and extreme complexity. If they did know, then there was not the slightest allusion to all these various documents relating to it.
I contend that on this exceedingly difficult subject the Church has been of late years doing all that is possible. The views of archaeologists and historians of the sternest school, with a minimum of ecclesiastical interest awl the maximum of archaeological interest, have been carefully weighed. Our business is to see that the highest. and greatest archaeological and historical considerations should not be allowed to over-ride the needs and facts of to-day. If ever it was true it is true now that we are, in our dealing with them for ecclesiastical purposes, considering carefully and constantly the archaeological and historical interests involved.
This being so, is it really a reasonable answer to the inquiry I made to be told

67
that I might be appointed a Member of the Committee if I liked. I do not need the Committee. The work is already being done. If it is said and contended that the work is not being done, I should 'be ready to consider it. But when, without any reference to what has been done, we are suddenly told that another Committee has been appointed, it seems to me to be a strange method of dealing with the matter. There is no question of personal discourtesy, and I am sure nothing of the kind is intended with regard to myself in the matter. It reveals to me a curious absence of knowledge of what is happening in ecclesiastical quarters, who, after all, have the custody of these buildings, that it should be thought desirable to appoint another Committee in this way without even inquiring what we are doing in the matter.
I am the last to contend, looking back over a long history of the Church, that our ecclesiastical or secular buildings have always been handled with all the latest and fullest knowledge and taste. I do not say they have. But if you contrast the ecclesiastical and secular buildings which have been treated in the last century I have no hesitation in saying that the ecclesiastical buildings have been treated a great deal better than the secular buildings, and the record of the Office of Works, or other Government Department which has controlled the treatment of buildings ancient or modern, will not compare favourably with the treatment received at ecclesiastical hands. But let nobody say that I am contending that there has never been a mistake made with regard to a cathedral or a parish church in its architectural treatment. I do not say so, although you will probably find differences of opinion in that particular case. What I do say is that we have that matter in hand at this moment.
At this moment we are forming in almost all the dioceses of England, either individually or in groups of dioceses, committees, not ecclesiastical only but archaeological and historical, and men of culture in every field which has to do with this matter will be on the committees, before whom these things will always conic where a difficulty arises. They will consider it carefully, besides what the Chancellors think, besides what the authorities of the dioceses think, besides what the Bishop may direct. We are trying to do it. I have the matter
68
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in hand in my own diocese and in the other part of Kent, and throughout England it is taking place. Is that a moment when we are suddenly to find that the Office of Works appoints a Committee to consider this subject, fraught with enormous difficulty in its legal aspects, in its ecclesiastical aspects, in its strictly religious aspects, as to the practical use of the churches, and then to have the reply, when one inquires why a Committee is necessary, "You may nominate a member to it if you like." I do not propose to nominate a member. I think it very much better that we should not, unless it is shown that we have not met the necessities of the case. It is quite easy to run off and say that some mistake has been made with some building or other, but when it is said that we are not at this moment dealing with the matter adequately and that therefore sonic other persons must conic in, I say that ought to be made clear to the country before we agree with the suggestions which have been put forward.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, the most rev. Primate has cogently pointed out that there might have been a justification for the appointment of this Committee if it had been or could have been alleged that the Church had failed to take measures to meet the necessities of the case. On the last occasion when this subject was debated no such plea was put forward by the noble Lord who then spoke on behalf of the Government. There were two pleas put forward on that occasion. One was that cathedrals are at present in the charge of Deans and Chapters over whom there was no sort of control, and that it was possible to imagine a case in which all the members of the Chapter would be without artistic feeling. Secondly, it was alleged—and this is what I rise to controvert—that it often happens that the Dean and Chapter are entirely in the hands of the architect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in that case there is no check upon him whatever.
I rise to say that there is no case whatever in which the Dean and Chapter are in the hands of the architect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not the power to exercise and do not exercise any control whatever over the free choice of the capitular bodies in whose hands are the cathedral churches of this country- in their choice of a competent architect to advise in the difficult

69
position in which they are placed. To say this is not in the least to disparage the architect employed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It remains a fact that upon his merits and upon his merits alone the Deans and Chapters have employed that distinguished architect for the purpose of advising in the cases where they thought it proper to have recourse to such advice. It cannot have been, or at least it is very difficult to suppose, that the choice can have been made by reason of his particular connection with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
And again I must hot be understood in the least to say that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' architect is not a good judge of matters of taste because it happens that the matters in which he is most frequently consulted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are matters in which considerations of taste very seldom enter. He advises them upon the plans for new parsonages, and there in most cases it is proposed to spend largely money which has been raised locally, and it is very difficult, therefore, to interfere in matters of local taste. But it is the duty of the Commissioners to see, and. they do see, that in matters of structure and plan and convenience the proposed new building should be suitable for the purpose for which it is going to be erected. Then there is the case where, for the purpose of providing parsonages, existing houses have been acquired and their suitableness or the possibility of converting them into suitable residences has to be considered. Again that is an extremely prosaic question.
Then there are cases of new cnurches. In all cases in which it is possible that the new church may hereafter come to be a parish church the plans have to be considered by the Commissioners. Here again it is mainly accommodation, planning, and construction which are the chief considerations on which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners advise them. The most difficult and likely cases for differences of opinion are those in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, being the rectors and the receivers of the tithe, happen to be the owners of the chancels. In those cases, however, no structural alteration such as the noble Lord who brought, forward this Motion referred to can be made unless it has been sanctioned by the Chancellor of the Diocese. The Chancellor of the Diocese, as your Lordships probably know,
70
is appointed by the Bishop and responsible to him. On the other hand, he is just as a Judge is towards the Sovereign. He is independent because he is a judicial officer. His business is to apply the Church law, and it is part of the Church law not only that things should not be put up in chancels and in churches which are inconsistent with Church law and Church ritual, but it is also part of the Church law that nothing shall be done to the structure or the fabric which diminishes its stability or renders it unfit for the sacred uses to which it is to be put. Those are with few exceptions the only relations in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have to have an architect. I do not say there have riot been cases where they have had to put up buildings of another kind and to have recourse to the advice of an architect. All I say is that on the faith of that distinguished architect's performances in those cases he has actually received a great deal of employment for important commissions and tasks not only at the hands of Deans and Chapters but also of persons in parishes who have to deal with the erection and improvement of parish churches. That is on his merits and not in the least because of a suggestion from the Commissioners.
I think it characteristic of the spirit in which this Committee has moved that an expression should have been used such as that in the letter which was read by the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion. It is said that archaeological savants are troubled in their minds about what is being done in the parish churches. Are Churchmen as a body so separate from the rest of the community that there are not to be found any archaeological savants among Churchmen? I make bold to say that probably the majority of arch æological savants are to be found amongst the churchmen daily taking part in advising and helping the clergy in matters of archaeological knowledge as applied to ecclesiastical buildings. If the substitutes or alternatives to resources of that kind are to be the archaeological savants of the Office of Works all I can say is that I remember a case, not a very recent case, in which the Office of Works went heavily wrong in the matter of a very big public building in London, purely as regards taste and the propriety of that building. I speak of the building which is known as New Scotland Yard. It was put up by a Public Department, but it so

71
happened that the Department that put it up was free to do so without consulting the Office of Works. The Office of Works condemned that building. They wanted, of course, to continue a tedious succession of Palladian fronts along the whole of the Thames Embankment. All I can say is t 'tat the condemnation of the Office of Works upon that occasion was itself condemned by nearly every architect and artist of distinction either in the Royal Academy or in the country in the letter they wrote to The Times to say so.
I trust that whatever this Committee does the public will acquiesce in the continuance, for the maintenance and care of sacred buildings, of all that voluntary provision of resources, and that voluntary recourse to the best advice possibly obtainable, which has hitherto been the spring of all those impulses which have made them the beautiful things that they are.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion, in the course of which a number of opinions have been expressed on a variety of subjects—opinions as to how far the Church has fulfilled in the past her sacred trust in respect of the buildings of which she is the guardian. We have had the opinion of the noble and learned Lord who moved the Resolution as to the character of the restoration carried out at St. Alban's Cathedral, an opinion upon which, if I were called upon to discuss it, I certainly should not find myself in agreement with him. But I do not feel called upon to follow the noble and learned Lord into a discussion of that topic, or indeed of many of the matters that were raised in his speech. And it is certainly not out of discourtesy to any of the speakers that I do not follow the arguments they have used, but merely because, with all respect to them, they strike me as irrelevant to the Motion which the noble and I earned Lord has put upon the Paper.
I cannot help thinking that anybody present this afternoon and listening to the speeches that have been made would imagine that we were discussing the terms of a Bill to place the churches and cathedrals of this country under the charge of Sir Alfred Mond. If that was what we were discussing I have no doubt that I should find myself in agreement with much of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, but I would beg
72
leave to recall your Lordships to the Motion which the noble Lord has put upon the Paper. The Motion is—
"That this House is of opinion that an Advisory Committee, with power to consider the condition of cathedrals and churches, should not have been appointed without consultation with the Chinch authorities and without some proof that the provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate."
I will return to the terms of the Motion in a moment. But first of all let me ask the noble and learned Lord to remember what it is that the Government have done. If the Government are to be censured, let us be quite clear what the step is that they have taken. They have appointed an Advisory Committee. The noble and learned Lord did not even read the terms of reference to that Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: I said it was referred to on the last occasion by Lord Stanmore.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The terms of reference to the Committee, I think, were not settled at that time.
LORD PARMOOR: But we had the purport of them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Let me remind the House of what they are. The Committee was appointed "to advise the First Commissioner (first) as to the question of amending and strengthening the existent Ancient Monuments Act." I do not suppose any member of your Lordships' House would question the propriety of the First Commissioner of Works appointing a Committee to advise him as to the working of the Ancient Monuments Act and as to the possibility of amending and strengthening it, and, if so, in what direction. Having, therefore, appointed this Committee to look into the working of an Act for the administration of which he is responsible, the question arose as to whether its terms of reference should include the possibility of extending the Act to ecclesiastical and secular buildings which are not still in use and occupation.
The first point that the noble and learned Lord makes is that the First Commissioner should not have appointed a Committee without consulting the Church. I feel sure, after what the most rev. Primate has said, that it is not necessary for me to repeat the

73
expression of regret which I Which was given on a former occasion that he was not consulted before it was decided to include this in the terms of reference to the Committee, but I am sure he accepts the assurance that no sort of discourtesy was contemplated for a moment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYCANTERBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTONBut when I go on to consider the further condition which the noble and learned Lord proposes in his Resolution I come to the words that the Committee "should not have been appointed without some proof that the provisions for protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate."
In other words, he says that there ought to have been some allegation that the Church has failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings. I think that I detected in the speech of the most rev. Primate the same complaint that no allegation had been made that ecclesiastical buildings had been misused in the past. That is tantamount to saying that a Minister is never to appoint a Committee of inquiry to advise him upon a matter unless he is in possession of overwhelming proof of the kind that the Committee might need.
LORD PARMOOR: I said come evidence, not overwhelming evidence.
THE EARL of LYTTONBut he appointed a Committee in order to investigate this very matter. No allegation has been made that the Church has failed in her sacred trust, and I am bound to sax that it strikes me as curious that this should have been a ground of complaint, and that in the setting up of this Committee it should be made a positive grievance that the Church has not been accused of mishandling the buildings in her charge in the past.
May I mention to your Lordships an incident which I think not altogether irrelevant to this discussion It was my business as Civil Lord of the Admiralty to superintend the administration of Greenwich Hospital. I was during my tenure of office approached by the Office of Works with a suggestion that Greenwich Hospital was a building of such national importance that it was desirable it should be regarded
74
as an ancient monument. and that no structural alterations should be undertaken to that building without consulting the Ancient Monuments Board. If allegations had been made that the Admiralty had failed in its trust over this building I should have very ninth resented the suggestion that the advisors of the Office of Works, the Ancient Monuments Board, should be consulted in the matter, but no such allegation was made, and I agreed with the First Commissioner of Works that Greenwich Hospital was certainly a building of that character. And, without consenting for a moment to give up our responsibility in the matter of supervising the structure of the building, the Board of Admiralty agreed that they would consult the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments when any alterations to the building were in contemplation. I see no reason why those who are responsible to-day for the maintenance of ecclesiastical buildings should resent the suggestion that the Ancient Monuments Board should assist them in a similar way.
The debate has proceeded as if the suggestion were that the Office of Works had already decided to interfere with the administration by the ecclesiastical authorities of their churches and cathedrals to-day, and the most rev. Primate, I think, referred to this Committee as if it were a Committee set up by the First Commissioner of Works to do the very things which are being effectively done to-day. It is the business of this Committee to do nothing whatever but take evidence and hear opinions, and then express its views to the First Commissioner of Works. It is a purely advisory body, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, will make before that Committee the speech he has made to your Lordships this afternoon. Certainly it will be far more relevant there than it was to the Motion which he has placed on the Paper.
I do not know in the least what the Committee will report. It is quite probable they will be satisfied by the evidence put before them that it would be unwise and undesirable to schedule cathedrals and churches as ancient monuments. It may be they will make suggestions for closer co-operation between the ecclesiastical authorities and the Ancient Monuments Board. It is not my business to forestall the decision which the Committee may conic to. But, my Lords, I ask whether we can assent to a Motion which says that the

75
Government are never to set up a Committee, by a Minister, unless they are already in possession of the very evidence which that Committee is to be set up to obtain. That is a Motion which no Government can accept.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sure the noble Earl will not mind the interruption, but that is nowhere near the Motion, nor is any such suggestion made in it.
THE EARL OF LYTTONI beg the noble Lord's pardon, but he asks your Lordships to agree with him that this Advisory Committee which we are discussing should not have been set up without proof that the provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate.
LORD PARMOOR: That is so.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The very point, which the Committee is to inquire into—"or that the Church has in any way failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings."
LORD PARMOOR: That is quite true.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My point is that the Committee was set up for the express purpose of taking evidence on that subject, and the noble and. learned Lord asks us to say that the Committee ought not to have been set up unless the First Commissioner of 'Works was already in possession of evidence on those points. I am confident that your Lordships will consider that the Motion is one which you are not prepared to accept.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, it is evident from the speech of the noble Earl, from the terms of reference to the Committee which he has read, and, as I understand, from the letter of the Office of Works, that this is the first stage in an attempt on the part of the Office of Works to bring cathedrals and churches within their sway as ancient monuments. Churches and cathedrals are ancient monuments only in a very secondary sense. They are religious edifices intended for the use of the faithful of each generation as it comes along, and the faithful are not to be prevented from making proper use of them. Noble benefactors who give large sums of
76
money for their repair and restoration are not to be hindered by being told that these churches and cathedrals are ancient monuments and cannot be tampered with. The history of all cathedrals and churches is that each God-fearing generation in its turn has brought its own ideas into them, sometimes such as the next generation condemns, sometimes such as the third generation approves. The great object is that the churches and cathedrals should be fitted for use and full use at the present day, and not be hampered by any official or even any narrow archæological consideration.
Some reference has been made to St. Alban's Abbey or Cathedral, and I think it is only fair to the memory of a man to whom I was often in opposition, and to whom in that matter I was also in opposition, to say what happened about that cathedral. No doubt some very heavy, clumsy, modern things were done by Lord Grimthorpe in that cathedral, several things that many people did not approve, several things that I do not myself like. But it must be remembered that St. Alban's Cathedral was falling into ruins, that there was no money to keep it up, and that Lord Grimthorpe spent probably more than £100,000 out of his own money to set it steadily on its legs. That, after all, is only typical of what has been done everywhere. There are certain comparatively small repair funds belonging to cathedrals; very small. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners took the greater part of their funds and left them with funds which, at present prices, produce singularly inadequate sums for the purpose of repair and restoration. We have an example in the appeals which are made every day on behalf of Westminster Abbey.
In regard to the parish churches, in nine cases out of ten there are no funds at all, and everything that is done is done out of the money of religious and generous people who subscribe for the occasion. Now it is proposed to fetter them by bringing all these edifices under the Board of Works and to require that they shall be regarded from purely monumental considerations.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships at any great length, but, if only because I have the honour to be Chairman of the Committee to which reference has been made, there are a few remarks I should like to offer. In

77
the first place, let me say to the noble Lord who made the Motion that I cannot help feeling that he is moved by a considerable amount of exaggerated fear as to what is likely o be the result of this Committee. No reference has been mach to what in my opinion generally is the chief object of this Committee—to advise on the question of amending and strengthening the existing Ancient Monuments Act. It is with a very genuine sense of regret that I have to confess that the Ancient Monuments Act, for which I was responsible in this House, has practically proved a failure. One attempt was made under its provisions to secure a secular building and to save it from imminent destruction. We were unsuccessful in doing so, and there is very little hope indeed that the provisions of this Act as they exist at the present time can be used for preserving these ancient, monuments in the future. Therefore, my Lords, it is almost imperative that there should be a review of the existing Act to see whether there should not be a considerable amendment of the law in regard t) secular buildings. That is the first part, and I hope the most rev. Prelate will not b3 shocked when I say in some ways one of the most important parts, of our duty—namely, to consider the existing Ancient Monuments Act which has so largely failed in its objects.
Then we come to the question whether the powers conferred by Parliament should be widened so as to include advisory powers over ecclesiastical and secular buildings which are still in use and occupation. We all join in admiration of the splendid parish churches and cathedrals up and down this country, which are the glory of this land. We should all of us regret to see any harm come to them whether by thoughtlessness, ignorance, or merely by the passage of time and decay. I venture to express a little regret that when the State takes this amount of interest in these great buildings, its action should be so fiercely resented. by the noble Lord who made the Motion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And by a great many others.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then I am afraid it may come almost as a shack to the noble and learned Lord who male the Motion, and perhaps even to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, to know that at this moment there are two cathedrals if not more in the United Kingdom which are under the complete control of the
78
Office of Works, who are entirely responsible for all the repairs and all the structural alterations of any sort that it is necessary to make I have not yet heard that this prevents their proper use for religious purposes, and therefore it is with some regret—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Which are they?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Glasgow and Dunblane: they are both in the United Kingdom, and the congregations who use those cathedrals have no objection to the action and to the work done there by the Office of Works. It is, I think, not altogether unworthy of consideration, too, that something in this direction, or something upon the lines which might be recommended by the Committee, has been already thought necessary by various ecclesiastical authorities when they issue appeals for funds. There is nothing, I suppose, which nowadays ecclesiastical authorities would think more necessary when they ask for money than that they should be able to assure the public that the proposals which they make have met with the approval of the antiquarian and archaeological authorities in this country. I think that the Dean of Westminster, when he issued his appeal for money for help in the restoration of Westminster Abbey, made a very great point of the fact that what was going to be done was of a kind which would approve itself to archaeologists and antiquarians and to architects throughout the country.
Without revealing any confidence I may say that one of the first steps taken by this Committee was to try and find out what is the exact state of the law in other countries. It seemed to us that we might find some hint in some legislation in some of the other countries of Europe which would provide us with valuable suggestions for the care of the public buildings in this country. And when I speak of public buildings in this sense I refer to buildings not only ecclesiastical but also secular, in which the public takes a special and abiding interest. There are, of course, a number of secular buildings in which the country undoubtedly does take an interest, and for which, I think, it might even be willing to add something to the burden of taxation in order to prevent them from falling into ruin and decay. At any rate, I think he would be a bold person who

79
should say that it would be impossible for us anywhere in the legislation of other countries to find some guidance for the people of this country in dealing with our own ancient buildings. Indeed, I regret very much the fact that we have not been favoured with the assistance of a direct representative of the most rev. Primate. I am glad to think that we have on the Committee one of the bishops of the Church, than whom few people are better qualified to speak for the antiquarian and archælogical interest—Bishop Browne.
LORD PARMOOR: He is an ex-Bishop.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I should not have thought it necessary for me to tell my noble friend that "Once a Bishop always a Bishop." He is not an ex-Bishop; he is still a Bishop. We are fortunate in having Bishop Browne to give us his assistance, and I only wish that we might look forward to having some assistance from the noble Lord who sits beside me. But I can assure him that in so far as he has conjured up visions that the State, or this Advisory Committee, would recommend legislation the effect of which would be to take away the control of these cathedrals or parish churches from the Church of England, he is really exceedingly wide of the mark. Indeed, no such idea had occurred to me.
One other remark which I venture to make is that I hope we may have, if not from the noble Lord at any rate from all those who are interested in the matter, some valuable suggestions which may help us. There is no doubt that in the past mistakes have been made, and that those mistakes have been made is proved by the fact, to which the most rev. Primate referred, that special committees are now being set up in the various dioceses in order that such mistakes may not be repeated. It may he that these committees will not be successful in carrying out their objects. We do not know; we hope that they may be. But they may not be, and, if they are not, it may be desirable to look about in other directions for sonic other method of securing the objects which we all of us have in view. And really I do hope, seeing that the object of everybody is exactly the same, the care and protection of these ancient buildings, ecclesiastical as well as secular, that it may not be necessary to import a great deal of heat into the discussion, but that we may, whether on this occasion
80
or on the Committee, or on future occasions, discuss the matter with the most amicable and friendly relations, having, as I say, the same object in our minds.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, when I first saw that the noble Earl who has just spoken had become chairman of this Committee I must say I was surprised that so devout a Churchman had taken the position in the circumstances. But I forgot that he was also an ex-First Commissioner of Works and also the father, the fond parent, of the Ancient Monuments Act; and it is quite clear that it is his dissatisfaction with the way in which that Act has worked that has been mainly responsible in inducing him to take this position. His old cunning did not entirely desert him, because he very insinuatingly suggested to us that there were precedents actually in existence. Are there not, he said, two cathedrals already under the charge of the Office of Works, and is not all well and satisfactory with them? I ventured to ask what the cathedrals were, and I ascertained that they were Dunblane and Glasgow. I, of course, have nothing whatever to do either with the Church of Scotland or with the civil affairs of Scotland, but I suggest that what has occurred in Dunblane and Glasgow is no precedent for what ought to occur in connection with the cathedrals of the Church of England. A note has been sent to me by a very distinguished scion of Scotland present in the House to say that the control of the Office of Works militates against the religious use of those buildings by the Church of Scotland. Whether that is so or not, I do not profess to give an opinion.
What I ask you to consider is the actual merits of the Motion made by my noble friend, and the defence put up against it by my noble friend Lord Lytton. On one point I want to be quite certain that I did not misunderstand him. I thought he said that the reference to this Committee included only ecclesiastical buildings not still in use or occupation.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: No, which are still in use or occupation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I took it down the other way, and I could not quite understand. Let me first of all turn to an aspect of this question, not the most important, but still one over which I think my noble friend opposite ran over-

81
lightly. I am not surprised that he ran over it over-lightly. But I think I am within my rights in drawing your Lordships' attention to what really has happended. The churches and cathedrals in question are the property of the Church of England. There is really no dispute about that, because in the case of Wales, where the Church has beer. disestablished and disendowed, the cathedrals and parish churches have been left in the hands of the Church. These ancient buildings are the property of the Church of England, have always been used for religious purposes and for no other purposes, and are still being so used. Not one penny of public money has ever been spent in their construction or repair. The Church does not ask for the spending of a penny of public money. The law gives absolutely no sort of jurisdiction or control over these buildings to the First Commissioner of Works or to any other member of the Government. The only people who are responsible are in the first place, technically, the Deans and Chapters, and behind them stand the whole body of Churchmen, diocesan and general.
It is almost incredible, but it is true, that although these buildings are the property of the Church of England and are used to-day, as they have always been used, for religious purposes, although there are definite ecclesiastical authorities who are responsible for them, and although the First Commissioner of Works has absolutely no legal status whatever in the matter, he calmly appoints a committee to consider these questions—I will come to that presently—and does not say a single word on the subject to any Churchman of authority, lay or ecclesiastical—not a word either to the Archbishop If Canterbury or the Archbishop of York. My noble friend says that no discourtesy was intended. I do not know what was intended, but the action was utterly discourteous. I should think that there is no precedent for it in the relations between Al the Church and State in this country, and it was an act of great presumption. My noble friend reminded your Lordships that the National Assembly of the Church of England is in existence at the present moment, entitled to speak in the name of the whole Church, the laity as well as the ecclesiastical authorities. Yet that body is calmly ignored and this Committee is appointed.
Now I come to the real intention at the back of the appointment of this Committee. My noble friend opposite said,
82
"You are not discussing the terms of a Bill to put these matters under the control of Sir Alfred Mond." No, of course we are not, but we are discussing the deliberately taken step first in the preparation of a Bill for putting these matters under Sir Lionel Earle and Sir Alfred Mond. The appointment of this Advisory Committee has no sense or reason whatever except as a first step to give the First Commissioner of Works some locus standi where he has none whatever at the present moment. If there should be any doubt on this matter let me read, as I do by the permission of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a paragraph in a letter written to him from the Office of Works under date August 14 this year. Remember that Lord Lytton had told us (I am quite sure believing that to be at the bottom of the mind of the Office of Works) that there is no real desire to get control, but merely anxiety lest, by the injudicious choice of an architect, grievous harm may be done in the future to some great cathedral or parish church. I do not know whether your Lordships will think that this passage entirely confines the object of the Office of Works to that opportunity of artistic criticism—
"There is no real desire in this Department that they—"
that is, the cathedrals and churches—
"should necessarily conic under State control—
If these words do not contemplate the possibility of their coming under State control, I do not know what they mean—
"but there is a wide feeling that there should be souse impartial body of men of culture, taste, and experience who should be consulted before any considerable repairs or alterations be effected on these all-important buildings, and that these questions should not be left practically to one architect to decide. The same applies in a lesser degree I o the private dwellings in occupation of first-class national importance. We have this machinery in the Ancient Monuments Board for England, Scotland, and Wales as regards any points of difficulty which may arise in the proper preservation of ruins which are handed over to our charge."
That suggests, to my mind at any rate, a deliberate policy to secure eventually in respect of these buildings for the Office of Works the same control that it now has over the preservation of ruins. At any rate, at the very least it suggests that the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church should no longer be unfettered in their responsibility, but should have an authority placed over them—Sir Alfred Mond and

83
Sir Lionel Earle at the present moment, and whoever may take their place—in order, if necessary, to veto their judgment and to control their policy.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I really must ask the noble Earl, in view of what he has just said, to read the remaining paragraph of the letter.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The letter proceeds—
"The First Commissioner desired this Committee to consider all these questions—
Is that the one you want?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It goes on—
"and advise him as to whether it would be to the general interest that some such impartial body should be set up by Parliament to protect the great live monuments of the country from being in any way mishandled as regards the fabric."
I do not see the difference. That does not seem to me to alter the sense. It is clear that the Government representative would give evidence in favour of the change.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: One member of the Government may give evidence in favour of the change and another may give evidence against it. In the next sentence, which I invite the noble Earl to read, the good will of the Office of Works is shown in the invitation that is put forward to the most rev. Primate either to nominate a member of the Committee or to send someone to give evidence.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is the final sentence—
"If you would wish to nominate any one to sit on such an Advisory Committee, or to appear before it to give evidence, I am sure that Sir Alfred would 13;' willing to defer to your wishes.
I remain, with great respect,
"Yours very truly,
"LIONEL EARLE."
No one who knows Sir Lionel Earle or his Parliamentary chief would think for one moment that they intended any discourtesy. I am quite sure they did not, but, as I have already said, their action was discourteous. Not only was it discourteous, but it was going beyond the bounds of their duties. It was impinging on the responsibilities of a wholly different set of persons, and it is against the impinge-
84
ment on that responsibility that I protest this afternoon. If those who believe that these buildings are safest in the care of the Church, and that they belong to the Church, did not take the first opportunity open to them to protest against what I must regard as the beginning of an attempt to obtain control over these buildings for the Office of Works, we should have been false to our duty. Therefore I trust that my noble friend who has brought this matter before the House will go to a Division in order to give us an opportunity to register our opinion of these proceedings. I do not suppose for a moment that the Cabinet ever heard of this suggestion, and I do not suppose that my noble friends on the Front Bench knew of it until they saw it in The Times. It is a Departmental blunder, and I ask your Lordships to register your opinion that this is what it is.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not make too much of the vote of censure which has been moved by Lord Parmoor.
LORD PARMOOR: It is not a vote of censure.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is denounced as an act of discourtesy on the part of the Government towards the Church, and Lord Selborne used the words "an act of great presumption." I should have hoped that the statement made by my noble friend Lord Lytton would have convinced your Lordships that if there has been an oversight there was no intentional discourtesy. The terms of reference are wide and do not deal only with ecclesiastical buildings. The phrase which is used is "the preservation of ancient monuments, whether secular or ecclesiastical."
LORD PARMOOR: My resolution is carefully worded in order not to affect that part of the Committee's work.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The fact that the National Assembly is to meet during the autumn is also treated as a matter which exacerbates the crime of the Government in not having consulted it. If the National Assembly desires to speak on this point—of course it will speak, and must speak; it clearly could not be called together in advance—and desires to give evidence or protest against the inquiry, the freedom of the National Assembly is not

85
in the least degree impaired. Lord Selborne seems to think that there is something in the nature of a conspiracy against the Church, the beginning of an attempt on the part of the Office of Works to do this, and the name of Sir Alfred Mond is constantly cropping up. I happen to be a member of the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments set up long before Sir Alfred Mond went to the Office of Works, long before his predecessor, and before the predecessor of that predecessor. This is not a new matter; it is not invented by Sir Alfred Mond; it has nothing to do with Sir Alfred Mond's views about the Church in Wales. It is a subject which archaeologists have been discussing for more than twenty years. One of their regular topics of conversation is whether the ancient structures of our churches and our secular buildings as well are more likely to be handed unimpaired to posterity if they remain as at present in the exclusive control of groups of persons and of individuals, or whether the views of Parliament, or a Department of the State, should be allowed to intervene. There is nothing new in this. It is a controversy which has been going on for years, and the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments has scheduled the different monuments in each county. There is no conspiracy; and the last thing intended was that there should be anything in the nature of discourtesy.
The general merits are not at issue on this Motion. The Motion of Censure is more on the point of procedure, or etiquette, than on the merits of the case. I cannot omit, however, recording my amazement at the statement made about St. Alban's Cathedral. It is generally looked upon by scholars and artists, by archaeologists and historians, as a tragedy—in other words, a costly, ostentatious, and showy forgery. It was done by the enthusiasm of a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, who spent, I think Lord Phillimore said, more than £100,000 upon it. But that is exactly where the misfortune arose. If only it had been put into the hands of someone who desired to preserve it and not erect a modern sham we should have handed down, and at a quarter of the cost, some of the character and personality with which it was invested by its builders.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Earl has not quite appreciated my point. I quite agree that it is a great misfortune that St. Alban's Cathedral was repaired
86
as it was, but my point is that it would not have been repaired at all had it not been for the enthusiasm of one of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not know who allowed it to get into the state of disrepair. The Church must have allowed it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Henry VIII took all the funds.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He took the funds of a good many other places besides St. Alban's. Take the case of Exeter—Exeter is deplorable. Any one who knows Lichfield Cathedral must admit that there is no vestige of the old cathedral left except the ground plan. It was one person who had to look after St. Alban's. It is the Dean and Chapter who look after Lichfield Cathedral. And it is a group of churchwardens and the vicar who look after our village churches, subject to the assistance of an eminent King's counsel who knows nothing about the preservation of the structure and whose opinion in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred must be worthless. Any one who has travelled through the country and examined our village churches can quote scores and hundreds of cases where, during our own lifetime, these churches have been stripped and scoured, the good things thrown out, stained glass dispersed, and the old decorations on the walls covered up with modern mortar. All modern archaeological science agrees that it is the duty of the present generation to preserve such of the past as is compatible with the security of the structure; and we all know—we cannot deny it—that our parish churches have been wrecked and ruined during the last fifty years. The Church itself is conscious of this. During the last two or three years the public movement in our own Church has been so great that in practically every diocese a voluntary organisation has been set up under the direct patronage of the Bishop to prevent this deplorable state of things going on All to the good. I rejoice in it. The appointment of this Committee is not merely to inquire into the powers over ecclesiastical buildings. It is for secular buildings as well; and I take it that the invasion of private rights is greater in regard to secular buildings than it is in regard to ecclesiastical. Ecclesiastical buildings either belong to the diocese or

87
at any rate a parish, whereas the secular building must belong to an individual or its trustee.
I, for my part, do not think it is wise, I think it is in fact unfortunate, for the Church as such to take up so strong a line of hostility. I have looked into this question and studied it all over Europe for many years, and, like everybody else, I started with a prejudice and with the analogy of France, Italy, and Germany and many other European countries, that the work of the State in so far as maintaining the structures was as a rule bad. The classical example is Viollet-le-Duc. Any one who has seen his work must know that. But if you look at the work done by his contemporaries, not for the State but for private enterprise, you find it equally appalling. The work of one generation is very much the same whether it be guided by the Government of the day or by the private individual of the day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Strawberry Hill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It was the date when the State, as such, built very little in this country. There are two or three buildings of the Strawberry Hill date which were built by public funds which are practically Strawberry Hill. It is true that nearly all of them have been swept away. But the ruling taste of the country in architecture or painting is probably identical whoever the patron is. My view, therefore, during the last few years has been that probably on the whole the interest of the maintenance of these structures is best preserved by keeping them in the hands of individuals rather than putting them under the control of the State. That would be my ultimate opinion.
I do not prejudge the point. I know that there are cases, I am convinced in my bones that there are cases, where intervention by the State, which means delay, which means inquiry, which means therefore the focussing of public opinion, is brought to bear upon a particular idea of restoration—I know that there are plenty of cases where, had the State been able to intervene, outrages would have been averted. On the other hand, I know cases where marvellous work has been done by private individuals, and I think the most sacred duty of any builder, any owner of a building, is to hand forward unimpaired the treasure of the past. I know
88
perfectly marvellous cases where private individuals have succeeded in maintaining their structures in a way where I am sure the State would fail. My inclination, therefore: on the whole is to say that ecclesiastical building in this country ought to remain, as it is, subject to the development of these diocesan movements which are very useful indeed, the care and duty of their relevant ecclesiastical authorities.
But I must say I should like to hear it discussed. I should like to hear the evidence brought impartially before the Government as to the two sides of the case. I should really like to hear the defence put forward for St. Alban's, for Exeter, for Lichfield, or for fifty parish churches I could name. On the other hand, I think it would be a very great mistake for the Church to say that 'it is afraid of inquiry, and on general grounds it would, in my opinion, be a pity unnecessarily to pass a vote of censure on the Government on a subject of this kind.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl has said, although I should like to say a few words in answer before I refer to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I thought at one moment in his speech that the noble Earl, in talking of what he called the outrages on cathedrals and parish churches, which means I suppose a difference in taste in regard to the way in which they have been dealt with, was going to make a very strong plea for official interference. But as I understand him, so far from being in support of what we consider the official move which is now being made, he tells us that in his artistic view, to which we all attach great importance, he thinks on the whole our cathedrals and churches are more likely to be preserved in their sacred and artistic characters under the prevailing system than under any official system. That, of course, is very satisfactory, but I should like to remind the noble Earl of another matter. He said that this suggestion has been going on for some time. I agree with him. People who go to our cathedrals and churches are cognisant of movements of this kind. No one yet has answered the question which I put. In 1913, after consideration, the Legislature excluded from the purview of the Ancient Monuments Act cathedrals and churches. That was after full consideration. Now what has happened since that date? I agree with the noble Earl that this matter

89
has been under discussion and consideration for twenty years. I am not going to put an exact date to it. After all that has been taken into consideration, the State expressed its views in 1913, just before the war, and when I wrote asking the Office of Works what had happened since then the answer was, Nothing.
Now let me, in answer to the noble Earl, call attention to the terms of my Resolution. I am sure he would not misinterpret them for a moment. Nor is it any question of censure on the Government or any matter of that kind. My Resolution does not touch the powers of this Committee as regards secular buildings. It is very carefully worded. What it says is that this House is of opinion that an Advisory Committee—now this is the part we attack—"with power to consider the condition of cathedrals and churches." The point of secular buildings is entirely untouched in my Resolution. What do I further say? What is the way I modify it? I do not believe there is a member of this House who does not agree with it. The noble Earl seemed to agree to it, and also the noble Earl the acting Leader of the House. The Resolution goes on, "should not have been appointed without consultation with the Church authorities."
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can lay on the Table a statement showing the actual expenditure of the country under
90
Does a single member of this House disagree with that? I do not believe there is one. Not a single speech has been made in opposition to it. "And without some proof that the provisions for the protection of cathedrals and churches which have prevailed for centuries have proved inadequate." I think before an outside authority which has nothing to do with these matters, like the Office of Works, appoints what is called an Advisory Committee, they ought to have some cases before them, and be able to state what those cases are, which make the appointment of such an Advisory Committee either necessary or expedient. I cannot imagine any one differing from what I say. And then what is the last? "Or that the Church has in any way failed in her sacred trust towards these buildings." We have had two notable speeches from the other side acknowledging the work that the Church has done as regards its sacred buildings. There may be a difference in matters of taste; I know what the noble Earl said just now. Therefore I shall certainly press my Resolution to a Division, unless the Government will accept it.
On Question?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27: Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Chilston, V.

Islington, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Knaresborough, L.

Bedford, D.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Northumberland, D.

Parmoor, L. [Teller.]

Chichester, L. Bp.

Phillimore, L.

Grey, B. [Teller.]

Playfair, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Shandon, L.

Midleton, E.

de Mauley, L.

Southborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Desborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Faringdon, L.

Sydenham, L.

Chaplin, V.

Granard, L.(E. Granard.)

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Peel, V.

Pontypridd, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Ferrers, E.

Avebury, L.

Somerleyton, L[Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Hylton, L.

Stanmore, L [Teller.]

Plymouth, E.

Killanin, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

the various heads for April 1 to September 30, 1920, as compared with the estimated expenditure; what is the estimated expenditure in Mesopotamia for 1920:–1921; and what reductions of staff have taken place in Government Departments from April 1 to September 30.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not desire to trouble your Lordships with a

91
speech upon this subject, but I would ask the noble Lord who represents the Treasury to say whether he can lay before us rather more detailed heads of expenditure than those which we have hitherto been privileged to see. I know that in another place the reply was given that it was unnecessary to publish this expenditure because it had already been published in the London Gazette of October I. What we desire to know is not merely what the total expenditure of the country has been for six months, but what the Government is spending under a variety of heads, a number of which we desire should disappear from the Estimates altogether. In the Return given in the London Gazette we have lumped together the Supply Services at £366,000,000. We want to know how much has been spent on the Army, how much on the Navy, and how much on the Civil Service, and we want the Civil Service subdivided so that we can see what has been expended on doles, on unemployment, on subsidies, and on those various Ministries some of which, according to the Resolution at which your Lordships arrived some months ago, ought to have disappeared from the Estimates. I do not ask for detailed expenditure which will take a long time to prepare. What we are anxious to have within a few days is merely the heads of those items which were given separately in a Memorandum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating his estimate of expenditure for the present year, and for a normal year. I think that was given in June last. All the heads of expenditure are large ones, and the figures must be accessible, and could be put together in a very few hours.
With regard to the second point referred to in my Resolution upon the Paper, I have asked what is the estimate of expenditure in Mesopotamia for 1920–1921. Perhaps I ought to have been more specific with regard to that. What I desired to put forward was a request for what is now the estimated expenditure. We all know what the estimated expenditure was at the beginning of the year, and we have reason to fear that that estimate has been largely exceeded. We have reason to believe that a supplementary estimate will be needed. What the country wants to know is what is the estimated expenditure now that the six months have gone by. If I asked what would be the actual expenditure on Mesopotamia it would take many months to obtain the information.
92
Therefore I think we can best serve the purpose we have in view, in dealing with the position in Mesopotamia from the point of view of economy, if we are told what it is now estimated we shall have to spend before the close of the year.
Again, in asking about the reduction of staff in Government Departments, I desire to know the net reductions. I deeply regret, and I believe your Lordships will regret, that the promises made by the Government some months ago with regard to these reductions have not materialised, so far as we can see, to any great extent. The increases in the Ministry of Pensions during the month of August alone have largely absorbed the decreases made in all the other Departments. The increases made in the Health Department on a very large scale have gone far to check-mate the decrease in higher posts, to which we have been assured every effort of the Government would be directed. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to read into the Question the explanations for which I venture to ask.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in answering the Question that the noble Earl has put upon the Paper, I will endeavour to deal with each of its three parts as clearly as I can. The first question of the noble Earl is whether the Government will lay on the Table a statement showing the actual expenditure of the country under the various heads from April 1 to September 30 of this year as compared with the estimated expenditure. I am informed that an identical question was asked by Mr. Locker-Lampson a few days ago in another place, and that in his reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Revenue and Expenditure Return which, as the noble Earl said just now, was published in the Gazette in October. That Return, I think, is in the noble Earl's hands, and shows in different columns the estimated expenditure for the year and the actual Exchequer issues for the six months up to September 30, divided under seven heads. I am ready to read them out to the House if it is the noble Earl's wish. If, however, the noble Earl does not wish me to read them out, I can only refer your Lordships to the Gazette of October 1. The estimated expenditure and the actual Exchequer issues to which I have referred are divided in that Return under seven heads. One head, it is true, is stated to be Supply Services, but had I known beforehand that

93
the noble Earl wanted those figures as regards the Supply Services to be divided up under the heads of Army, Navy, Civil Service, and so on, I would certainly have clone my best to have them so divided.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The Question says "under the various heads." The various heads of expenditure are not covered by speaking of Supply Services as if the whole of the services of the country were one.
LORD HYLTON: As regards that, I can only say that an identical question was addressed to the Government in the House of Commons. I have not read any debate that took place in regard to it, but I fancy that the gentleman who asked the question was satisfied with the Return under the seven heads, including one as to Supply Services. If he had been dissatisfied or had asked for a further sub-division of the figures, I have no doubt it could have been done. But I had no idea that the noble Earl wanted more in the way of information than was given in reply to the question in another place a few days ago. However, I will at once have the figures looked into and divided up as the noble Earl desires. I imagine there will be no difficulty whatever in doing it, and I hope the noble Earl will not think for a moment that; I have endeavoured to burke it. I will certainly inform the noble Marl as soon as I can of the details he asks for, and will ascertain whether there is any objection, which, so far as I know, there is not, to laying them before the House.
In the second part of bin Question the noble Earl asks what is the estimated expenditure in Mesopotamia for 1920–1921; assume he means for the financial year. The answer that has been furnished me by the War Office is that the military expenditure in Mesopotamia; including that on refugees, in 1920–1921 is estimated as approximately £28,000,000. This figure includes capital charges. I only received this information just as I was coming down to the House, and I was not a ole to ascertain exactly what capital charge:, are included, but I understand that certain railways are indicated by that phrase. The total figure taken in the Estimates for the current year 1920–21 in regard to the operations in Mesopotamia I believe to be about £6,000,000 less than £28,000,000, and it is obvious that a supplementary estimate will have to be presented in regard to
94
those operations by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When that estimate is presented in another place I daresay there will be a debate in reference to the details.
The noble Earl asks, thirdly, what reductions of staff have taken place in Government Departments from April 1 to September 30 this year The staffs of Government Departments have decreased by 4,000 during that period—namely, from 370,374 to 366,237. That figure represents the net decrease after allowing for additional staff required to deal with increases of work in certain Departments. For instance, the following increases have taken place during this period—I do not know that the figures include all, but I give them as examples:—In the Post Office, 2,279. That increase I believe is partly a temporary increase only, or a seasonal increase. As members of the staff during the summer months go on holiday additional temporary persons are appointed to do their duties. But although that increase is partly temporary or seasonal, I do not want the House to take it that the whole of the increase is of that character. But it is not only hoped, but expected, that there will be a decrease in those numbers shown before the end of the year. In the Ministry of Pensions there has been an increase during the six months of 1,786. That increase, I am informed, is due to the growth of the institutional staff connected with the Ministry of Pensions. It is hoped, however, that the maximum number likely to be employed in that Ministry has now been reached. There has also been an increase of 1,290 persons employed by the Inland Revenue. That increase, I am told, is due to the growth of Income-tax work.
The principal decreases are the following:—Ministry of Pensions, 6,744; Ministry of Labour, 1,972; Ministry or Food, 1,328. The number of persons employed by the Ministry of Food would, I am further informed, have been decreased had it not been for the coal strike. Owing to the coal strike I am afraid that at the present moment there is probably no prospect of a diminution of the number of persons employed by the Ministry of Food. There is no Department of His Majesty's Government more anxious to effect reductions of staff and economies in the public service than the Treasury, and I am told that everything that is possible, so far as they are concerned, has been done

95
and is being done fin that direction. But the cause is well known to your Lordships, and to the public. It seems very difficult to effect these reductions; for reasons that I need not go into.
LORD ISLINGTON: Will the noble Earl kindly say whether I interpret his remarks correctly in this sense, that the present establishment cost in Mesopotamia is £22,000,000?
LORD HYLTON: £28,000,000.
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes, but I understood that out of that £28,000,000, £6,000,000 was to be deducted for capital expenditure.
LORD HYLTON: I am afraid I did not make it clear. The facts are that the estimated expenditure for the financial year in Mesopotamia is £28,000,000. Included in that is a certain amount represented by capital expenditure, such as the cost of the construction of railways, and so on. It will be necessary in another place to ask for a supplementary estimate of, I fancy, about £6,000,000 in order to make up the £28,000,000.
LORD ISLINGTON: I am obliged to my noble friend for correcting me. I may take it that the £28,000,000, apart from that capital expenditure to which he has alluded, is the amount of money that is required for the whole maintenance of the force now stationed in Mesopotamia. And when he informs the House and the country that this is the return from the War Office, does it represent all expenditure—I mean all expenditure beside that included under the head of the War Office. I think on the same day that the question was put in another place in regard to this matter the Secretary of State for War was asked what the military establishment in Mesopotamia amounted to at the present time, and the answer of the Secretary of State was, roughly speaking, something over 80,000 Indian troops and about 17,000 British troops. What, I think, the country is very anxious to know is that the expenditure incurred by that number of troops will be confined to the £28,000,000 estimated.
LORD HYLTON: If my noble friend desires to know what has been done in regard to troops in Mesopotamia or elsewhere a Question on the subject ought to be
96
addressed to my noble friend Lord Peel, and I conceive it is almost impossible to say—it is a matter for the military advisers of the Crown to say—what the necessities of the case may require to be spent in Mesopotamia between now and the end of the financial year. I am afraid I cannot give any further answer.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: Am I right in supposing that the position is this? The Estimate for the year was £28,000,000, and you have already spent £22,000,000. Therefore you only have £6,000,000 more of the Estimate to go upon, and you require a Supplementary Estimate in consequence of the expenditure exceeding the £28,000,000.
LORD HYLTON: I think the facts are that the Estimate is about £28,000,000, and therefore £6,000,000 would be needed as a Supplementary Estimate.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: But was not the original estimate £28,000,000?
LORD HYLTON: I will inquire.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: And you have spent £22,000,000 already, and therefore you will require a Supplementary Estimate, because you cannot get on with the £6,000,000. That is the point, is not it?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his promise of figures, and trust that he will endeavour to expedite them as we desire to have them in our hands as soon as possible.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, October 261
The LORD SPEAKER acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.