Sitting of 28 October 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill (by Order),
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Thursday next.
Glasgow Trades House Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

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

    ROYAL SCOTS REGIMENT (CORPORAL J. GERAGHTY).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether Corporal J. Geraghty, No. 35882, Royal Scots Regiment, now residing at 40, Camp Street, Wednesbury, applied for a pension on 8th January, 1920; whether he has appeared before medical boards at Craigberth Eye Hospital and at Walsall and Birmingham, respectively; whether each board reported in his favour; and, if so, why has no pension been granted?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): This man's claim to pension was very carefully considered by my medical advisers who were unable to accept the disability as due to or aggravated by service. Corporal Geraghty appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the consequent refusal of pension, and I am informed that his claim which was heard by the tribunal on the 26th instant was disallowed.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, when the medical board
    1902
    reported in favour of this man, why it was not approved by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Because the medical board does not deal with the question or title; that is decided by the tribunal.

    APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can inform the House as to the percentage of applicants successful in gaining their cases put forward before the Ministry of Pensions Appeal Tribunal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of appeals heard by the Ministry of Pensions Appeal Tribunals prior to their dissolution on the 31st October, 1919, was 14,731, and of these 5,064, or 31·2 per cent., were decided in favour of the appellants. On the 1st November, 1919, the Statutory Pensions Appeal Tribunals were established, and from that date to the 30th September, 1920, 13,030 appeals have been heard by these tribunals, of which 4,130, or 31·7 per cent., have been allowed.
    Major M. WOODasked the Minister of Pensions how many eases are waiting to be hoard by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; at what rate these appeals are being disposed of; and how long on the average appellants have at present to wait before their cases come before the tribunal?
    In giving notice of the question I intended to say, "Pensions Appeal Tribunal in Scotland."
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not know what was in my hon. and gallant Friend's mind; I only knew what was on the Paper. It has not been possible in the time available to obtain figures for all parts of the Kingdom. I am, however, informed from the Lord Chancellor's Office that as regards England and Wales there are at the present time 2,300 cases in the hands of the tribunals. Approximately, 400 appeals are dealt with weekly by the tribunals, of which a certain percentage have to be adjourned owing to the non-appearance of the appellant or the fact that the tribunals require additional information. The average time which elapses between the date the appeal

    1903
    reaches the headquarter office of the Appeal Tribunal and the date of hearing is about one month.
    Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a second tribunal for Scot land?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite willing to consider that.

    MINISTRY OFFICES, BELFAST.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Pensions the amount paid by the Government for the property purchased in Amelia Street, Belfast, for offices for the Ministry of Pensions; whether the present tenant, who has occupied these premises for the past 25 years and in which he carries on a hem-stitching factory, is to be evicted on the 1st November without any hope of alternative accommodation, which will mean some 100 workers will be thrown out of employment, and also the present tenant's livelihood will be gone and a large portion of his capital which has been sunk in the business lost; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter seeing that there are a number of unoccupied buildings suitable for offices in Belfast at the present time?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed by the Commissioners of Public Works, Dublin, who acquired this property, that the agreed purchase price of the buildings in Amelia Street, Belfast, is £19,000, and that that price was fixed on the express condition that vacant possession of the entire premises would be given to the Commissioners of Public Works on or before 1st November. The Commissioners understood from the agent to the vendors that he was in treaty with the occupying tenants for renting other suitable promises which were then in course of erection, and which were expected to be ready for occupation towards the end of October, at about the same rent as that paid by the firm in question for their Amelia Street accommodation.
    Mr. DONALD: May I take it that the present tenant has to move on 1st November?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand so. If my hon. Friend says there are no other premises I will make inquiries.
    Mr. DONALD: Yes. It is a great hardship on this man carrying on a factory to have his machinery and workers put out on the street. Surely at least two months should be given and alternative accommodation provided.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will come and discuss the question with me?
    Mr. DONALD: I will do so.

    WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. BELL, BELFAST).
    Mr. DONALDasked the Minister of Pensions the maximum pension allowed to a widow of 62 years of age who lost two sons in the War; whether he is aware that Mrs. Bell, of 2, Erskine Street, Belfast, who lost two sons in the War, never received more than 15s. per we k pension, plus 3s. bonus; that this was reduced in June, 1920, to 11s., plus 3s. bonus, and in September last Mrs. Bell's pension was stopped altogether by the local War pensions committee; whether steps will be taken to renew this woman's pension with arrears due; and, as the case is one of extreme hardship, could supplementary assistance also be given?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that Mrs. Bell was not dependent upon either of her two sons prior to enlistment, and is not therefore eligible for a pre-War dependency pension. She was, however, at the time of application eligible for and was awarded a pension on the basis of pecuniary need at the maximum rate of 18s. a week under Article 21 (1) (b) of the Royal Warrant. This class of pension is dependent on the financial circumstances of the applicant and her household, and is subject to review from time to time. As the circumstances of Mrs. Bell and her household very materially improved, so as no longer to justify a pension on the ground of need, the pension had to be reduced, and was finally discontinued. I may add, that should her circumstances change, the case would be at once re-considered. Mrs. Bell may, however, be entitled to the flat rate pension of 5s. a week in respect of each son, but she has so far, in spite of application, failed to supply the necessary information for the award of this pension. With regard to the suggestion of supplementary assistance, I may say that I am informed that Mrs. Bell is earning a wage of

    1905
    £2 18s. 6d. a week, and would therefore he ineligible for any such assistance.
    Mr. DONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this widow is 62 years of age and that she fell three months ago and broke her wrist and how then can she earn £2 18s. per week. This widow is appealing out of real hardship and it is a shame that she has to go out to work when she lost two sons in the War and who were her support. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The facts presented to me bear out what I say. She is earning £2 18s. 6d. per week and I am precluded from taking any action.
    Mr. DONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had an interview with this widow myself. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. The lady has a broken wrist. It is rediculous to say that she is earning £2 18s. per week.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I said I am quite willing to look into the case if my hon. Friend will produce any fresh evidence and to carefully consider it, but so long as I am informed she is earning that sum I cannot intervene.

    DISABLED MEN (CLOTHING ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of granting an allowance to those disabled men who are using artificial limbs, the using of which incur extra cost of clothing?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As far as practicable artificial limbs and appliances are designed in such a way as to avoid injury to clothing. Where, however, a limb or appliance is likely to cause damage a protective pad or other device is supplied in order to prevent the damage; but where this is impossible the Ministry are prepared to consider payment of a contribution towards the damage directly due to the use of the limb or appliance.
    Mr. WATERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a petition from certain Members with the Division I have the honour to represent dealing with this question?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my answer replies in the affirmative. I am quite willing to deal with any question of damage which arises.

    DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES (INSTEUCTIONS).
    Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Minister of Pensions if he will publish the instructions given by him to the local pensons committees as to the ascertainment of the pecuniary need of the dependants of deceased soldiers and sailors?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The instructions issued to local committees on this subject are already published in paragraphs 129, 134, 136, and 139 of the Local War Pensions Committee's Handbook, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.
    Major M. WOOD: Have any further instructions been issued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: None, so far as I am aware.

    BRISTOL LOCAL COMMITTEE (ASSISTANT SECRETARY).
    Mr. INSKIPasked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that m the Local War Pensions Committee's Handbook, page 86, paragraph 318 (3a), dealing with the appointment of principal officers of such committees, it is laid down that the Minister will not be prepared to approve any appointment of a candidate who has not served in the forces unless he is satisfied that no ex-service candidate is suitable for the post; whether he still acts on this principle in making or confirming such appointments;
    (2) whether he is aware that the Bristol Local War Pensions Committee received 419 applications for their secretaryship recently advertised; that the committee left the appointment to the Minister, submitting two names for his consideration; that the names submitted were those of the assistant secretary of the committee and a lieutenant-colonel with distinguished service in the late War, the assistant secretary being a young man of about 30 years of age, with no military service, although not medically rejected; that the Ministry appointed the young man with no service, although the other submitted candidate had, in addition to his service, considerable organising experience in civil life; and, if so, why preference was given to the young man with no service, having regard to the War Pensions (Proceedings of Committees) Regulations, 1919, Nos. 8 and 9?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The rule referred to which requires preference to be given, in the appointment of principal officers of local committees, to suitable candidates who have served in the armed forces of the Crown, is carefully observed by the Ministry, and there is no intention of departing from it. In determining the suitability of the candidates, I am bound, when considering fresh appointments, particularly in the case of the larger and more important local committees who are charged with the expenditure of public funds of very large amounts, to give due weight to the relative qualifications of all candidates; and experience and proved capacity in pensions administration must obviously be considered. In the case of the appointment to the secretaryship of the Bristol Local War Pensions Committee, the relative suitability of the two candidates referred to was very carefully considered, and I am satisfied that the most suitable candidate was appointed. Though he had not actually served, he had volunteered for military service no fewer than five times. He had been four years in the service of the Committee, had been assistant secretary for 18 months, and was thoroughly acquainted with the work. I may add, moreover, that the appointment actually made had the support of the majority of the Local War Pensions Committee itself, and that strong representations on behalf of this candidate were made by the ex-service men's federation in the area.
    Mr. INSKIP: Is the right Gentleman prepared to say that the colonel, who served in the late War, was not suitable for the position?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I did not at all say that. I said that the more suitable candidate was appointed.
    Mr. INSKIP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rule to which he says he adheres states that
    "The Minister will not be prepared to approve any appointment of a candidate who has not served in the Forces unless he is satisfied that no ex-service man is suitable."
    How does he reconcile that with the appointment of this assistant secretary?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My principle has always been to appoint ex-service men, other circumstances being equal.
    Mr. INSKIP: The rule does not say so.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It does, but where there are two candidates, as in this case, I must decide in the best interests of the State. All the local people—and after all it is the local committee—told me this was the better man; they unanimously told me that, and in view of these facts and that he did not serve through no fault of his own, I came to the conclusion I did.
    Mr. INSKIP: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the rule amended to say that the most suitable man will be appointed without reference to war service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I cannot do that. The local committee have charge of very considerable public funds, and I repeat that when the local war pensions committee itself has come to the conclusion that the assistant secretary is the best man for that particular job, he ought to get it. I think ex-service men ought to get the first chance, but it is very difficult for a man who knows nothing about pensions work to take control of a very large committee, and in this case I feel bound to say that I think I was justified in making this appointment.
    Major M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by construing this rule so as to give the appointment to the more suitable man he is breaking the rule, because the rule does not say that the ex-service man must be more suitable; he must not be suitable, or else he gets the job?

    DISABILITY PENSIONS, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that boards of guardians in South Wales have carried a resolution to the effect that, where men who on enlistment into the naval, military, or air forces were passed fit for service have been discharged, and are still suffering from disability, they should continue to receive a pension, and not have to apply for poor law assistance and become chargeable to local rates; and will he consider this suggestion?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. My attention has not been called to the resolution referred to. All men who on discharge are found to be suffering from

    1909
    a disability due to War service receive a pension or gratuity appropriate to the extent of their disablement in accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant. If any cases come before a board of guardians in which it appears that the disability, being due to War service, pension has not been awarded, or has been assessed at less than the rate appropriate to the extent of the disablement, the board or their officers should instruct the man to apply to his Local War Pensions Committee so that his case may be investigated in the prescribed way, and may themselves represent the facts of the case to the Regional Director.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases if a man is referred to the War Pensions Committee he will probably starve before he gets anything at all? Is he aware that in many cases these men have received no relief, and if the Poor Law had not come to their assistance their wives and children would have been near to starvation?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If an application be made to the War Pensions Committee, they have power to advance the money in certain cases.
    Mr. Mr. BRIANT: They do not do it.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Then they ought to do it.

    SOLDIERS IN IRELAND.
    Major COHENasked the Prime Minister whether soldiers wounded whilst on duty in Ireland, and the dependants of those killed, are in receipt of the same rate of pensions as those similarly situated through the European War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have been asked to take this question. The answer is in the affirmative. If, in consequence of the injury or death, a claim arises under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1919, pension at the appropriate Royal Warrant rate is granted provisionally pending the settlement of the claim to civil compensation.

    ADMINISTRATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Pensions if he can state the terms of reference to the Committee which he proposes to appoint to inquire into the local administration and machinery of the Ministry?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The terms of reference are to inquire into the system and methods of administration of the Ministry of Pensions with special reference to the working of the Regional and Local Committee systems and the existing arrangements for the issue of pensions.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is not the Committee to be specifically instructed to inquire into the increasing number of complaints as to the delays in paying arrears of pensions—as is the almost universal experience of Members of the House?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not agree there has been an increasing number of complaints. That is, however, among the points the Committee will inquire into.
    Mr. SCOTT: In order to influence the terms of reference to this Committee I propose to raise this subject on the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about the personnel of the Committee and the qualifications of the members?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am trying to get the services of some Members of this House and of experts outside.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Are the terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable the Committee to inquire into the working of the Court of Appeal appointed by the Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, unfortunately they are not. That Court was appointed at the instance of this House in order to review the judgments passed by the Military Pensions Committees; therefore I cannot ask this Committee appointed by myself to inquire into the working of a Court over which I have personally no jurisdiction.

  IRELAND.

    CREAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will institute an inquiry into the wholesale destruction of co-operative creameries in Ireland with a view to justifying such action, or, in the alternative, of fully compensating these loyal working-men societies which have suffered by the armed forces of the Crown?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I can add nothing to the statements recently made upon this subject in the course of Debate.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a further statement with reference to the destruction of these creameries, or is it being left just as he explained it in the Debate?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Nothing is left stationary in Ireland.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he does intend to hold an inquiry, as asked in the question?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: An inquiry is held into every case in which destruction is alleged.
    Major M. WOOD: Will he see that he is represented at any inquiries before a county court judge?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Irish Government has no locus standi before these inquiries.
    Mr. RAFFAN: But will the right hon. Gentleman take cognisance of the facts submitted at these inquiries?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do.
    Major M. WOOD: Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not send a representative, and ask to be heard?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not estimated for on the Irish Office Vote.
    Major M. WOODasked the Chief Secretary whether the Irish Government have received from the proprietors of the Newport creamery a claim for £160 on the ground that that sum was stolen by the military from the safe on the premises at the time the creamery was burned; what reply has been sent; whether the claim was received before the proceedings took place under the Malicious Injuries Act; and whether he can explain why in these circumstances the Government were not represented at the hearing?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand that complaint was made by the proprietors of the Newport creamery, that a
    1912
    sum of £160 was stolen from the premises when the creamery was burned. The police have closely investigated the matter and are satisfied that, if money was stolen from the premises, it was taken by civilians whose identity is unknown. The Government has no locus standi at the hearing of claims under the Criminal Injuries Act.
    Major WOOD: May I have an answer to my question, which asks whether the Government have had a claim put to them and what answer they have given to that claim?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not understand that from the question, but at any rate if I have not answered it fully, I wish the hon. and gallant Member would put it down again. I have given the best answer I can to-day.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he has made any inquiries into the burning of this creamery from any other source except from those who are alleged to be the perpetrators?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The persons alleged to be the perpetrators were the military. Inquiry has been made both by the military and the police, and I know of no other tribunal to which I can refer an inquiry in the present disturbed state of the country.
    Mr. DEVLIN: When these military tribunals are set up and the investigation lakes place, what is the procedure adopted in order to get at the real truth from those who do not believe these statements?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There are rules laid down and regulations governing the procedure of military courts of inquiry, and anyone who has got any evidence to give that will help the court to arrive at a just conclusion would undoubtedly be welcomed by the court.
    Major WOOD: When a claim of this kind is put in, would it not be convenient for the Government to be represented at the inquiry, which is to assess the damage?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Government has no status before these county court judges, who assess the damage done under the Malicious Injuries Act, and I

    1913
    do not see my way clear to have the Government represented at every one of those scores of proceedings that are held in Ireland.
    Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this particular inquiry differs from the rest, inasmuch as a definite claim was made against the Government, as apart from the local authority, in respect of this burning?

    REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to statements in an English newspaper, published on 21st October last, to the effect that on the night of 16th October two lorry-loads of police surrounded the farm of Mrs. Fcency, near Corbally, and flogged three of her sons; that these same police flogged Patrick Raferty, of Coro-fin, on the same night; that on the evening of the 17th October other men were flogged outside Varden's public-house at Cummer, on the main road between Gal-way and Tuam, by police, who also drove up in two motor lorries; that the late Michael Walsh was taken from his house and murdered by police on the night of the 19th October in the city of Galway; and what steps has he taken to inquire into these allegations, and with what result?
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Before this question is answered, may I ask whether a question is in order which is merely founded on statements which have appeared in a newspaper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that if I were to rule a question out on that ground, there would be very few questions left.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: As regards the incidents alleged to have taken place at Corbally, Corofln, and at Varden's public house, Cummer, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Private Notice question of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) on Tuesday, in which I dealt fully with these cases. The circumstances attending the death of Mr. Michael Walsh in Galway on the 19th inst are at present under investigation by a military court of inquiry, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement with regard to this case.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the relatives who state that they have no complaint to make about their sons being flogged have been visited by the very police who are terrorising the neighbourhood, and does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as evidence in a matter of this extreme importance, affecting our relations with the whole world?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of the facts as set out in the question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if he has seen this morning the very specific statement made by an experienced English correspondent to one of the leading newspapers, the "Manchester Guardian," stating that he has cross-examined the relatives in connection with these flogging cases, and that he has no doubt about the truth of these statements?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I road all the papers, and I have seen the statement referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I cannot accept the statements of a journalist of that or of any other paper against the reports of those officials for whom I am responsible in this House and in whom I have confidence.
    Mr. DEVLIN: As the right hon. Gentleman has specifically declared that this English and other English correspondents are publishing false statements about the military in Ireland, is he prepared to prosecute these newspapers and have this matter investigated in an English court of justice?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: As far as I know, you cannot prosecute a paper in England for a false statement as such. In any event I am not responsible far English papers, and I have not alleged and do not allege what the hon. Member refers to against any journalist.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If the publication of these statements undermines the military power and prestige of this country, is it not only fair to ask, in the interests of the military and of truth, that some impartial judicial inquiry should be set up thoroughly to investigate the truth of these allegations?

    FAIRS AND MARKETS (PROHIBITION).
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether

    1915
    the suppression of fairs and markets in Ireland is due to military necessity or is a method of waging economic war against the Irish people?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It has been necessary to prohibit all public meetings, assemblies and processions in a number of districts in Ireland, and fairs and markets come within the scope of this general prohibition. The only ground on which this action has been taken has been the apprehension of disturbances and attacks on police if such meetings were allowed. These prohibitions are restricted to certain specific districts of certain counties and the prohibition against fairs and markets extends only to two districts.

    MOTOR-CARS (CONTROL).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of motor-cars used for the perpetration of murder and other outrages which have been seized and confiscated under the Restoration of Order Regulations; whether, in order to save the lives of the police and military and other servants of the Crown and to render the escape of criminals less easy, he will, even at the risk of inconvenience to business and private interests, at once establish more stringent control over the use of motorcars and, if necessary, prohibit their use completely; whether there are at present any Regulations preventing the acquisition of motor spirit by unauthorised persons; and, if not, whether he will at once issue such Regulations?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The figures asked for by the hon. Member in the first part of his question are not available, and to collect them from the police would require an expenditure of labour on their part which I do not think would be justified. As regards the second part of the question, the Government has, under Regulation 9 A.A. of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, ample power to control the use of motor-cars in Ireland. The question of prohibiting the use of motor-cars in certain disturbed areas is under consideration. There are no Regulations in force preventing the acquisition of motor spirit, but it has been decided to introduce Regulations directed to regulate its distribution.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend remember that controlling the use of motor-ears for the prevention of murder is even more important than business or private interests?
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless great discrimination is exercised, Very great hardship will be inflicted upon innocent persons; and, further, is he aware that cars and petrol are taken away without anybody's leave?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware of those facts, and I am doing my best to discriminate between innocent people in Ireland and the few who are causing all the trouble.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether soldiers broke out of barracks on Saturday last and destroyed considerable property in Bandon; and how many members of the forces concerned have been placed under arrest?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply, I have no official information at present, but expect to receive a report shortly.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: May I ask if this is the area where three officers forming part of one detachment were foully murdered?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that is the case, and several private soldiers have also been murdered or very severely wounded.
    Earl WINTERTON: And may I ask whether the murderers have been arrested or any sympathy expressed towards them by those who ask questions on this subject?
    Mr. MOSLEY: Will he then take more efficient measures than at present exist to arrest these murderers?
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether military courts of inquiry have been held in accordance with paragraph 666 of the King's Regulations to inquire into every case of attack by any section of the military forces stationed in Ireland upon the property or lives of the inhabitants of that country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. If the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland considers he is not sufficiently informed on any matters such as those raised by the hon. Member he will doubtless cause the assembly of a Court of Inquiry. There is no obligation on any officer to assemble a Court of Inquiry; it is a matter purely for his discretion.

    OUTRAGES AND MURDERS.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the outrages and murders attributed to the loyal forces of the Crown are really committed by Sinn Feiners wearing stolen uniforms; what further steps the Government propose to take to assist His Majesty's forces who are endeavouring to restore law and order by civilised methods, and whose lives are in the gravest danger; and whether it is the intention of the Government to put the curfew into operation in all the disturbed areas?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is known that a number of disaffected persons are now in possession of stolen police and military uniforms, and I am convinced that many acts of violence, unjustly attributed to the forces of the Crown, have been committed by such persons. For in-stance, Bellcek Police Barracks and a number of other barracks were recently captured by men wearing stolen uniforms. The Government are taking all possible steps to assist and protect the members of His Majesty's forces who are engaged in the difficult and dangerous task of restoring peace and maintaining order in Ireland, and it is within the discretion of the competent military authorities to put the curfew into operation in all areas where this measure is deemed to be necessary for the prevention of disturbance.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the, right hon. Gentleman suggest that the creameries have been burnt by Sinn Feiners masquerading in His Majesty's uniform?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: My answer was restricted to the question asked.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many uniforms have been stolen?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I wish my hon. Friend would put that down. It is a very large number, I am sorry to say.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Sinn Feiners stolen motor lorries?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes; some have been stolen, and some have been burnt.

    SPECIAL POLICE, BELFAST.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to make any statement with reference to the proposed establishment of a special police force in Belfast; and if the House will be given an opportunity to discuss the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The particulars of this force have already been published, and the House has had two opportunities during the last few days of discussing it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What were the two opportunities?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The best answer I can give is that I have heard speeches on two days from the hon. Gentleman opposite on this subject.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, but I did not get any answer to my speeches.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: You did not give time for it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Oh, no; it was the fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson).
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was not anybody's fault; it was due to the prolonged eloquence of the hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the fact, with regard to the special constables already appointed in North East Ulster, three were arrested for looting in Lisburn, and after they were arrested 300 of the remainder of the force resigned; whether one was arrested for looting in Belfast, and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to hand over the custody of law and order to men responsible for conduct of this character? May I also ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member must put some of these questions down.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer those which I have asked?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see why my hon. Friend should expect me to answer questions which have already been answered more than once by the Irish Secretary. As to the arrest of constables, I think that is the best proof that we disapprove of looting.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these special constables are drawn from the class who organised a mob to massacre the Minister for War when he was last in Belfast?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure my hon. Friend that the selection is not based on that ground.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I believe it is by his colleagues in the Cabinet.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are selected solely because of their reliability in dealing with a specially difficult situation.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I think, Mr. Speaker, it was arranged last Session that a certain day would be given on which Irish questions would have precedence, and Thursday was the allotted day for Irish questions. I notice that a small number of Irish questions to-day are given a place to which they are entitled, and the remainder are put back at the end of the Paper and cannot possibly be reached to-day.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's latter statement as a certainty. It depends entirely how many supplementary questions are addressed to the Prime Minister. If there were none, there would be no difficulty whatever in reaching the other Irish questions.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I ask why the Irish questions are put down on the Paper so low?
  Mr. SPEAKER: They commence today at No. 13
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The majority come after No. 100.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is because a great number of questions are addressed to the
  1920
  Prime Minister. You cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister's questions begin at No. 25, by general desire of the House.

  KING EDWARD VII. MEMORIAL, EAST END.
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the shortage of work at the present time, the Government proposes to take any steps to carry out the original proposal for a memorial to King Edward VII. in the East End of London by the conversion of the site or Shadwell fish market into a public park?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): This proposal is a purely private enterprise, and I understand that the matter is being considered by the London County Council, to which body further inquiries should be addressed.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether the Reparations Commission at Vienna has been instructed to prepare a statement showing what are the financial obligations of each State constituted from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire; if so, when this statement may be expected; and whether he will arrange for its publication?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Under Article 203 of the Treaty with Austria each of the States arising from the dismemberment of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy assumes responsibility for a portion of the secured debt, and of the unsecured bonded debt of the former Austrian Government, and such portion has to be fixed by the Reparation Commission on the basis laid down in the Treaty. Article 186 of the Treaty with Hungary contains similar provisions. The Treaty with Hungary has not yet been ratified, and, as far as I am aware, the Reparation Commission is not yet in a position to deal with the question of the apportionment of the debt referred to. The Reparation Commission is an

    1921
    Inter-Allied body over which I have no control, but I have no doubt that the decisions will be published in due course.

    GERMAN NATIONALS' PROPERTY.
    Mr. ACLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement in regard to the announcement by the British Government of their intention not to exercise their rights under Paragraph 18 of Annex II. to Part VIII. of the Treaty of Versailles to seize the property of German nationals in this country in the case of voluntary default by Germany in respect of her reparation obligations.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to have an opportunity of making a statement on this matter, which has given rise to a good deal of misconception. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
    "The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take, in ease of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary in the circumstances."
    His Majesty's Government have not renounced their right to take measures such as are contemplated in this paragraph. They have merely declared that among the measures which they might take in given circumstances there will not be included a seizure of the property of German nationals in this country, whether such property is in the United Kingdom or under United Kingdom control and whether it is in the form of bank balances or of goods in British bottoms or of goods sent to this country for sale.
    This decision was not taken in consequence of any representations from Germany, nor was it dictated by regard for German interests. The matter has been under consideration for a long time and it was hoped that it might be decided in connection with the general discussion of reparation questions at the Spa Conference or at the Conference proposed to be held at Geneva. In view, however, of the postponement of the latter, His Majesty's Government felt it to be impossible to continue to maintain a threat which injuriously affected British interests without offering any real security for the execution of the Treaty, since, so long as private German property in this country,
    1922
    and, in particular, private bank balances belonging to Germans were exposed to seizure, it was fairly certain that, if the moment ever arrived when we desired to put Paragraph 18 into operation, there would be no appreciable property to seize. The paragraph thus operated merely to keep business away from London and to make Germans keep their balances in neutral currencies, a course which was inconvenient to all parties and involved clear loss to this country without any countervailing advantage.
    I may add, by way of further commentary, that there has actually been a campaign in certain of the German newspapers in favour of the handing over of these particular German assets by the German Government to the Reparation Commission in order to punish the individual German owners for sending money abroad.
    With regard to the criticism that this action was taken by His Majesty's Government on their own responsibility, without obtaining the concurrence of the Allied Governments, I would say that the words of the paragraph clearly leave it "to the respective Governments" to determine what action may be necessary under the paragraph. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government it would have been both unnecessary and undesirable to seek to share the responsibility of the decision they have taken with the other Allies, thus both limiting their own freedom of action under the Treaty and giving the appearance of desiring to dictate to other Governments as to their action under the paragraph. As a matter of courtesy the decision reached was immediately communicated to the other Powers through the Ambassadors' Council, and also to the Reparation Commission through the British Delegate.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if this applies to the nationals of other ex-enemy countries as well, and also whether there is any precedent in international law for seizing the private property of ex-enemy nationals as an act of reprisal for the acts of their government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of both of those questions.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it comes about that this

    1923
    important announcement is made in an obscure departmental publication and not in this House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the announcement was first made in the "Gazette."
    Colonel GREIG: Does the relinguishment of a right of retention or reprisal against German property in British hands or under their control apply only to Gorman property which has come here since the peace was signed, or to other German property already in our hands before that date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It refers only to the property which has come here since.

  CIVIL, MILITARY, AND NAVAL MISSIONS.
  Major D. DAVIESasked the Prime Minister it he will issue a Return showing the number of civil, military, and naval missions and commissions abroad to which British personnel are attached; the annual cost of each; and by whom the cost is defrayed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The value of this Return would not, in my opinion, justify the great amount of work and the heavy cost involved in preparing it.

  WAR WAGES, STABILISATION.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the probable hardship that will be caused to many women workers by the lapsing of the provision of the Industrial Courts Act stabilising War wages on 30th September last, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to carry on this provision of the Industrial Courts Act until such time as trade boards have been set up wherever necessary?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Monday to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether there have been any
  1924
  cases, since the lapsing of the provision of the Industrial Courts Act stabilising war wages on 30th September last, of reduction of wages in the industries affected?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer this question. I know of one such case. Three or four possible cases of reduction have been brought to my notice. In another case there has been a readjustment of the method of calculating wages, but whether it will involve a reduction in weekly earnings I do not know. My hon. Friend will realise that notification of such cases to the Ministry of Labour is not required by Statute.

  RUSSIA.

    BOLSHEVIK REGIME (Mr. G. LANSBURY).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. George Lansbury during a recent visit to Russia endeavoured to suborn British military prisoners of war from their allegiance to the King; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Reports have been received from certain of the prisoners of war recently in Russia to the effect that Mr. Lansbury had spoken to them in Moscow in praise of the Bolshevik régime and in favour of Socialism generally, but I have no evidence to the effect that he suborned, or endeavoured to suborn, their allegiance to His Majesty.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is at present in possession of the War Office signed statements by many of these prisoners to the effect that Mr. Lansbury said that if they would become Bolsheviks and support the Soviet Government he would undertake to get their release?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I read through all these statements, and that is not my impression of the statements made.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Having regard to the anxiety felt, if I send the right hon. Gentleman copies of these statements, will he look at them again?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly.

    TRADE RELATIONS.
    Mr. JESSONasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to statements being made that the present unemployment in the boot, engineering, and other industries in this country is due to over-production; whether, having regard to the fact that before the War Russia was an important customer for our manufactured goods and is now in urgent need of boots for practically the whole of her population, and motor-lorries and locomotives for the re-establishment of her transport system, while we are in equal need of the wheat, timber, and many other things we formerly imported from Russia, there are any other reasons, except mistrust of the present Russian Government, for the delay in the re-establishment of trading relations with that country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen statements attributing the present unemployment in certain industries to overproduction. As regards the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal, on Tuesday last, to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington East.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the operation of further operation of Acts passed during and after the War which necessitate large expenditure, in view of the heavy burden of rates and taxes already resting upon the British citizen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already said in answer to previous questions, the Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman no fear lest the apparently illimitable increase under the Education Act, for instance, should break the taxpayer's back?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he; can lay upon the Table without delay a statement showing the expenditure of the country under the various heads of the
  1926
  Budget from 1st April to 30th September last?
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Before this question is answered may I call attention to the fact that the questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not reached on Tuesday, and there is a considerable number down to-day which may not be reached.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's interruption is preventing them being reached.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the published statements of Exchequer Receipts and Issues for the half year ending 30th September last.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the expenditure in Mesopotamia from 1st April to 30th September last; and whether he can state what progress has been made in the reduction of trading and other departments which are not included in the estimate of normal expenditure published in June last?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask my hon. Friend to address the first part of his question to the War Office. The second part cannot be fully dealt with within the compass of any answer to a Parliamentary question, but my hon. Friend will recollect that the Bread Subsidy is being terminated, and that the liquidation of the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Shipping is steadily progressing.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister when the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as possible after the completion of the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill.
  Major M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that immediately after his Caxton Hall speech a very large number of notices to quit were served on farmers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing special legislation in order to obviate the hardship on farmers, owing to the long delay of the Government in introducing the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There was no delay in introducing the Bill, but there has been the usual delay in getting the Bill through the House. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to assist us in mitigating that.
  Major M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Bill is not passed by 28th November great hardship will be done to Scottish farmers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt that will be borne in mind. There is no one more anxious than I am to get the Bill through at the earliest moment.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: As it is too late now, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider special legislation in order to obviate the hardship?

  COST OF LIVING.
  Mr. JESSONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that much of the present labour unrest is due to the present high cost of living, and that the cost of living is much higher in several other allied countries than here, he will consider the advisability of our representatives upon the League of Nations taking steps to have this question discussed at the forthcoming conference with a view to joint action being taken to increase the world's production of food and other necessaries of life?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Agenda Paper, which is a very heavy one, for the first meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, has already been drawn up and circulated; but there is no doubt that the important question raised by my hon. Friend will he actively present in the minds of the various representatives during their deliberations.

  LABOUR DISPUTES (COMPULSORY ARBITRATION).
  Mr. PERCYasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the menace not only to the public, but to the
  1928
  slability and safety of the State, caused by labour disputes and consequent lockouts and strikes affecting often great bodies of workmen, the Government will, in the interests of the future peace and prosperity of the nation, introduce at an early date a Bill providing for the formation of labour courts, with a court of appeal whose arbitrators or judges shall be independent of trade either as employers or employés, with full powers for such courts to adjudicate upon all trade disputes between employers and employés, and enforcing decisions by process of law in regard to either party whether they be corporate or otherwise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think this suggestion is practicable, as I believe that compulsory arbitration would at present be opposed both by employers and workmen. It is the desire of the Government that parties to industrial disputes should as far as possible themselves settle their disputes. Where they cannot do so, Parliament has provided an independent Industrial Court and other forms of arbitration to which the parties to a dispute can jointly refer it for settlement.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Prime Minister (1) if he will state what were the terms of the letter from the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated 2nd October, 1920, with reference to the action of the Council in definitely transferring to Belgium the sovereignty over Eupen and Malmedy, which was read to the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels;
  (2) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with refer-once to the Permanent Court of International Justice?
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, at the meeting just held at Brussels, the Council of the League of Nations drew up a programme limiting the armaments of the various States which are seeking admission to the League; if so, whether-that programme can be published forthwith;
  (2) if he will state what was the substance of the Report on the question of

  1929
  the expense of the temporary commission established by the Council of the League of Nations which was presented by M. da Cunha to the Council at the meeting just held at Brussels;
  (3) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the constitution of the Permanent Mandates Commission?
  Mr. HANCOCKasked the Prime Minister (1) whether Signor Tittoni submitted to the Council of the League of Nations at the Brussels meeting a plan for the international control of monopolies of raw materials; if so, whether the scheme in question will be published without delay;
  (2) whether the League Budget for 1921 was discussed at the Brussels meeting of the Council of the League of Nations; if so, what decision was arrived at; whether the proportion to be contributed by this country was fixed; and, if so, what is that proportion?
  Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister (1) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the Aaland Islands;
  (2) what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the mooting just hold at Brussels with reference to the constitution of Danzig;
  (3) whether Signor Tittoni, the Italian representative on the League of Nations, has given notice that at the next meeting of the Executive Committee he will raise the question of the Coal Export Duties imposed by the British Government as being inconsistent with Article 33 of the Covenant; and, if so, what steps the Government propose taking in view of this notice?
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with regard to the future status of Armenia?
  Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Prime Minister (1) what is the substance of Dr. Naken's report on the repatriation of prisoners of war presented by the Secretary-General of the League of
  1930
  Nations to the Council at the meeting just held at Brussels;
  (2) what is the substance of the report of the campaign against typhus which was presented by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the Council at the meeting just held at Brussels?
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether the reports of the Permanent Advisory Commission on military, naval, and air questions were received by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels; and, if so, what were their terms?
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Prime Minister what decision was arrived at by the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting just held at Brussels with reference to the League's guarantee of the minority clauses of the Austrian and Bulgarian Peace Treaties?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have only one answer to all these questions at the present time. The Council of the League is still sitting and has not yet reported. I am afraid, therefore, it is not possible for me to reply until I have received their Report.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Government consider some means whereby greater publicity can be given to the proceedings of the League, the same, say, at least, as that given to the speeches of the Prime Minister? [An HON. MEMBER.: "Or your speeches!"]
  Mr. KENYONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of the British representative on the League of Nations bringing before the League the question of the Scheldt, as being a question which, unless satisfactorily settled, may menace the peace of the world?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite understand what is the precise question which the hon. Member suggests should be brought before the League of Nations. Negotiations are actually pending between the Belgian and Dutch Governments for the revision of the Treaties of 1839, which dealt, among other things, with the question of the navigation of the Scheldt in times of peace. In these circumstances, I see no advantage in inviting the interference of the League in this matter.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong feeling of dissatisfaction in working men's clubs at the alteration of the hours during which intoxicants can be sold in clubs on Sunday evenings, consequent on the reversion to normal time, he will state whether he has yet been able to approach the Central Liquor Control Board with a view to continuing the licensing hours from 7 to 10 p.m.?
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister if he has now come to a decision regarding deferring the enforcement of the new Sunday Order respecting the sale of alcohol in clubs until the Government has introduced the proposed legislation dealing with this subject?
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the question as to Sunday hours of opening of licensed premises has been considered by the Government; and, if so, will he state the result?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer these questions. These questions, and some of those previously put on the subject, appear to be partly based on a misapprehension, namely, that the Central Control Board have made a new Order altering the Sunday evening hours. This is not the case. The Sunday evening closing hour under the Orders which have been in force for the last 4 or 5 years has been 9 p.m., except that it was altered temporarily and during the period of summer time only to 10 p.m. in response to the demand which was made a few months ago for that particular temporary alteration. The Order making the alteration automatically lapsed with the end of summer time.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister on Monday last, knowing the facts, stated that he would approach the Control Board and see whether something could not be done?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have been SO greatly engaged that I could not attend to the matter, and I, therefore, asked my right hon. Friend (Mr. Fisher) to do so. I think I gave a promise on Monday last that I would consult a number of Members of this House who seemed to be taking a
  1932
  special interest in the subject, and I believe I accepted a suggestion put forward by an hon. Member below the Gangway that a Committee of these Members should be formed to look into the matter. I believe a Committee is being formed, and I hope as soon as possible recommendations on the subject will be made to the Government.
  Mr. RAFFAN: On the composition of that Committee will the right hon. Gentleman consider not only those who made the preliminary suggestions, but those desirous of representing other views?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly; that is perfectly fair. I think it is essential in a Committee of this character that all views should be represented; otherwise it would be a one-sided report.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Considering the deep interest women have in this subject of drink, may I ask that I, as the only woman here, may be put on?
  Mr. W. THORNE: I think the question put in the House the other day was whether the Government could not possibly advise the present hours to remain in force until the whole thing is settled?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, will be considered by this Committee; I would rather hope that those who take a special interest in this matter should meet immediately; there is no reason why they should not meet at once.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless some decision is arrived at between now and Sunday they fall back to the hours 6 to 9?
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will this Committee be a Select Committee of the House?
  HON. MEMBERS: Very select!
  The PRIME MINISTER: A Committee of that kind would certainly not be able to decide before Sunday. I think it would be far better to have an informal Committee, so that it could meet immediately—
  Mr. THORNE: We could do it in two minutes!
  Mr. GWYNNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question

  1933
  refers to working men's clubs and not to those of working women?
  Viscountess ASTOR: And to working women's lives!
  Sir J. D. REES: May I inquire whether this Board, which was only created for the temporary needs of the War, is not an unconscionably long time in dying?
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Would it not be possible to suspend the Order till the Committee has reported?
  Mr. LYLE: Why, if it was easy to leave the time till 10 o'clock in the summer, is it difficult to come to a decision now?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a subject that I have no doubt will be decided rapidly by the Committee. They can make special recommendations. The sooner they meet the better.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who are this Committee that can make these temporary un-official suggestions? Who are appointing the members? How are they to be selected? Are they appointing themselves as the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) seems to suggest? I move that the hon. Member for Plymouth be a member of the Committee.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether the following informal Committee of hon. Members of this House would be agreeable to the Government to advise them on this subject as suggested:—Mr. Raper, Mr. Terrell, Mr. Higham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—I am quite in order—Mr. Thorne, Mr. Gwynne, Mr. Lyle, Mr. Raffan, Viscountess Astor, and myself?

  ANTI-DUMPING BILL.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing unemployment caused by the free importation of goods of foreign manufacture, he can give an early date for the introduction of the long-promised antidimping Bill?
  Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the large and increasing importations of foreign manufactures which come directly under the heading of recognised British key industries, and in competition there
  1934
  with; and whether, in order to fulfil election promises made on behalf of the Government, the promised and long overdue Bill to deal with dumping and key industries will be immediately introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot name a date for the introduction of this Bill.
  Mr. TERRELL: May I ask when my right hon. Friend will be able to give an answer I Shall I repeat the question this day week? This question is one of very great importance. May I press for an answer to my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that between now and Christmas we cannot possibly get through the programme in front of us if we introduce a Bill of this character. This is a very controversial topic, and I have no doubt it will take time.
  Mr. DOYLE: May I ask if the Prime Minister will answer the first part of my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid the time at our disposal would make it, as I say, difficult to carry through this matter.
  Mr. DOYLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that at the present time key industries are being jeopardised, and endangered by reason of foreign importations?
  Captain R. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Anti-Dumping Bill was one of his election pledges, and does he still stand by them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. We stand by all our pledges.

  BELGIUM.
  Mr. KENYONasked the Prime Minister whether any promise, conditional or unconditional, has been made to Belgium, to the effect that Great Britain might be depended upon to go to her help if she were again attacked by Germany?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

  ARMISTICE DAY (WESTMINSTER ABBEY SERVICE).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made for Members of the House of Commons to attend the ceremony at Westminster Abbey on Armistice Day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Cabinet Committee appointed to deal with the unveiling of the Cenotaph is considering this among other questions, and I hope to be able to give definite information to the House early next week.

  EDUCATION (GRANTS TO WIDOWS).
  Major MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to make provision for widows, and particularly those with children under school age, so that they may be enabled to bring up and educate them in a proper manner and worthy of the State?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply and would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question on Tuesday last, and of which I am sending him a copy.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
  Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister whether maintenance orders for separated wives are still limited to £2; whether this limit is irrespective of the means of the husband and father and the size of the family; and whether, in view of the rise in the cost of living and the hardship consequently inflicted on separated wives and their children, he will consider the desirability of entirely removing the limit of £2 to be paid under these orders and substituting an arrangement whereby the sum granted should be such as the court, having regard to the means both of the husband and wife, consider reasonable?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. £2 is the most a defendant can be ordered to pay in the
  1936
  cases in question. I hope it may be possible to amend the law in this respect, and a Bill for that purpose has been prepared and is ready to be introduced.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a substantial number of Members indicating their desire in the usual way, he will grant a day to discuss the burden which the increase of local taxation has inflicted on the ratepayers of the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put his question down again when the House is in possession of the information which the Minister of Health promised on Monday.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the information will be available?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    RE-lNSTATEMENT (PEOPAGANDA CAMPAIGN).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large number of ex-service men still unemployed, he will consider the desirability of instituting a propaganda campaign similar to that by means of which we induced them to join the forces, and conducted by experts in publicity, with the object of securing the early re-instatement of these men in civil life, in accordance with the pledge given them by the nation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer this question. I need not say that I cordially share the spirit which has inspired it. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Kettering, a copy of which I am sending him, he will see the extent to which employers have in fact sought to requite the obligation under which they, with the country generally, rest towards these men. He will see further the extent to which the policy he outlines has already been followed. However, I shall be much obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will discuss his proposals with me.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the percentage of men employed by the Ministry of Labour?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have 51·75 ex-service men employed in the Ministry of Labour in London and the provinces, male and female, temporary and permanent, leaving out females under 18; and 21·63 of them are disabled ex-service men.

  EX-GERMAN VESSELS (FIRES).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether the German liners "Bismarck" and "Victoria Luise" have been seriously damaged by fire, and what is the extent of the damage; whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the cause of the fire and, if so, to what reason is it attributed; whether the "Bismarck" is to be handed over to the Allies under the terms of the Peace Treaty and subsequent arrangements; whether she was fully insured at the time the fire occurred; and, if so, whether the benefit of such insurance will accrue to the Allies?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply, I understand that the Reparation Commission have received reports in regard to the fires to which the hon. Member refers. The damage to the "Bismarck" is estimated at about £20,000. The vessel has since the fire been inspected by officers of the Reparation Com-mission, but it has not been possible to ascertain the cause of the fire. No estimate has been made of the damage done to the "Victoria Luise," which, under the arrangements made by the Reparation Commission, is not deliverable by Germany. The German Government has undertaken to complete the construction of the "Bismarck" and to deliver her as a completed vessel to the Allies. Until such delivery the vessel is in the possession of the German Government, and I am unable to state what arrangements they have made for insuring her.
  Sir F. HALL: What steps are being taken by the German Government to see that there is no undue delay in repairing and delivering the "Bismarck"?
  Colonel WILSON: The representatives of the Reparation Commission are in Germany, and they are carefully watching the completion of the work on the "Bismarck."
  Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the German Government are taking steps to prevent any further recrudescence of those fires?
  Colonel WILSON: That is a question entirely for the Reparation Commission.
  Sir F. HALL: Do you know the cause of the burnings? [An HON. MEMBER: "Fire."] I mean the cause of the fires.
  Colonel WILSON: I have already answered that question.
  Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that ten German ships have been burned?
  Colonel WILSON: I could not say without notice.

  HAITI.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government have received any particulars of the reported indiscriminate killing of Haiti natives by American naval forces; if any representations on the subject have been addressed to the American Government; and if the Government will consider the possibility of taking steps to secure the reference to the League of Nations of the whole question of American administration in Haiti?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Allegations with regard to the subject raised by the hon. and gallant Member have reached us. But they have not been of such a character as to justify either of the steps suggested in the question.
  Sir F. HALL: Docs the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that, so far as America is concerned, they take great notice of what we are doing in the case of Ireland, and will he get in touch with the United States and tell thorn, as far as we are concerned, that the same attention should be paid in their own country to what they are doing themselves in Haiti?
  Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that this particular country was once a Republic?

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause inquiries to be made from the leading associations representing employers and employed in general, and in particular trades, as to the extent, if any, to which unemployment has arisen and is likely to arise in consequence of liability to EXCESS Profits Duty?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think that such inquiries would be fruitful of trustworthy or useful results, but I shall be happy to receive from my hon. Friend, or others, any suggestion for deriving a comparable revenue from approximately the same sources as Excess Profits Duty which is not open to the objections felt to that tax.
  Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I do not think such a Committee would be of any advantage.
  Mr. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the claims for refund of Excess Profits Duty come from firms which have a high datum line or standard of profit; and whether these claims are made up and paid out of Excess Profits Duty which is obtained from firms with a low datum line or standard?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No classification of claims for repayment of Excess Profits Duty as between concerns with a high or a low pre-War standard respectively has been made. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension on the point referred to in the last part of his question. A taxpayer can only claim repayment in respect of duty which he has himself previously paid.
  Mr. TERRELL: Does not the question arise that those who have paid the duty in the past are firms with a high datum line; that they are now claiming repayments, and that any sums they receive will come out of the receipts from firms who have a low datum line?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any repayment will be out of taxes they have paid and which in the course of events is shown to be more than they should have paid.
  Mr. TERRELL: But has not the money they have paid already been spent by the right hon. Gentleman and is it not new money out of which he is making repayments?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, I am granting it out of current receipts, but it is in no respect more out of the current receipts from the Excess Profits Duty than from the current receipts of Income Tax.

  PARCELS POST, IRELAND.
  Mr. LINDSAYasked the Postmaster-General if he has considered the possibility of the immediate resumption of the parcels post to-and from Ireland, and, if so, with what result?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): As I have already stated, the space available in the ships at present running between Great Britain and Ireland is not sufficient to convey parcels, and if the acceptance of parcels at Post Offices were resumed they would have to accumulate until additional services are resumed. I am asking the Ministry of Shipping whether it is possible at present to restore any of the services which were discontinued with a view to coal economy.
  Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for adjournment on Monday.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be better for the ships to carry parcels, and not troops?

  COAL STRIKE.
    SETTLEMENT TERMS.

      STATEMENT BY SIR R. HORNE.
      Mr. ADAMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement as to the progress of the negotiations for a settlement of the miners' strike?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Home): I am very glad to be able to announce to the House

      1941
      that the Government has been able to make proposals to the Executive of the Miners' Federation which they have now, in their turn, felt themselves in a position to recommend to the miners throughout the country for acceptance. The acceptance or rejection of these proposals depends upon the decision of a ballot of the miners of the Kingdom, and, accordingly, I am very anxious, in telling the House briefly what those proposals are, that I should say no word at all of any sort or description which might by any chance affect any person's mind adversely to them in giving his vote.
      I would ask the House to go back for a moment to the condition in which this matter was left as the result of the Debate which took place in the House on Tuesday of last week. At that time two very important speeches were made—a most persuasive speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace), and a very powerful and impressive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn). Those two speeches undoubtedly have exercised a very great influence upon the discussion of the conditions upon which a settlement may be arrived at. They pointed out, in the clearest possible language, that the Miners' Federation were as fully convinced of the necessities of output in this country as were the Government, and that they realised that it was essential to obtain means at once to secure greater production of a commodity which is not only the life-blood of our own industry, but is also one of the most important commodities which we have to give in exchange for the goods which we bring from overseas. These principles have been recognised in this agreement. The proposals which we have made contain these sentences:
      1. "Recognising that on the increased production of coal there depend, not only the prosperity of all who are engaged in the coal industry, but also the welfare of the nation and the cost of life of the people; and having in view that this urgent need can only he met if the miners and mine-owners throughout the country work together cordially for this common purpose; and, further, having regard to the necessity of setting up machinery for regulating wages in the Coal Trade so as to get rid of present anomalies and provide against future difficulties.
      The Mining Association and the Miners' Federation solemnly pledge themselves to make every effort to achieve these objects.
      1942
      To that end they shall:—

      (a) Co-operate to the fullest extent to obtain increased output, and for this purpose will arrange to set up district committees and a national committee;

      (b) proceed forthwith to prepare a scheme for submission to the Government at the earliest possible moment, and not later than 31st March, 1921, for the regulation of wages in the industry, having regard, among other considerations, to the profits of the industry and to the principles upon which any surplus profits are to be dealt with."

      As the House recognises, that leaves an interval between the present time and such time as a more permanent scheme may be arrived at. The essential question for us to determine was how the wages were to be regulated in that interval.
      There were two propositions which the Government laid down as essential, and which are embodied in our proposals. The first was that the country must obtain value for any increase in wages, and the second that any arrangements which were made should operate automatically in that intervening period, so that we should not again have the possibility of controversy under threat of a stoppage in the mines. The awkwardness and embarrassment that we found in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) were that they suggested a revision at the end of the year, with no determining principles for that revision, and no possibility of saying how controversy could at that time be avoided. We desired, above all things, that we should be assured of a period of peace and harmony in this interval, so that the nation might set to work without the prospect of the uncertainty, and, indeed, the disaster, that might be caused by another threat of this kind.
      The miners had, by a previous ballot, rejected the suggestion of what is known as the datum line. We had, therefore, to proceed upon some other plan. There was one other element that suggested itself. It was, indeed, the clement which is embodied in the considerations upon which a permanent settlement is to be based, to wit, that of profits. It was not possible to arrive now at a scheme for this temporary period which would base wages purely upon profits. But an alternative suggested itself. All our profits

      1943
      in the coal trade at the present time are made upon export coal. Home coal is sold only at what it costs to give it to the consumer. Accordingly, the method suggested itself of taking the proceeds of export coal as the guide upon which the rise in wages, or rather I should say the adjustment of wages, ought to be based during the provisional period. I am talking all the time of the temporary period which is to expire on 31st March at latest. Proceeds obviously to a large extent depend upon output, and they depend entirely upon output if the price remains the same. Accordingly, we had there a useful guide for fixing wages, with an assurance that upon that basis the country would get value for any increase in wages which might be given.
      We decided, in the first place, if a basis of that kind could be discovered, to give the 2s. advance now, with the arrangement that it should automatically come off if the results to which the country was entitled were not achieved. That is the suggestion which had already occurred in the course of an interview between the Prime Minister and the Miners' Federation. I quoted the relevant passage to the House in the course of the last Debate, but it was made plain that at that time the miners were not prepared to accept an arrangement of that kind. However, we have now been able to arrive at an agreement that any advance given now should come off if the value which is attached to it is not realised.
      The next thing to determine was the periods which you would take for your criteria for the purpose of fixing wages on the basis of proceeds. We took the last quarter, the September quarter, for our first criterion, and we had to find a period with which to compare it. It is perfectly obvious that after a strike of this kind the mines cannot be got to work all at once. Therefore, we had to allow for the dislocation which will be caused for a period—roughly, ten days or a fortnight—while the miners are getting the pits into order again, and we had to take a long enough period thereafter to make a sufficient test. After some discussion, we arrived at a period which embraces the five weeks from the middle of November to the end of the third week in December, and we have
      1944
      made the arrangement that the wage advance of 2s. shall continue at the end of that period if the proceeds of export coal during the period from the middle of November to the end of the third week of December, on a weekly average, exceed the weekly average of the proceeds of the September quarter by the amount, in effect, which is necessary to pay the wage. If the difference is not sufficient to pay the increased wage the scale comes down in this way. We recognise that what was achieved in the September quarter was a considerable improvement upon the proceeds of the quarter before, and that the weekly average of the September quarter should be regarded as sufficient to justify the increase of 1s. on the old wage.
      Accordingly, if nothing more is produced than the September average the advance in the wage would be reduced to 1s. From that September average, justifying 1s., the scale is adjusted in steps—the figures of wages being related in each case to the figures of production; and, as I have pointed out, the wages are given in consideration of the value which is obtained. That, in short, expresses the basis of the agreement. Under this scheme wages increase by 6d. per shift as against a certain fixed amount of increased production to be obtained from the industry. I could not, in a short speech, explain the method by which the figures are arrived at, but the arrangement is that for every increase of £288,000 per week derived from the export trade an increase of 6d. per shift is given to the miner.
      Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is all this to be on the ballot paper?
      Sir R. HORNE: The proposals will be upon the ballot paper, I suppose. I admit the suggestion which my hon. Friend's question makes, that it is rather difficult for all these matters to be understood, but they will be set out in a form in which no doubt, after due study, people will understand exactly what is meant. I ought also to say that, just as the November and December figures will rule the wages for January, so the January figures will rule the wages for February, and the February figures will rule the wages for March.
      But I wish to bring the House back to this definite consideration, that in

      1945
      each case the wage is only justified by the increased value which the nation receives. That is the essential point of the arrangement. I am reminded that perhaps I have not made it perfectly clear that if the values are not obtained which justify the 2s. which is now being granted, the 2s. comes off to the extent to which the value is not achieved.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Automatically.
      Sir R. HORNE: Yes, automatically. There is no room left for any controversy. It is an automatic scale which has been adjusted, and there is no room for discussion as to the form of settlement when the various periods arrive.
      There are only three other points, which I need mention very briefly. It was said, and said, as we thought, with justice, that the Government are in a position to say how much coal shall be exported, and that therefore they might be able to take advantage of the situation adversely to the miners' interests. We readily agreed upon that head that we should regard the amount taken for home consumption as the average amount so required during the earlier part of the year, and that everything else should be regarded as coal sold for export at export prices.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Whether it be sold or not?
      Sir R. HORNE: Yes, whether it be sold or not. If the country's own internal needs require us to keep more coal than normally, it would be obviously unfair to make that a reason for reducing the miners' wages. Secondly, the miners felt unwilling to take the risk of the prices of coal in the near future. There are indications that there may be violent fluctuations in coal prices. Accordingly, the Government undertook to regard the coal as being sold at the same price as during the September quarter.
      The third item is very important. The miners took objection that while they were being asked to give a guarantee by way of penalty for their production the owners on their part gave no such guarantee. I am sure the House will be glad to learn that when the matter was put to the coal owners they readily gave a similar guarantee. It took this form. At the present time, under the Coal Emergency
      1946
      Act the coal owners are entitled, in addition to the standard profits which they get, to 10 per cent. of any surplus profits realised by the coal trade. We asked them to agree that that 10 per cent. of surplus profits should be reduced upon the same scale as the miners wages if the proceeds necessary to justify the wage were not realised. At first they said that their position was different, because they were already entitled to that 10 per cent., whereas the miners were claiming something new. Ultimately, however, they readily agreed that this 10 per cent. to which they are now entitled should be treated in the same way as far as its adjustment is concerned as the miners increased wage of 2s. and should be reduced proportionately if their joint efforts did not succeed in giving the nation the amount of coal that the nation required in order to justify the increased wages. That, I think, is sufficient indication of a new spirit of harmony in the coal industry.
      I should like to say this to the House, especially to anyone who looks critically at a settlement of this kind. I stated to the House in a previous Debate that we had no right to be influenced by the threat of a strike to the effect of giving concessions which we felt were not justified; but the corollary of that proposition is that you have no right, simply because of a strike, to refuse things that ought not to be refused. If the proposals which we have put forward, and are now to be submitted to the miners' ballot, are looked at in that spirit, they will prove to be entirely justified.
      Mr. ACLAND: In congratulating the President of the Board of Trade on the result of the efforts everyone has made in the matter, may I ask him on what date the ballot papers will be issued, when they are returnable, and whether there is any chance of a resumption of work before the final result of the ballot is made known?
      Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. That is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the Miners' Federation. I have no doubt they will do everything that is necessary in the quickest possible way.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Will boys be allowed to vote on this question?

      NEW TREASURY BOND ISSUE.

        STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN made the following statement in regard to a new Treasury Bond issue:—
        The first dividend date for Treasury Bonds falls on 1st November. It is, therefore, necessary to bring the present issue to an end on Saturday of this week, 30th October.
        The House will remember that, when announcing the original issue, I stated that I believed it to be generally agreed that the time had not come for attempting any large funding operation. The situation to-day is certainly not more favourable for such an operation which, apart from other objections, would inevitably destroy the present prospects of housing finance, and, after careful consideration, I have decided not to attempt it.
        Subscriptions to the first issue of Treasury Bonds have certainly been disappointing, especially in the case of the large investor. On the other hand, the Bonds have met with an unexpectedly large and steady sale among small investors. This is satisfactory, and it indicates a continuous demand for Government securities by a class who, before the War, took little interest in them. I think it would be a mistake to close this avenue of investment to the class in question at a time when no other issue is contemplated, and I have therefore decided to place on issue a second series of Treasury Bonds, beginning on Monday, 1st November. The conditions will be the same as for the first series, except that the first dividend date will be 1st May, 1921, after which date the two series will be identical.
        I have been further influenced in reaching this decision by the fact that, on 1st December, I have to deal with the maturity of approximately £25,000,000 of 5 per cent. Exchequer Bonds, representing the outstanding balance of an original issue of approximately £238,000,000. In order to offer a special inducement to holders of these bonds to re-invest in Treasury Bonds, and so assist in avoiding a further increase in the Floating Debt, holders of the maturing bonds will be given the privilege of using their bonds ex-dividend as the equivalent of cash at par as on 18th November for the purpose
        1948
        of subscription to Treasury Bonds, in addition to receiving a full six months' dividend on 1st December on their maturing Exchequer Bonds.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ACLAND: May I ask the Leader of the House what business will be taken next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall go on with the Government of Ireland Bill in Committee until it is finished, and that will be followed as soon as possible by the Agriculture Bill. It may be that the Government of Ireland Bill will be taken at such time as will make it inconvenient to take the Agriculture Bill. In that case some other business will be taken.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Which Bill?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I will make an announcement on Monday or Tuesday.
Lord R. CECIL: When will the Ministry of Health Bill be taken?
Mr. BONAR LAW: That is one.
Lord R. CECIL: Will my right hon. Friend take care not to take that Bill at an unseasonable hour of the day?
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is for that reason that I prefer not to name the probable measure.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Emergency Powers Bill, with Amendments.

EMERGENCY POWERS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 220,]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 28th June].
  [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    POSTPONED CLAUSES.
    Clause 18 (Eatablishment of Southern and Northern Irish Exchequers) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    POSTPONED CLAUSES.

      CLAUSE 19.—(Powers of Taxation.)
      (1) The power of the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland to make laws shall include power to make laws with respect to the imposing, charging, levying, and collection of taxes within their respective jurisdictions, other than customs duties, excise duties on articles manufactured and produced, and excess profits duty, and (except to the extent hereinafter mentioned) Income Tax (including Super-tax), or any tax substantially the same in character as any of those duties or taxes, and the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland shall have full control over the charging, levying, and collection of such taxes as their respective Parliaments have power to impose, and the proceeds of all such taxes shall he paid into the Consolidated Fund of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be.
      (2) Provision shall he made by the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland for the cost within their respective jurisdictions of Irish services and, except as provided by this Act, any charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for those services, including any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, or any grant or contribution out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom so far as made for those services shall cease, and money for loans in Ireland shall cease to be advanced out of the Local Loans Fund.
      (3) For the purposes of this Act the excise duty on a licence granted to a manufacturer or producer of an article, the amount of which varies either directly or indirectly according to the amount of the article manufactured or produced, shall be treated as an excise duty on an article manufactured or produced; but, save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland from making laws with respect to excise licence duties, or duties of excise other than excise duties on articles manufactured or produced.
      (4) Any articles which are brought into Great Britain from Ireland, or into Ireland from Great Britain, shall be deemed to be articles exported or imported for the purposes of the forms to be used, and the
      2000
      information to be furnished under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and Section four of the Revenue Act, 1909, but not for any other purpose.
      (5) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorising the Parliament or Government of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland to impose, charge, levy, or collect any duties of postage so long as the postal service remains a reserved service.
      Lieut. Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "other than Customs Duties, Excise Duties on articles manufactured and produced."
      My Amendment will have the effect of transferring all the reserved taxes to the control of the Irish Parliament. To enable my Friends to move subsequent Amendments, I will ask leave to put it in three parts, and in the first instance to allow us to have a discussion on the matter of Customs and Excise. The geenral arguments for granting fiscal autonomy to Ireland were discussed in the Debate on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, and they apply with special force to this Amendment, affecting as it does more than half the total Irish tax revenue. I will therefore avoid going over this ground again. But as the broad political side of the question is affected by this Amendment about Customs and Excise, more perhaps than by any of the subsequent ones, I would remind the Committee of the present position as bearing on this question of financial responsibility. I think every Irishman, including the Ulster Unionist Members who sit below me, would probably share my opinion that the suggestion thrown out in recent speeches of the Prime Minister of negotiations with the leaders of the Sinn Fein party is absolutely impossible. Judging by their actions, however, the Government have an alternative hope of Irish settlement. With the exceptional police measures now in Ireland, combined with the first new Clause as to the oath of allegiance before election, standing on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long), they hope to make it possible for the Southern Parliament to be elected and to come into existence. Events in Ireland supply enough in the way of wet blankets, and it would be perhaps rather inconsiderate for me to apply a verbal wet blanket, and so I will not venture any prophesy as to whether this policy of the Government is likely to succeed, but the

      2001
      enterprise is, in any case, so hazardous a thing, under conditions which are not under the control of the Government, that prudence would demand from them that they should so frame the conditions under which this settlement is to work as to remove all the difficulties they can which are under their own control. It is quite certain that the Government scheme cannot succeed unless men other than those of extreme revolutionary views will offer themselves as candidates.
      The financial arrangements which are possible under this Bill must be the chief subject of discussion, and the counter-propaganda to Sinn Fein—propaganda, that is, favourable to a settlement—cannot even begin until a satisfactory financial basis is offered. By finance the honesty of your intentions is being tried now, and if you want to avoid the damaging, though, I quite agree, not just, charge that this Bill is intended to levy a British tribute on Ireland, the propaganda point being made by the extremists, you surely ought to go as far as you can to satisfy Irish feeling in the matter. That means that you ought to give freely that greater, though unknown, quantity which was being suggested in speeches by the Prime Minister as possible to concede in negotiation with the Sinn Fein leaders, and above all your present Bill must not be less favourable to Ireland than Home Rulers were led to expect by previous utterances of the Prime Minister and by the provisions of the Act of 1914. I shall hope to show that financial control is consistent with the Home Rule demand which you could grant without any endangering of Imperial interests, and which would be a most effective antidote to the separatist campaign. I know a certain family where the children used always to be given the same diet and medical treatment. If one needed cod liver oil, or if one even needed an oil of vegetable origin and even less pleasant taste, the same doses were uniformly administered to the rest of the family. It was all right if the whole family had the same food, but the dose which was suitable to the brother, after perhaps an indiscretion in the eating of unripe fruit, was by no means necessarily convenient or wholesome for the anæmic little sister. Ireland's case has been very much the same. In taxation she has been subjected to continual blood-letting, which suited the condition of her well-fed British partner, but reduced her to a posi-
      2002
      tion of economic prostration. Seeing the impoverishment of her system Great Britain has recently pressed upon her, if I may come back to my parable, the best brandy and the most costly champagne. All kinds of administrative luxuries have been thrown upon Ireland far beyond her means and far beyond her necessities. She now claims to decide her own treatment and, by arranging her fiscal system as suited to her condition, to avoid both the impoverishment caused by excessive taxation and the wasteful remedy of costly administration.
      The political importance which the Government seems to attach to fiscal unity is quite a modern development. Long after the union there continued to be separate Exchequers for Great Britain and Ireland. After these Exchequers had been amalgamated, even after the abolition of the Irish Custom Houses in 1825, different duties continued to be charged on each side of the Irish Channel. More than half a century after the legislative Union the duty on spirits in Ireland was only 2s. 8d. a gallon, while in England it was 7s. 10d. It was only in 1858, sixty years after the Act of Union, that Mr. Disraeli first achieved the complete equalisation of Excise Duty. If, therefore, you are simply thinking of Imperial interests, and desiring to guard against separation, there is no kind of historical foundation for the view that you must continue to control Irish Customs and Excise. The question is one of expediency, and as to what arrangement in this respect is most likely to load to a permanent settlement and to avoid friction. If during the long Home Rule controversy you asked the educated Home Rulers why they wanted Home Rule, we were given various sentimental reasons, but only one big practical argument, namely, the advantage of Ireland being responsible for raising and eon-trolling her own finances and internal administration. In the raising of Irish finance, of course, Customs and Excise are by far the most important elements, because they produce in Northern Ireland nearly one-half, and in Southern Ireland two-thirds, of the whole revenue. In Ireland there is no very great love for the British fiscal system, because while Great Britain has gone ahead steadily under free imports, Ireland has gone back. Before the Union Ireland lived on her own resources, and after the

      2003
      Union Ireland continued to increase until the establishment of the system of free imports. The census returns only go back to 1821, but if you take the decennial periods you find that steadily from 1821 onwards the population increased until it reached the high-water mark of nearly 8,200,000 in 1841. After the repeal of the Corn Laws the population of Ireland began to decrease, and it decreased from 6,500,000 in 1851 to less than 4,400,000 in 1911. I am far from suggesting that the cause of the decrease of Irish population is anything so simple as free imports, and my point in mentioning it is that you must put yourselves in the mentality of the Irish Home Ruler if you want to find a reasonable method of settlement. The modern Home Ruler has been brought up on the Report of the Financial Relations Commission of 1894. Although that Royal Commission brought in five different reports they had a very interesting couple of pages at the beginning, and they agreed on five very important conclusions. I will only read three of those conclusions:
      "That the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear.
      That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden.
      That whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth."
      Home Rule in those days was a very long way off. Apart from the Irish representatives on that Royal Commission, there were three English commissioners, who appended a Report of their own in favour of the grant of fiscal autonomy. They said:
      "One sure method of redressing the inequality would be to put upon the Irish people the duty of levying their own taxes, and of providing for their own expenditure. If it is objected that the course which we suggest may load to the imposition of new customs duties in Ireland, we might reply that, in this case, as in that of the Colonies, freedom is a greater good than free trade. We doubt, however, whether Irishmen, if interested with their own finance, would attempt to raise fiscal barriers between the two countries, for we are satisfied that Ireland, and not Great Britain, would be the loser by such a policy. The market of Great Britain is of infinitely greater importance to Ireland than that of Ireland to Great Britain."
      These were not the views of violent Sinn Fein revolutionaries. They were the views of three British financial experts, Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and a distinguished London banker, Mr. Currie. The next published document bearing upon this vexed question is that of the Primrose Commission on Irish Finance, which reported in 1911, the members of which were men of great experience in the financial and banking world. They reported:
      "It is a first principle of sound government that the same authority that has the spending of revenue should also have the burthen, and not infrequently the odium, of raising that revenue. That one government should have the unpopular duty of providing the means, and another the privilege of expending them, is a division of labour that leads to disaster. For over a century the Irish representatives in Parliament had not the power or the duty of raising or of expending the Irish revenue, but they had unlimited opportunities of pressing on the Treasury never-ending demands for fresh expenditure in Ireland. This condition of affairs was calculated to weaken the sense of responsibility in regard to public funds of the Irish people and of their Parliamentary representatives. Hence a strong tonic is now required to rectify an infirmity of long and slow growth."
      They recommended that
      "The power of imposing and levying all taxation in Ireland should rest with the Irish Government, subject to such reservations as may be necessary to guard against the raising of tariff questions that might prejudice relations with Foreign Powers or trade and commerce between Great Britain and Ireland."
      That was the unanimous report of the Frimrose Commission. At that time Ireland was not paying her way. From 1910 onwards Great Britain was having to make up the balance between Irish expenditure and Irish revenue. From the Irish point of view, therefore, the question of complete fiscal autonomy at that moment became less urgent. Home Rulers, however, still professed confidence that they could effect savings in administration which would balance the account. They also challenged the accuracy of the Treasury method of estimating true revenue and of allocating charges to local and Imperial account. Whatever may be the merits of the case, the Home Rule Act lays it down in Clause 26 that if the Joint Exchequer Board finds Irish finance self-supporting for three years, the matter may be reviewed with a view

      2005
      "to securing a proper contribution from Irish revenues towards the common expenditure of the United Kingdom, and extending the powers of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government with respect to the imposition and collection of taxes."
      That provision in the 1914 Act caused me a good deal of surprise in view of the statement by the Minister without Port-folio (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) the other day that, under the 1914 Act, Ire land would have had a far less generous settlement and would have been paying £29,000,000 a year as an Imperial contribution. It was generally understood that these arrangements were purely temporary during the continuance of these Irish deficits and that they should be completely recast when Irish finance again became self-supporting. The Nationalists in Ireland have expected that they would get control of Customs and Excise as soon as financial equilibrium was restored. The Act of 1914 already allowed the Irish Parliament to raise duties of Customs and Excise, and it was generally understood that the words I have read from the Act with respect to the extension of powers over Irish finance were meant to cover the granting of powers, also to lower duties in Ireland. In 1918 the Prime Minister did not think that it was impossible that Ireland should have this control over taxation, for in a letter to Sir Horace Plunkett, the Chairman of the Irish Convention, he based his objection to the granting of these powers to the fact that we were at war, and that possibly it might be incompatible with a federal re-organisation of the United Kingdom. He goes on to say:
      "On the other hand the Government recognise the strong claim that can be made that an Irish legislature should have some control over indirect taxation as the only form of tax which touches the majority of the people and which in the past has represented the greater part of Irish revenue."
      Acting no doubt on that message, the Nationalists' two Reports demanded fiscal autonomy, though one Report agreed to its postponement, and both agreed to guarantees for free trade between the two countries; one Report wished this guarantee only to be for a reasonable term of years. My friends and I have put down Amendments which we believe will provide effectively against the danger of a breach of free trade either between Great Britain and Ireland or between the Northern and Southern Parliaments of Ireland. We provide that Customs and
      2006
      Excise Duties as between the North and the South of Ireland should only be varied by identical Acts of these two Parliaments, and in the case of a possible variation of duties between Ireland and England, we provide that Great Britain should have the most favoured nation treatment. Therefore, unless Ulster were to agree to the variation of tariffs between herself and the South of Ireland, no variation of tariffs could be made between the South of Ireland and England because the most favoured nation treatment as between the Southern Parliament and the Northern Parliament would rule it out. However, this is not the time to discuss these safeguards. The Primrose Report foreshadowed the way in which it could be done, and it is only a matter of drafting. I suppose the Government opposition to this proposal, which I expect after the speech of the Minister without Portfolio last Friday, will be based on the risk of giving up the control over these £24,000,000 of revenue which they wish to maintain as security for the Imperial contribution. If they think they are going to get the Imperial contribution by force and not by consent, there is a good deal in their position, but my friends and I have various alternatives.
      To avoid misunderstanding I may say that we do not believe that our method would lead to any less contribution than that proposed by the Government. We consider that a definite settlement between Great Britain and Ireland is necessary as to the past and that you ought to leave open the future to negotiation between the Parliaments. The difference is that the Government hope to get this Imperial contribution by a complicated and unpopular method, while we propose that they should get it partly by the transfer to Ireland as first charge on her credit of responsibility for a certain proportion of British war debt and partly by a friendly arrangement with the Irish Parliaments as to a contribution to the British Army and Navy. Failing the acceptance of our Amendment for complete autonomy we have an alternative Amendment to constitute the Income Tax and Super-tax as security for a smaller annual contribution, because I do think that if you are to have this security at all it is less likely to be unpopular in Ireland if you secure it by direct taxation, rather than if you secure it by indirect

      2007
      taxation, which is certain to offer irresistible temptation to agitation among the more ignorant class of the population.
      In dealing with the Imperial contribution, the Minister without portfolio disclosed a second line of defence. He alluded to the feeling which would be caused in England if Ireland had a low Income Tax and Tobacco Duty far less than it is here while on tea and beer there was practically no taxation at all. We do not wish for reduction of taxation at the expense of the just rights of the British taxpayer but we do want to give Ireland the benefit of her own economy. See where the Government scheme is likely to lead us. It means that you are to continue indiscriminate taxation, to throw over the unanimous view of the Childers Commission, that identity of rates of taxation does-not necessarily involve equality of burden. It is true that the Irish Parliament, even if the Amendment were rejected, would be able to reduce Stamp Duty, Excise, Licence Duties, or Death Duties, and also redistribute the burden of Income Tax. It might let off the small man and grade up on the rich man. But the Irish complaint is the burden of indirect taxation. They urge that out of the total national income an excessive proportion is taken because the Irish income is made up of a large number of incomes of very low levels and they also say that British customs and excise duties bear very hardly on them owing to a difference in national habits. Take tea, for instance. We in Ireland have no taste either for cocoa or for the cocoa Press, and people, therefore, drink tea among other bever ages. What is the use to the old woman, whose one joy in life is a cup of tea, if you let her off an Income Tax which she will never pay?
      Dr. MURRAY: Take stout!
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: That is another instance bearing rather the other way. It is rather remarkable that in that case the British Exchequer do not object because the national taste is for a beverage of a rather more sedative and heavy character than that which has been imposed on the English beer drinker. In that case no complaints are made, probably because this taste is so profitable to the Exchequer, but I do not think it necessary to follow up all these differences in national
      2008
      habits beyond saying that inevitably they do mean that taxation which may be perfectly bearable and reasonable in one country may bear with unreasonable oppression on another country of different social habits. If Ireland is not to be allowed to vary her customs and excise duties, what advantage is she to have from any economy? Many people have long thought that the present Government measures our prosperity in this country not by our revenue but by the expenditure of public money. That is a criterion which is by no means likely to find favour with business men in Ireland, who are much more likely to accept the view of the majority of the Financial Relations Commission that excessive expenditure would not be regarded as a set-off for excessive taxation.
      I ask the House, therefore, to face this dilemma. Either Ireland is or is not to get the benefit of economies in her own administration. If she is to get the benefit of those economies there must be differences in taxation. If she is not to get those benefits, your professions of goodwill, your aspirations for a settlement will be considered hypocrisy. Moderate men in Ireland will not, in my opinion, seek to evade reasonable financial contribution, but if Great Britain grudges to Ireland the right to apply the benefit of economies in her own administration to the reduction of her own indirect taxation, then you had better have done with talk of conciliation and settlement, and frankly take your stand on a union imposed and maintained by force.
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): At first sight the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved with such attractive eloquence appears to us, and I think he intends, to raise in a very wide and sweeping form the full issue of Irish fiscal autonomy, but when we consider this Amendment in the light of subsequent Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member—the safeguards to which he has alluded—it becomes clear that the concessions to Ireland which he is prepared to make fall very far short of complete fiscal autonomy. I do not make this observation in any spirit of complaint. I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member

      2009
      has moved the Amendment. He desires, as the Government desire, to make this Bill acceptable to the Irish people, and to see it honestly worked by the two Parliaments, and he desires to rally round the Bill the moderate opinion of reasonable and substantial men all over Ireland, so that in the two areas Governments may be set up which will harmonise with the spirit of the people and give to them larger opportunities for the exercise of the art of responsible management of public affairs. But I notice that the hon. and gallant Member is conscious of the difficulties that attach to full fiscal autonomy for Ireland, little as those difficulties were evidenced in the speech to which we have just listened. For instance, he is prepared to make Ireland pay a contribution. It is quite true that the contribution which he desires to impose is considerably less than the contribution which is provisionally stated in the Bill. He proposes to charge a contribution of £10,000,000 in respect of Imperial liabilities and expenses as against £18,000,000 provisionally fixed in the Bill, and although he is willing in certain circumstances to concede the Income Tax, he surrounds his concession of that tax with a number of stipulations which render it less extensive as a concession than the concession which is made in the Bill by the Government, and he has an Amendment which raises the, question of Customs and Excise.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he may not quite understand that those Amendments on the Paper are alternatives as regards Imperial contribution. As to the Income Tax Amendment, to which he refers, he will find that it is no longer there because it was an early Amendment put down many months ago, which has now been removed in view of certain representations.
      Mr. FISHER: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his explanation, but that does not affect the foundation of my argument. The hon. and gallant Member is not proposing full fiscal autonomy for Ireland, but is proposing fiscal autonomy with certain safeguards. Dealing with Customs and Excise, he proposes to reserve them to the Parliament of the United Kingdom until such time as the two Irish Parliaments by identical Acts make other arrangements. Here,
      2010
      again, I do not wish to advert to these considerations by way of criticism. I think that the hon. and gallant Member did quite right to recognise the very great difficulty which surrounds any attempt to give Ireland at this present moment and in the political and constitutional conditions which will arise when this Act comes into force, the boon of full fiscal autonomy, and it is well that we should all realise how difficult is the task of severing two communities whose financial, commercial and industrial interests are so closely interwoven.
      5.0 P.M.
      The hon. and gallant Member has criticised the existing fiscal relations between England and Ireland in terms of great severity and has spoken of the economic prostration of Ireland. I admit that if it can be proved that the inclusion of Ireland in the fiscal system, the Customs system of the United Kingdom, had been attended by economic prostration, if it could be shown that this connection had been injurious to Irish agriculture, commerce and industry, if it had resulted in a falling off in the bank balances and was inconsistent with Irish prosperity, then I should say, whatever other predilections we might have, there would be a grave and substantial case for considering an alteration of the fiscal arrangements. But when the hon. and gallant Member alludes to the economic prostration of Ireland, surely he is in the realmsnother with regard to the recent history of Ireland, it is that Ireland, from the material point of view, has been increasing steadily in prosperity. Take one or two obvious tests. The deposits in the Joint Stock Banks in the year 1907 were £14,000,000. In 1907 the total was £17,000,000, and the total has risen since very nearly to £76,000,000. The rise has been gradual and continuous, Take the test of the Irish deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. In the year 1900 the deposits amounted to £7,791,000, and in 1917 to £10,926,000. Investments in Government Funds, Irish land stock and India stock, dividends on which are payable by the Bank of Ireland, were in 1915 £46,936,000 and in 1917 £70,317,000. I contend that those figures are entirely inconsistent with the theory of economic prostration. That being so, are we not entitled to consider the general economic reasons

      2011
      which govern the question of the concession of separate Customs and Excise powers. I think everybody will agree that, at any rate, as long as Ireland is divided in a Southern and a Northern Government, it would be impracticable and uneconomical to establish a Customs barrier across the island. That is admitted in one of the Amendments which the hon. and gallant Member proposes to move later. The example of France before the Revolution, the example of Germany before the Zollverein, the example of Australia before Federation, and the example of all the communities of Northern America, show us abundantly how important it is for the economic prosperity and development of great tracts of continuous territory that they should be brought under a single fiscal system. If we look nearer home to the history of the union between England and Scotland, we find that it was the removal of the fiscal barrier between England and Scotland which made the union a success. Before the union and while that barrier still existed Scotland was a poor country. A great development of Scottish wealth was a direct consequence of the removal of the fiscal barriers between Scotland and England. Accordingly, to all those who hold the belief that fiscal barriers are in themselves an evil, there is a primâ facie argument against the erection of a fiscal barrier between England and Ireland or between one part of Ireland and another. Of course, I quite admit that this argument is not in any way conclusive.
      Our great object in this Bill is to effect, if possible, reconciliation between the English and Irish races, not only in Ireland, but throughout the British Empire and the world. We might very well be willing, and I think the British public would be willing, not only to face a considerable financial sacrifice, but also to take a step which, from a purely economic point of view, may appear to reasonable men to be a retrograde step, if we could show that it would contribute to that great object. What will the hon. and gallant Member's proposals amount to? He proposes that the Northern and Southern Parliaments should be enabled by identical Acts to enact fiscal autonomy for Ireland. From those proposals it would, I suppose, be natural to expect, if the hon. and gallant Member is correct
      2012
      in his diagnosis of the state of opinion in Southern Ireland, that. Session after Session and year after year, the Parliament of Southern Ireland would produce an enactment advocating fiscal autonomy, to be met by a negative from the North. Does the hon. and gallant Member think that under this proposal he will be accelerating the date of Irish unity? Is not the plan pursued by the Bill in reality more favourable to the achievement of Irish unity? Under the plan suggested by the hon. and gallant Member this fundamental question of fiscal autonomy for Ireland is continually raised. The Irish public is never allowed to escape it. It is a continually burning issue, presented year after year, and, as I think, creating acute contention between North and South. We cannot deal with this question of Customs and Excise for Ireland without taking into account the very profound and acute differences of opinion between Northern and Southern Ireland on this subject. That is really the root of the difficulty. Incidentally, I observe that, although the hon. and gallant Member is clearly of opinion that it would be unwise and impracticable to set up two fiscal systems for Ireland, his Amendment does not in reality secure his object, because, under the terms of the Amendment, it would be quite possible for the two Irish Parliaments, by arrangement, to pass identical Acts creating one Customs system for the North and another Customs system for the South.
      Let me turn from those general considerations to some of the criticisms which the hon. and gallant Member has passed upon the scheme of the Bill. He tells us that under those proposals he is substituting a simple method for a complicated and unpopular method of dealing with taxes in Ireland. I should have thought that the method of the Bill was the simpler method of the two, because the Bill provides that the Irish Government shall have the advantage of the existing fiscal machinery for the collection of their taxes, and when we take into account the great responsibilities which are devolved under this Bill upon untried bodies of men, who would be called upon to deal with a great number of complicated and difficult problems, is it not a considerable advantage to say to those new Parliaments, "We are not

      2013
      going to impose upon you the additional burden of creating for yourself a new machinery for the collection of taxes. We are giving you the benefit of the machinery which exists at the present time. You take it over, you raise taxes, and you realise your reserve fund." It is said by the hon. and gallant Member that under his proposal Ireland will reap the benefit of her own economies. Is that so? Under the proposal of the Bill the two Irish Parliaments, if our Estimates are correct, will receive the whole surplus, and they will consequently have the option either of reducing taxation or of spending their surplus upon large objects of social and economic reform. Let me point out that the powers which they will receive in the way of reduction of taxation are very considerable. It would be open to the Irish Parliament to reduce Income Tax by one-half under the Bill. That is a very considerable concession.
      When it is said that this is a Bill which gives nothing to Ireland, surely that is a very important concession to offer her. The hon. and gallant Member has cited the evidence of the Childers Commission and the Primrose Committee. I quite agree with him that the question of the true taxable capacity of Ireland is a question of great complexity and difficulty. It admits of a great deal of variety of opinion. We have not in this Bill attempted to decide. We have devolved the difficult task of assessing the true taxable capacity of Ireland on the Joint Exchequer Board, and we distinctly provide that, if the Joint Exchequer Board comes to the conclusion that the Irish contribution of £18,000,000 is not warranted by the taxable capacity of the country, it will be open to it afterwards to reduce that amount.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Can you increase it in the contrary event?
      Mr. FISHER: No, but it will be open to us to reduce it. That is not ungenerous. Under the scheme of the Bill it is expressly provided that, on Irish union being achieved, if an Address for the purpose is
      presented by both Houses or the House or the Parliament of Ireland, the Joint Exchequer Board shall forthwith take into consideration the transfer to the Parliament and Government of Ireland of the powers of imposing, charging, levying and collecting customs duties and excise duties reserved
      2014
      by this Act, and report thereon and on the methods by which in case of such transfer the payment of the Irish contribution to Imperial liabilities and expenditure can be secured, and shall cause a copy of their report to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of Ireland.
      While, therefore, the Bill does not provide that Customs and Excise should go over to Ireland automatically on Irish union a distinct indication is given that the whole question can then be taken into account. I have no doubt I shall be told that Irish union may be long delayed, and that it would be fairer to allow the Northern and Southern Parliaments of Ireland to come to independent conclusions with respect to Customs and Excise in advance of Irish union. That is the proposition that is put before us. Is there not, quite apart from the question as to whether Ireland should continue to be part of the United Kingdom, something to be said for a plan which leaves the two Irish Parliaments during the initial and difficult period of their new experience Customs and Excise reserved until the period of Irish union for the discussion of such a fiscal revolution as the hon. and gallant Member proposes? For these reasons the Government is unable to accept the Amendment.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: The President of the Board of Education, as he always does, has delivered so well phrased and closely argued a speech that I hesitate to say anything in criticism of what he has said. But I must say, as I listened to him, I had a feeling of very deep disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman is believed to be a sincere believer in the principle of self-government for Ireland, and yet when time after time hon. Members on this side of the House and in other parts have made proposals breathing some shadow of life into this Bill and making self-government real self-government, it is the right hon. Gentleman who always has the best possible reasons why those proposals should not be adopted. I know that this particular Amendment raises a very difficult and contentious question. In every discussion that has ever taken place, and there have been many, upon the subject of Irish Customs and Excise any number of difficulties have been raised against the proposal to give indirect taxation to the control of the Irish Government. I admit the force of those objections. I admit the force of the objection

      2015
      that to give Customs and Excise to an Irish Parliament or to Irish Parliaments is an anti-federal action. I admit also that to give Customs and Excise to an Irish Parliament or to Irish Parliaments may raise the possibility of tariff controversies both between Northern and Southern Ireland and between Ireland and Great Britain. To each of those objections let me make one or two short passing allusions. First of all there is the Federal objection. If this Bill were a Federal Bill and if its intention were to lay the first foundation of a Federal system for the whole of the United Kingdom, then I should say that objection is a very strong one. But it s not a Federal Bill and it is not intended to be a Federal Bill. I am surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott) asys that it is a Federal Bill. He says now that they professed that it was. If that is so, I cannot understand how the operating Clause of the Bill, under which the residuary powers instead of being kept by the Federal Government are transferred to the Irish Parliament, has ever been inserted in the Bill. With that Clause before us and already passed in Committee, I cannot admit, nor do I think anyone can believe, that this is a Federal Bill. Moreover, if it were a Federal Bill, I imagine the practice would have been adopted, which is always adopted in similar cases by Federal Governments, and that the proceeds of Customs and Excise would have been retained for the Federal Government. That again is not the case in this Bill. What analogy is there between the case of Ireland and of Great Britain when Ireland is divided from this country by a sea frontier, whereas, in the case of every other great Federation of the British Empire, Federation has been forced on them by the fact of a contiguous line of land frontier.
      Passing from the Federal question, let me come to what seems to me to be a much more serious objection against my hon. Friend's Amendment, namely, that if it is carried there is a danger of fiscal controversy between Northern and Southern Ireland and between Ireland and Great Britain, and that it would mean the setting up of Customs houses. Already
      2016
      we have far too many Customs houses. Europe to-day is suffering from one end to the other from a plethora of Customs houses. I admit that at once, but I would point out to the President of the Board of Education that even under his scheme some system of Customs examination is absolutely necessary. The finance of the Bill is based upon what is known as the true revenue of Ireland. What is the true revenue? The true revenue of Ireland is the revenue estimated by the Treasury upon certain general estimates. It is nothing more than an estimate. That does not matter when the Treasury return is only wanted to be used for the general information of Government offices or for Members of Parliament, but when it comes to basing the whole financial stability of the Irish Governments upon a return of that kind, I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree when I say that it is quite evident that estimates are far too vague and that some system of Customs examination, even if the Customs and Excise are still retained by the Imperial Parliament, will have to be set up at once. How far is there a real danger of a fiscal war between Great Britain and Ireland, and how far is it really likely to come about if the control of Customs and Excise is put into the hands of the Irish Parliament? As my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment said, Ireland is much more dependent upon English markets than Great Britain is on Irish markets. In the case of the Northern Parliament, I feel certain from what the Ulster Unionist Members have said that there is not the least risk of a tariff being set up against British goods. The only practical danger therefore is the danger of the Southern Parliament setting up differential duties against us here. What is the risk of that? Southern exports will be mainly agricultural produce of a perishable kind, and that produce must find a market in Great Britain. It would be suicide for the Southern Parliament to embark upon a fiscal war with this country, and we could destroy the Southern Parliament in a fiscal war in a fortnight. Fiscally, the Southern Parliament is in our hands, and it seems to me to be raising imaginary dangers to suggest that we are running any risk in allowing the Southern Parliament to have control of its own Customs.

      2017
      But suppose that I am wrong, and suppose that the Southern Parliament were likely to embark on a fiscal war with Great Britain, we must leave nothing to chance, and I should say that this House should take every precaution to avoid the risk of that contingency. My hon. and gallant Friend has recommended various ways in which that might be done. He suggested, for instance, identical Acts of the two Parliaments and also most-favoured-nation treatment between the two countries. These may not be the best precautions, though, personally, I think they would meet the case. Supposing they do not, that does not alter our position. We say, give the two Parliaments control over indirect taxation, and then take every precaution that you will to prevent these fiscal wars being foolishly undertaken. It may well be that a Convention between the three Parliaments would be the best way to avoid the risk of fiscal controversies. Be that as it may, give the Parliaments control of their indirect taxation, and then Bake whatever step you will to ensure fiscal agreement betwen the three authorities. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his remarks emphasised a number of objections to taking such a course, but it is a significant fact, a fact to which my hon. and gallant Friend has already alluded, that whenever there has been an expert inquiry into this question, the body of feeling in that inquiry has always been strongly in favour of giving the control of indirect taxation to Ireland. Not so long ago the Prime Minister himself, in the letter which he wrote when the Convention was first started, actually threw out the suggestion that in certain circumstances Ireland should have control of its indirect taxation. That being so, and recognising the practical objections to which I have already alluded, let me put to the Committee the broad case in favour of it. This is, I understand, a Kill to give self-government to Ireland. If it is not, why has it been introduced? It is no answer to say, as the President of the Board of Education said, that Ireland has become rich under a system of indiscriminate finance; it is no answer to say that under this Bill we are giving Ireland a number of generous doles. That is not the object of the Bill.
      The object of the Bill, if it has any object at all, is to give real self-government to the two Irish Parliaments.
      2018
      Finance is the key to self-government. In Ireland, which is mainly an agricultural country, finance principally means indirect taxation, namely. Customs and Excise. The Irish revenue for 1920–21 is £46,000,000, and of this, no less than £30,000,000 comes from Customs and Excise. Ireland, therefore, if it is to have real self-government, must control its Customs and Excise. The choice, as it presents itself to me, is between the possible inconvenience of fiscal independence and the intention to give Ireland self-government. I should say that the objections to which the President of the Board of Education has alluded are greatly exaggerated, but even if they are not, I should still say that if you wish to give Ireland self-government you must be prepared to take the risks. There is a great deal to be said for Union government, there is something to be said for Union finance, but there is nothing to be said for a hybrid system, and least of all is there anything to be said for a camouflaged Home Rule. It irritates Unionists, and it docs not satisfy Nationalists. If you do not give the Irish Parliaments Customs and Excise, the self-government that you are offering is a sham self-government, and you will get no moderate men behind you in support of your proposals. The President of the Board of Education said or implied that he did not think it is a suitable moment to take risks. I venture to disagree with him and to think that now is the moment to make an arresting appeal to the men of moderate views in the South and West of Ireland. If you tie them up with all this British control, as you are doing with your present fiscal proposals, there is not the least chance of being able to make any such appeal. Moreover, you will not make Irishmen responsible for their own government, and as long as they are not responsible it seems to me that they will continue to fight amongst themselves and to unite only in abusing Great Britain and in bleeding the British Treasury. As an English unionist, I desire to protest against that prospect, and I say as emphatically as I can, either put life into the fiscal Clauses of this Bill, or drop it altogether, and let us go back to the intelligible system of Union government.
      Mr. MARRIOTT: I do not think any hon. Member can complain of the way in which this question has been brought

      2019
      before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Members who have spoken from these Benches. The whole argument which they have addressed to the Committee is entirely consistent with the attitude that from the first moment they have taken up upon the Bill. Nevertheless, I do desire very respectfully to congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education on the very stout resistance which he has offered to this Amendment. What are the arguments which my hon. and gallant Friends have put to the Committee on behalf of their Amendment? The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) maintains that there would be no real danger in giving the control of Customs and Excise to the two Irish Parliaments. I think he said that there was no chance at all of the Southern Parliament embarking on a fiscal war with Great Britain. I quite admit that if all the affairs of the Southern Parliament in Ireland were to be conducted, as the Debate in this Committee is being conducted, in the absolutely dry light of reason, then the danger would not be a great one, but you have got to contemplate a state of things when policy is inspired less by reason than by passion. Then my hon. and gallant Friend added, "Give them entire control over their fiscal arrangements, but," he said, "although it is desirable to give them entire control, yet you must impose every sort of precaution that they should not misuse that control." I confess that that is an argument which seemed to me to be absolutely contradictory in its essence. Let me come, next, to the suggestions which were made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. First of all, he made an appeal to the Committee in regard to the economic prostration of Ireland. That is an argument which, it seems to me, has been entirely disposed of by the speech of the President of the Board of Education. Nobody who has any real acquaintance with the economic condition of Ireland to-day—and I venture to say that there are not many English Members of the House who have a more intimate acquaintance with it than I have myself—can describe it as a condition of prostration, for never at any time during the last century has Ireland enjoyed greater or more general prosperity
      2020
      than she enjoys to-day. Therefore the argument of economic prostration seems to me entirely to fall to the ground. Then we were told by my hon. and gallant Friend—and a most remarkable argument it was, I thought, to address to the Committee—that the depopulation of Ireland in the last half-century, or the last 60 or 70 years, was due to the operation of Free Trade.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I particularly said that I did not by any means accept that argument, but I mentioned it to the Committee because they ought to put themselves into the mentality of the Irishmen who take that view. I expressly dissociated myself from the argument.
      Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. He is perfectly right. The argument which he addressed to the Committee—and I hope I shall not misrepresent him again—was this, not that the depopulation was duo to Free Trade, but that the Irish people, or a great many of the Irish people, thought it was due to Free Trade. I have listened to endless Irish Debates in this House, and I have heard one argument repeatedly used by Members from Ireland on the opposite Benches, who. I think, may be thought to understand the mentality of the Irish at least as well as my hon. and gallant Friend, who have insisted, not once, but again and again, that the depopulation of Ireland was due to the Irish famine. I have heard dozens of those speeches in which the Irish famine has played a principal part in regard to the depopulation of Ireland. On this point I agree with my hon. Friends opposite. I think that is the true explanation, and with very great respect I do not think the view of my hon. and gallant Friend is really widely entertained among the people of Ireland. Then there was another point on which he laid very great stress, and I invite the Committee to examine this argument rather narrowly. He said that Ireland is suffering from an excessive burden of indirect taxation, but what is the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend? It is that they should be permitted to impose additional indirect taxation, that they should be given such control over their fiscal affairs, their Customs and Excise, that they should be in a position to increase the already excessive

      2021
      burden. That, again, seems to me a very astonishing argument to put before the Committee. But fundamentally the question, I take it, which is at issue—and it was perfectly fairly faced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea—the fundamental point which divides my hon. and gallant Friends from myself and others is as to the real intention of this Bill?
      Sir S. HOARE: Yes, what is it?
      Mr. MARRIOTT: Exactly, what is it? My hon. and gallant Friend does not expect me to expound it, but I will take the intention of the Bill as repeatedly expressed by the Government themselves. If they do not understand their own intentions, it is not for me to instruct them. But what have they said from the first? They have said this is a measure which is intended to fit in with what is generally known as the federal solution of the Irish question. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend below the Gangway that if the genius and intention of this Bill is not federal, but frankly separatist, then all the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee to-night by him and his friends are not only entirely relevant but entirely consistent. Personally I should never have voted for the Second Reading if I had regarded it as a step towards separation. The majority of those who supported the Government on Second Heading accepted their account of the Bill that this was intended to be a step in the direction of what is called the federal solution. If it is and assuming that the Government's account of their own Bill is a fair and an accurate account, then I submit that this Amendment entirely cuts across the whole purpose and intention of the Bill. I do not know a federal system in the world into which you could introduce such a proposal as that made by my hon. Friend. His case for his Amendment is this is not a federal Bill. I can only say if this is not a federal Bill, but is a Bill which is intended to pave the way to separation, it will have no further support from me; nor can I support an Amendment which is consistent only with an interpretation of the Bill denied and vehemently denied by those who are reponsible for its production.
      Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: I am sure one might discuss for long as to whether this Bill was federal or separatist in its tendencies, and one might
      2022
      discuss for even longer whether the Irish question was capable of settlement by reference to any fixed theory of federalism or separation. Indeed, I believe it is not, and that the only solution of which it is capable is a purely empirical one, and I am one of those who think that, in searching round for the empirical methods which will lead us to a solution, we have come, in the course of our discussions on the Bill, to the essential and most important practical point. In the most persuasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education there was one argument which appealed with almost overwhelming force. It was that which he based upon the proposition that a fiscal barrier is never a good thing, and is always a bad thing. That is also a proposition with which I have always found myself in agreement. In the most lucid and exhaustive speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) I observed. I think, a tendency in the argument to suppose that there is no constitutional objection inherent in a fiscal barrier as such. That only shows that from this empirical point of view, starting from opposite points, one may arrive at the same result. So strongly do I think that point of great importance, that, if indeed I were to suppose there was a very grave danger under the proposal of this Amendment of new fiscal barriers being created, it might give me serious pause, but I do not. Is there any real danger of tariff walls? The hon. Member opposite says: "Yes, in a moment of passion." In a moment of passion, of course, anything may happen. Unfortunately the relations of the countries now are in that condition, but, were the experiment tried, the result must be so immediately disastrous to either part of Ireland, that it would learn a very bitter lesson in a very short time.
      This matter has been argued with so much lucidity by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) that there is only one word I would say in emphasis of his argument. His argument which I think so forcible was that in the state of dependence in which Irish producers are upon British markets, a tariff wall must be suicidal, and that condition is growing from year to year. Year by year the specific products of Ireland meet with more and more competition in the British markets. Year by

      2023
      year her position here becomes more and more insecure, and her dependence on the British markets more absolute. There was one argument, at first attractive, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which, on further reflection, I wondered I found so convincing. His argument seemed, at first sight, so impressive that the tender Parliaments in Ireland must be protected from too heavy responsibilities, and that you must avoid placing too much of a burden in their infant hands. That, of course, makes a strong appeal to the feelings. The appeal becomes less strong if one detects, as one perhaps does, that the analogy is not perhaps correct. The legislative capacities, the political capacities, of the Irish people are of no infant growth. They have had a long, vigorous life for very many centuries; yet they have a specific character. I should say, at the present moment, that they suffer not from infancy, but from a specific ailment. The ailment from which they suffer is lack of responsibility.
      What they need, then, if that be true, is not a sedative, but a tonic. There is no tonic so stimulating as direct responsibility. I believe that a wide principle, which lies at the root of all good government, is contained in this Amendment. It is that you cannot establish any sound system of government unless the same men who are spending the revenue are also responsible for collecting it. Under the present scheme, according to my calculations—whether it be right or wrong, I will not venture to dogmatise—Ireland will be directly and truly responsible for only 6 per cent. of the revenues she collects. Under those circumstances, there can be no such responsibility as would brace statesmen and politicians of Ireland to the establishment of their own new system upon a sound basis. There may be risks in the policy recommended by the Amendment, but they are economic risks, and risks of the smallest extent. On the other hand, there are political risks—risks involved in the continuation of the present situation, in the non-acceptance of the Bill by moderate opinion in Ireland. Ireland is not economically formidable Politically formidable she is. What a gain, then, to transfer our risks from the political to the economic sphere!
      Earl WINTERTON: The answer which has just been given by my hon. and gallant
      2024
      Friend, although he does not agree entirely as to the lines on which we proceed in our Amendment, supplies the real answer to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott). In the course of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City asked, what is the object of this Bill? It is a question which many of us have been putting to the Government throughout the course of these Committee Debates, and, indeed, at the time of the Second Reading. It is perfectly clear that, in speeches made on the subject in different parts of the House, the objects sought from the Bill by different sections of the House are entirely different. My hon. Friends who sit for Ulster, for example, have quite different views as to the ultimate object to be sought from the Bill from many of us, who believe that the only future of Ireland, if the Union is to be cut into by any form of Home Rule, is the ultimate unity of Ireland. That shows a fundamental difference between us. Others, like the hon. Member for Oxford City, regard the Bill, if I may say so, from rather an academic point of view. Others, like my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken from a more detached point of view, look at it from the point of view of obtaining the best system for finding a solution, if it can be found, for dealing with one of the most terrible situations with which the British Empire has ever been faced. The real answer to my hon. Friend's question is that this is a Bill, according to its title—and which we must suppose the Government honestly wish to carry out—for the better government of Ireland. The point we have to ask ourselves, it seems to me, in considering this Amendment, is whether or not the proposal we put forward is likely to lead to the better government of Ireland by producing a solution of the present difficulties, and to look at it from that point of view, rather than the point of view of the merits or demerits of a federal system. I remember a very eloquent speech from my hon. Friend in the early stage of the Committee, in which he said he could not really support this Bill because it was not a federal Bill. He made a very able speech in which he gave many of us quite a new light on the operation of federalism in different parts of the world. Now, he says, we

      2025
      have set aside the principle of federalism, which has already been set aside by the principle of the Bill.
      6.0 P.M.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has been criticised because, having, at the commencement of Iris speech, said we wished by our Amendment to give much fuller financial responsibility to Ireland, we then qualified the effect of that by saying we were going to impose all sorts of safeguards. I do not see the force of that argument at all. It is quite obvious that in the present relationship of Ireland, however great the financial responsibility will be, you must have financial safeguards of some kind. It surely ought to be the object of any of us who wishes to find a solution of the present unhappy situation, in this and in all other matters, to put forward the most free and generous proposals that we can put forward con sonant with the Safety of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is the justification for this Amendment. We believe it gives a much fuller financial responsibility—it is unnecessary to argue that point; it is obvious—to that proposed in the Bill. We believe by the safeguards which are put down in subsequent Amendments we shall prevent that financial responsibility being used as an engine against the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and particularly against this portion. The point of view we put forward this afternoon is in a sense the essence of our whole scheme. It is a scheme that we believe will meat moderate opinion in Ireland. The Government scheme does not make a sufficiently generous provision that moderate opinion could, without danger to itself, support, and that is the reason that moderate opinion is at the present moment silent and dumb on this question and on every other question. We say we should put forward a scheme that would appeal to that.
      The only other thing I desire to refer to is a matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City, and also referred to by the Minister of Education. Both of them took great exception to the statement put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend who proposed the Amendment on the subject as to the relative prosperity of England and of Ireland. I think they misunderstood the purport of his argument. My hon. and
      2026
      gallant Friend never suggested that Ireland is not a much richer country to-day than it was, for example, in 1841, or that relatively it is not considerably richer than 15 or 20 years ago. That has never been the point of his argument—or of ours. This has always been—that the conditions in Ireland are wholly different to the conditions in this country. This is a great manufacturing country—or was a great manufacturing country. Whether or not it is going to be one much larger has nothing to do with this Debate. But Ireland has always been a purely agricultural country. Although the relative prosperity of Ireland is greater to-day, or was greater in 1917, as my right right hon. Friend by statistics showed, than in 1914, that does not mean to say that the position in Ireland is anything like the position of this country, say before the War. After all, it is not pleasant and rather indelicate to refer to the matter, but we must remember that one reason why Ireland was relatively so prosperous was that Ireland did not practically feel the effects of the War in which the rest of the United Kingdom was taking part. There was no conscription in Ireland—even in the North, where the people came forward splendidly—but the relative position—
      Mr. MOLES: What about my city?
      Earl WINTERTON: Your city! I am talking about the whole of the North of Ireland. The hon. Member seems really not to have noticed any difference between the effect of conscription and non-conscription. I assert, and I base it upon statistics, that the number of people in the North and South of Ireland who went out to fight were less than in this country. Obviously, no country in the world where some people are fighting under conscription and others are not under it can be other than different. I am not making any complaint; I am merely dealing with the facts. The effect of conscription in this country was that numbers were drawn from industry. The effect of that was to allow Ireland to gain a lap upon us in the race for relative prosperity. That is an obvious principle of the relative prosperity. It was most absurd—if that be not too strong a term to use—for the Minister of Education to take 1917 in Ireland and compare it with 1900. Ireland attained wonderful prosperity. Every country

      2027
      which did not feel the full effects of the War—and this applies to other parts of the British Empire, South Africa, for instance—gained relatively to this country, for we carried the heaviest burden of all.
      That, however, does not take away the fact that Ireland will always remain a country economically poorer than this country. In this country we have the coal which we use for our manufactures, and I hope it always will have. That, really then, is the argument always used when considering these financial proposals. A country like Ireland is bound to suffer in the long run from a system of taxation primarily intended for a rich country like this, and which is not suited to a poor country like Ireland. I am surprised that anybody denies that. In the old days when on the Benches opposite the Nationalist party gave us the advantage—or the disadvantage—of their presence, I heard many arguments they used. They said that the economic position of Ireland was different to the economic position of this country, and that, therefore, the taxation system ought to be different. I never—and those of us who differed from them in those days and objected to the then Home Rule Bill—never based our objection on the ground that there was not any dissimilarity between the economic position of this country and of Ireland. On the contrary, we always admitted it was widely different. The Committee must remember that a great many people in those days, those of us who took the view of Unionists against the Home Rule Bill of those days, as far as taxation was concerned, believed in some kind of financial devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have been accused absolutely of throwing away all our principles by bringing forward these Amendments, but, after all, they are only based upon the principles in which all of us believe. I have always believed in some form of financial devolution to meet the apparently complicated and complex system of Imperial taxation at the present time, and what we are putting forward is only in consonance with those principles.
      The main thing, after all, is to put forward proposals which have some chance
      2028
      of being accepted by the moderate people in Ireland. From that point of view, I desire to repeat, one is bound to express one's deep disappointment at the answer of the Minister in charge. Once again the Government appear to be dealing in a theoretical way with this question. No doubt it is admirable from a theoretical and academic point of view to apply the same principles of taxation to this country and to Ireland. I do not agree with that contention, but from the point of view of the exposition of financial principles no doubt the thing is fine. After all, this is not the only question involved. It is only a very small part of the question as to how to get out of the morass into which we have been led by the present condition of affairs in Ireland. If this Bill is for a better condition of things, and an attempt to get us out of that morass, surely it is the duty of the Committee to give adherance to the proposals put forward, provided they do not interfere with the future of the whole of the United Kingdom. We do not want the secession of Ireland from this country. Therefore, surely, it is our duty to give regard to the proposals which may get on the side of the Government for its Bill the moderate opinion of Ireland that the proposals of this Bill cannot obtain.
      None of us believe that by putting forward those proposals we are doing anything to injure the strategic position of Ireland in relation to this country. I Would be prepared to say this—although it might be obvious: in considering the whole of this Bill, subject—and I believe there are many outside who support the Bill and who support the present Government who would say the same thing—subject to two conditions, firstly, that any proposal that is carried in the Bill is a proposal to which the assent of Unionist Ulster can reasonably be given; that is to say, that any proposal which ensures the future security of the people in the North-Eastern corner of Ireland, and subject to the same strategical position of Ireland in regard to England, I am prepared to go to very great lengths indeed in order to bring about a solution of the present difficulties in Ireland. The solution of these difficulties, even if it is not to be found in the proposals we are putting forward, is unquestionably to be found somewhere in the financial proposals of the Bill. The attitude of the Government ignores what I may call

      2029
      the psychological aspect of the question. There has not been a word about it from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, nor was there on Friday. I would venture to put this challenge to any subsequent spokesman of the Government on this Amendment: do they think this Clause as it stands has the slightest chance of being accepted by the majority even of the moderate opinion in Ireland? There is no chance of acceptance. Why, then, leave it in the Bill? Why waste the time of the Committee in continuing the discussion of proposals which have no chance of being accepted? If we need any excuse for putting forward our proposals, it is that on consideration they might be found acceptable.
      Major-General SEELY: I think the Government ought to make some reply to the appeal made by the Noble Lord for information upon this specific point. Have they any reason to believe that the Bill as it stands in relation to Customs and Excise will be acceptable to any part of Ireland, except the North-Eastern part of Ulster? If not, surely we are wasting our time in continuing the discussion of this Bill. It may be said that our discussions here on this Bill have an air of unreality, because five-sixths of Ireland are not represented. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford City, who is not now in his place, could not conceivably have made the speech he did had any representatives from that five-sixths of Ireland been here. He talked of the subject as though it was entirely an abstract proposition to be viewed like a specimen under a microscope. The question has been asked again and again. What is our object? Our object is stated to be the better government of Ireland. It has been said in set terms to be the self-government of Ireland by Ireland herself. But if five-sixths of Ireland will, in fact, reject any Bill that has this provision relating to the Customs and Excise what is the good of calling it a Bill for the better government of Ireland? For my own part, from the very beginning I have supported this Bill, and have always stated that I would do my utmost, in my small way, to support all those on both sides of the House who advocated an extension of the financial powers sufficient to make them acceptable to what one may call the loyal part of Southern Ireland. When I say "loyal"
      2030
      I mean those who are not revolutionaries and who are not trying to upset the existing order. I am quite persuaded by friends and relatives of mine in Ireland that there is an immense body in Ireland keenly desirous of supporting self-government within the Empire, hut one and all say, without exception, if you are going to give self-government to this country you must give control of the Customs and Excise. Of course, we know the old argument—that they will set up tariff barriers. As a Free Trader I should regret that there should be any tariffs. There is this one point which I think is a strong one. If the fear is that barriers can be erected to interfere with trade between the two countries, it is worth considering whether the weapon of an economic boycott is not far more formidable than any tariff. If the Irish people resented this Bill they could, by an economic boycott, do just as much harm to trade in that way as by the erection of any tariffs. How can you say that you are giving self-government to any portion of the British Empire if you are withholding from them the Customs and Excise, and the greater part of your taxing power? I am sure that the only way to achieve a satisfactory result is to give Ireland her freedom, and then let her come into a federal system when that system is ready for her inclusion. Anything is better than the existing system, under which we are endeavouring to govern Ireland by trying to stamp out a rebellion with no body of persons to negotiate with or to assist us. I believe that a generous measure of self-government would be calculated to rally moderate opinion in Ireland. I believe this particular Bill is good in form, and I believe it is a better plan to set up a Parliament in North-East Ulster and one in Southern Ireland than to set up one Parliament and then give the other the opportunity of contracting out, well knowing that it would contract out.
      Mr. FISHER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to grant Ireland fiscal autonomy at once before Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland have agreed?
      Major-General SEELY: I think we must give fiscal autonomy at once. I was going to say that the obvious solution would be to let the two Parliaments agree, and then they should have fiscal autonomy, and this is giving an added

      2031
      reason for bringing Ireland together. But the objection to that is fatal. The Bill will not function at all unless you meet my hon. Friend's point and give fiscal autonomy to five-sixths of Ireland. All you will have done will be to pass an Act authorising five-sixths of Ireland, and it will have no effect. The people will refuse to work it, and the Act will be a dead letter so far as five-sixths is concerned. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their position, and whatever happens I shall support my hon. Friend in the action he is taking, believing that by trusting the Irish people, as far as is consistent with our national safety, and at the same time safeguarding Ulster, by that means alone can we get a real solution of the Irish question.
      Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The President of the Board of Education seems to have his mind fixed upon two objects. The first is the Bill before the House, and the second the developmnt of a larger opinion in Ireland, which we all hope may come about. The only question, however, before the Committee this afternoon is the present Bill. In the first half of the speech of my right hon. Friend he looked back and drew a glowing picture of the present prosperity of Ireland, and that is gratifying to the British people. What he suggests, However, is not satisfactory to the Irish people, and therefore we are not concerned this afternoon so much with looking back, and we are more concerned with trying to visualise the situation when these Parliaments come into being.
      I want hon. Members to imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Southern Parliament bringing his annual Budget. We all know that in this House of Commons the most important day of the year is when the Chancellor of the Exchequer produces his Budget. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will remind the House of the growing prosperity of Ireland. He will tell them that the Irish coffers are full, and that through the system of taxation devised by the Imperial Parliament the revenue of Ireland is abundant. Then he will go on to remind the members that he has no power to reduce a single penny of indirect taxation which may bear very heavily on the poorer classes, although he will be able to impose more direct taxation. Can you
      2032
      imagine a Parliament being respected and commanding the assent of the vast majority of the Irish people when the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that country has less real power and responsibility than a single Treasury connected with any town councils, or county councils in Great Britain. The Government are really asking these Parliaments to perform an impossibility.
      I want to attract to these Parliaments the best men in Ireland; but unless they have real power and responsibility those Parliaments will not function at all. This House is always generous in its treatment of Ireland, and I want to ask the Government not only to be generous with the money of the British taxpayer, but also to show much greater generosity in placing direct responsibility and transferring powers at present exercised in this House to the shoulders of the Irish Parliament. Every speaker but one who has spoken this afternoon has appealed to the Government to entrust the Irish Parliaments with greater powers, and unless I am very much mistaken, public opinion outside is with us in that appeal. It may either be a federal or a non-federal appeal, but every hon. Member who has voted for the Second reading is anxious that this Bill should work in practice. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland has power to lower taxation, he will become merely a dispenser of the money of the British taxpayer, and he cannot lower the taxation which may press heavily on the Irish people. I appeal to the Government to be more generous in granting further powers and responsibilities to the Parliaments to be set up in Ireland
      Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The Government have heard various speeches from Members of different political traditions all agreeing in asking the Government to accept this Amendment, or, at any rate, to very greatly enlarge the financial powers of the Parliaments which it is proposed to set up in Ireland. I should like to give the strongest possible support to the speeches that have been made with that object. We are being asked to support this Bill. The circumstances since 1914 have changed so greatly that another Home Rule Bill was inevitable, and I think the Bill now before the House has advantages over previous Home Rule Bills. There are, however, many dangers ahead in Ireland, and it is necessary when

      2033
      you are making these modifications that you should take all the more care to see that you are really giving to Ireland powers worth having, and that you are giving a Bill the contents of which are so valuable that, while many may be unable to agree with it in the present heated condition of Irish feeling, there will be an increasing number who will be glad to accept it because of the real policy they find in it. Surely under these circumstances there is nothing more important than to give a genuine financial autonomy.
      Those of us who hold strenuously certain views on fiscal policy would be sorry to see a certain policy practised by any country, but oven if there happened to be a chance of that, I would rather give to persons whoso freedom we desire to help the power of doing right or wrong than keep them in financial leading strings against their will. Unless you do give substantial power and frankly aim at establishing financial autonomy, you will put this Bill out of relation with the real governing facts of the time and the situation. I agree that there is a very great body of opinion behind the suggestions which have been made this afternoon. There are large bodies of people in this country who cordially supported the Home Rule Bill of 1914 who are quite prepared to accept and support this Bill, but who look with the greatest anxiety at provisions which cut down the financial powers of Ireland so as to make what is left a sort of dole as to which the people of Ireland can have very little power or modification, and in regard to which they have no power of initiative at all. This is a current of opinion which the Government will do well to recognise. We have heard from my Noble Friend a statement with regard to opinion in Ireland, and, I know there are largo currents running in precisely the same direction.
      I realise, as we all do, that it is impossible to have any Bill for local government in Ireland which does not meet with the pronounced consent of all kinds of people in that country. Therefore, it is the duty of this HOUSE to give to Ireland something which at the moment she may not welcome, but when you are imposing upon a community a new kind of legislation, surely it is vital to see to it that the character of that legislation is in itself so good and so full and valuable that, although they may not be
      2034
      prepared to accept it at the outset, they may decide to test and work it, and then they may find that the more they look into it the more they will find it is worth trying, and that it will prove to be to their advantage, and that of the Empire, that they should work it. Unless there is financial autonomy how can it be said to be worth while for those to work it, who, if they had financial autonomy, would be anxious to try the experiment without separation and without disloyalty to the English connection? It is because I want this Bill to have in it that which by its own merit will steadily and continuously win its way that I have put my name down in favour of this Amendment, and urge the acceptance of it by the Government. I assure them that the experiment they are trying, and the objects which they have in view, are far more likely to be successful and to be attained, if they will give way to this unanimous request from all parts of the House.
      Mr. BIGLAND: I wish to say how pleased I am to know that the Government intend to reject this Amendment I believe many people wish for some measure to be passed by the Government in regard to Ireland, because they want it to imitate the State Legislatures of North America. But imagine anybody proposing in Washington that between the different States a separate Customs house should be erected! Such a proposal would be rejected. It could only produce fearful confusion. If this Bill is going to be the basis of a federal system, to be later on adopted in regard to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, it cuts the whole idea right in two We cannot imagine the different parts, of the United Kingdom being allowed to have Customs authority of their own. It is for this House to do what is just and right. I do not want it merely to do justice to Ireland; I want it to do justice to England. If 4,000,000 out of 44,000,000 of people are to be excused all this taxation, then I say we are not doing justice. As a Member of this House I have voted for huge sums to be raised in this country in respect of which I, as a Member and as an individual taxpayer, am liable for my share, and why should I voluntarily cut off one-tenth of the people of the United Kingdom from paying those taxes? It is not fair to my constituents. It is

      2035
      not fair to ourselves to say that one-tenth of the people of the United Kingdom, who all rejoiced in the grand work done by our Navy in saving our coasts, should be exempt from the taxes levied in order to pay interest on the debt thereby incurred. I hope the House will see to it that this Clause remains in the form in which it has been drafted, and I shall vote with the greatest certainty in my own mind that the bulk of those whom I represent are not willing that Ireland should run her own Customs house against us.
      Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: This Amendment raises a difficulty that will tend to divide the governing power into two separate independent bodies, and that difficulty is that of giving both bodies full responsibility for their revenue and expenditure. Such a difficulty has not arisen in the case of the Dominions, because they have not contributed to Imperial expenditure and have no voice in determining Imperial revenue. Ireland, however, has been an integral part of the United Kingdom, and has hitherto taken her share in contributing both to the expenditure involved in the maintenance of the civil government of the United Kingdom and in maintaining the Empire as a whole. Now it is proposed to set up a Government in Ireland with very restricted financial powers. To that I assent, and I deny that this Bill does not give Ireland any real responsibility over her revenue. She will under its provisions have complete responsibility for her expenditure, while her control over revenue will be, of course, of a limited kind. Any suggestion that we ought to hand over to her complete fiscal autonomy because it is essential to good government and because it is the only means by which we are in the least degree likely to succeed in that country needs to be carefully considered. If I were quite sure that it would be the means of conciliating Ireland to this country I would be quite prepared to consider a proposal to grant to Ireland Dominion powers. But I am not sure. On the contrary, I am very doubtful.
      I know it is true that moderate opinion in Ireland is in favour of the larger fiscal powers asked for in this Amendment, but I have never heard from any person
      2036
      or any Irishman any suggestion of willingness to give Dominion powers to the two Parliaments proposed to be set up under this Bill. What I understood was that when they contemplated asking for Dominion powers they had in their minds a united Ireland and not separate parliaments. It might be feasible to give Dominion powers to a united Ireland, but we ought to refuse them to separate parliaments in a disunited Ireland. We have to consider not merely by what means we are likely to conciliate opinion in Ireland with that in Great Britain, but also by what means we are going to conciliate the North with the South. I would like to ask those who support this Amendment if they see in it any means of conciliation between the North and the South of Ireland. It is necessary for the peaceful settlement of this question that we should have a scheme that will not merely bring together the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland, but which will also bring together the peoples in the North and South of Ireland. No scheme that does not aim at both those purposes is a good scheme or one that could ultimately hope to be successful. Will the grant of Dominion powers under this Bill to both the Southern and the Northern Parliaments be the means of bringing together the people of the South and of the North? Will it narrow the bridge which exists between them at the moment? Personally, I am convinced it will not only not do that, but that it will enormously exaggerate the differences between the two sections. Members who have supported this have constantly spoken of Ireland, whereas in reality they are dealing only with one part of Ireland. No one has to-day referred to the effect which the adoption of this proposal would have on the two sections of Irish opinion. I oppose this scheme partly because I recognise it to mean that Ireland ceases to form a portion of the United Kingdom. Ireland, if this scheme were adopted, would cease to send Members to this House. If she had complete fiscal autonomy she would no longer send representatives of any kind to the Imperial Parliament. I oppose the Amendment because it certainly would for the time being completely sever the connection between Ireland and Great Britain, and also because I am quite convinced in my own mind that it would tend to perpetuate the differences now existing between the

      2037
      North and South of Ireland. There is no scheme that we can pass in this House that will be successful unless it helps at one and the same time to conciliate the people of Great Britain and of Ireland and the peoples of Southern and Northern Ireland.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I came into the Committee two hours ago when the Minister of Education was speaking and when in fact he had nearly finished his speech. Unfortunately I had not the advantage of hearing the whole of it, but the part which I did hear seemed to me to thoroughly dispose of the Amendment which we have now under consideration. I thought, in fact, of going out of the House because it did not seem possible that any further discussion could arise after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will acknowledge that I am sincere in this. It was one of the few speeches made from that Bench during the last few years that have been not only able but to the point, and it seemed to me to admit of no argument.
      Major HILLS: You only heard the end of it.
      Sir F. BANBURY: That is so, but I have no doubt that if I had listened to the whole of it, my impression as to its convincing character would have been greatly strengthened. There was a speech by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott). It is quite true the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made a very good debating point in regard to it. He possesses an excellent memory, which enabled him to recall the fact that the hon. Member for Oxford City did in a moment of forget-fulness make a slight slip in his argument, and on that alone my Noble Friend founded his argument. Then there was the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middleton (Sir E. Adkins), who declared that everybody in the country was anxious for this Amendment to pass.
      Sir R. ADKINS: What I said was, not everybody, but that large bodies of opinion in England and Ireland favoured it, and I repeat that statement.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I will not go into the question of opinion in Ireland, there are so many different sets of opinion there. There are the opinions of the hon. Members from Ulster. There are also the
      2038
      opinions of hon. Members from Ireland who are conspicuous by their absence. But I must not be led into a Third Reading discussion. An hon. Member below the Gangway said that there was a considerable body of opinion in favour of this Amendment, but I venture to say that there is a very considerable and much larger body of opinion against any Amendment of this sort.
      What does this Amendment mean? It means, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macdonald) said, complete separation and nothing else. You cannot possiby grant to a country power to tax itself unless you give complete self-government to that country, and it means complete separation from any other country with which it has been formerly connected. I believe—it is only what I hear myself, and I may be wrong; I may only hear a certain class of opinion—I believe that opinion is hardening against anything which will lead to the separation of Ireland from this country. Then why bring forward an Amendment of this sort, which, if it be carried, must tend to separation? It has been said that we were not touching the Imperial contribution. Supposing, however, that you grant autonomy in taxation to Ireland, and supposing that the South of Ireland says, "We will only raise taxes to a sufficient amount to pay the actual expenses in the South of Ireland," then there will be nothing left for the Imperial contribution. How are you going to get it in that case? You must impose some taxation, unless you do what, apparently, the troops have been doing in some parts of Ireland. They have gone into a bank and transferred to the State the whole of the balances of the Sein Feiners who banked there. That was not all a bad thing to do under the circumstances, but it would be a little drastic, after you have given financial autonomy to Ireland, to take some step of that sort. I hope that, this being the Committee stage, my noble Friend (Lord Winterton) will answer me, and will show me if I am wrong, and how he proposes to obtain the contribution from Ireland to England if this Amendment is carried. An hon. Member on the Front Bench said, "Let us be generous; let the English people be generous to Ireland." I am rather inclined to think that the general feeling in this country, and quite rightly, is that we have been a great deal too generous to Ireland, and

      2039
      that the result of our generosity has been, not thanks, but a request for more. If we are going to let this Bill have any chance of success, it will not be by conceding further measures of independence to Ireland, but by letting Ireland see that, while we will allow her to manage, perhaps, her own internal affairs, we will not allow her to separate herself from this country.
      Mr. HASLAM: After having heard the arguments adduced in nearly all the speeches this afternoon, I have come to the conclusion that those who are supporting this Amendment are taking what I may be allowed to call a short-sighted view of the situation. It has been pointed out that to grant to Ireland the right to levy Customs duties different from those of this country is really to make Ireland a foreign country. They would have the power, in those circumstances, of setting up Customs houses hostile to ours. It might he foolish of them to do so, but they would have that power, and they would also be able to search the luggage of passengers coming from England, as is done in foreign countries.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They do that now.
      Mr. HASLAM: It would be of no practical advantage to Ireland to have the right of levying Customs duties at a different rate from those obtaining in this country. For instance, according to a calculation which I made in 1914, a difference of one penny per lb. in the tax on tea in Ireland, as compared with England, would only represent 6d. per annum per head of the population. Is it worth while to upset the whole of our fiscal system for so small an advantage or disadvantage as that might prove to be? Then, again, the position of the poor in Ireland with regard to these taxes is exactly the same as that of similarly poor people in England, in Wales, or in Scotland. To differentiate the taxes in Ireland might, perhaps, lead to a demand in England, Scotland and Wales for the same privilege. Just imagine the chaos that would exist if we had to have Customs houses between the different parts of the country. I say that we ought to take the example shown by the history of all
      2040
      our Colonies. Where they have had separate Customs duties in the past, they have in every case agreed that the duties ought to be collected from one centre. That is so in Australia, in Canada, I believe in South Africa, and also in that great English-speaking nation, the United States. In fact, wherever the English language is spoken, it is considered to be the proper principle that such taxes as Customs should be levied from one Imperial centre.
      I think that for strategic and all other reasons we ought to combat anything that will separate Great Britain from Ireland. The Irish people at the present time really do not know what they want. They are not in a position, quarrelling as they are now, to tell us what policy we should pursue. It is, therefore, our duty to look forward in the light of the lessons that we have learned from past history, and to legislate on such principles that in the long run the people of Ireland will be made happy and contented, rather than in a way that is likely to break up the British Empire. I do not think I am speaking too strongly when I say that there are forces at work, both in Ireland and in other parts of the world, which are endeavouring as far as they can to break up our Empire. Let us, therefore, see that Great Britain and Ireland shall be joined together in a union of such a nature that it must in the future result in the prosperity of both countries.
      Mr. LANE MITCHELL: This is the first occasion upon which I have spoken in a Committee of the whole House, and I am bound to say that I do not think very much of the Committee of the whole House, on account of the waste of time that is caused by the repetition of the same kind of speech and argument upon every Amendment that comes forward. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) is a Scottish home ruler, and he tells as that, when Scotland has Home Rule, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Scottish Parliament has not a Customs duty to collect, his position will not be equal to that of the Treasury representative. I rose chiefly because he characterised the speeches as being, with one exception, all on one side. Those hon. Members who support the Government, however, do not want to waste the time of the Committee by repeating the same thing time and again; they are content to rest the case upon the

      2041
      speech made by the President of the Board of Education. It was said that the Southern Parliament will not function. If that be so, how on earth can it be advisable to hand over to them the collection of Customs duties? If the Northern Parliament does function—and as far as I can make out they do not want this Amendment—there will have to be Customs houses at every point between the six counties. Speaking as practical men, is it not wise that we should suspend any decision, as far as Customs are concerned, until Ireland is prepared to deal with the matter as a whole? The one objection that I always see to this Irish business is that you speak of taking from them £18,000,000 every year as an Imperial contribution. That seems to me to be the greatest difficulty, because it will be looked upon by Irishmen as a tax from us in which they have no interest. There is a great deal in what was said by the right hon Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), namely, that if you do not have some of it in hand you will never get it; they simply will not pay any more. I support the view of the Government that it should not be done, at the present time at any rate. I rose simply to make it clear that everyone who has not spoken does not necessarily agree with the Amendment.
      7.0 P.M.
      Captain ELLIOT: It is a little difficult for a Scotsman to intervene in this Debate after the speech which we have just heard, but I am emboldened to do so by hearing from my hon. Friends on the back Bench that the hon. Member sits for an English constituency. His speech simply resolved itself into an attack on the Committee of the whole House. It may be that there has been tedious repetition of argument in bringing forward this Amendment, but I think it rather hard that an hon. Member, appealing for mercy on the ground that this is his first speech in a Committee of the whole House, should, under cover of that smoke-screen, deliver a poison gas attack. In view of the course which the Debate has taken, and after the swashbuckling attack of the light hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the logical grasp of the realities of the situation shown by the Unionist Members who have brought forward this Amendment, I feel that the Conservative party is a much superior party to any other in the House of Commons.
      2042
      The fact that several of the speeches against this Amendment have been delivered by Coalition Liberals I think shows that a rose has fallen from their chaplet. The Amendment brings forward a proposition which brings me to the three points: firstly, will it do any good to Ireland; secondly, will it do any harm to Ireland; and, thirdly, will it do any harm to England? The entrusting of Customs and Excise to Ireland has surely this benefit, if it has no other, that it is giving them something real. The tragedy of the Irish situation just now is not that the King's writ does not run in certain parts of Ireland—there have been parts of my own country where the King's writ did not run, and it was no worse for that. The tragedy is that the word of an Englishman does not run in Ireland. They do not believe in the honour of an English gentleman. The word of an Englishman is a pledge which has been taken all over the world. It is a proverbial word of good faith wherever the human family meet together, yet in one part of the world alone, 20 miles from our own shore, it is regarded as an absolutely negligible thing which no reasonable man would trust for a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "How about the Scots?"] I am talking as an alien in this matter, and I am not saying that the word of a Scotsman is by any moans so preferable as the word of an Englishman.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about a Welshman?
      Captain ELLIOT: It would be a hard thing to say anything about the word of a Welshman, with so many eminent Welshmen not only in the House but in the Government. I simply say that the word of an Englishman is not trusted in Ireland to-day.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: By whom.
      Captain ELLIOT: It is not trusted by the South Irish as a whole, not only by men who are opposed to every institution of England, root and branch; who murder policemen and ambush them, and commit every sort of atrocity—these are not the men whose goodwill I should be sorry to lose—it is the goodwill of the men who fought for us in the War that I am sorry to lose. How can any of us look the men of the 16th Division in the face to-day, or

      2043
      the men of the Irish companies who fought in the War? They distrust our word. That is a statement that I have heard made here by the son of the former Leader of the Nationalist party, who was a man who went out to the War and who was worthy of consideration as an Irishman.
      Mr. MOLES: Five battalions of them were Ulstermen. Get an Army List, and see it.
      Captain ELLIOT: I do not wish to be drawn into a controversy with Ulstermen. They are too near my own race either to agree with them or to quarrel with them. I am sure no man from Ulster will deny that many gallant men from the South of Ireland volunteered, and that many of those gallant men to-day are heart sick and heart broken at the condition in which the South of Ireland finds itself. This is, in addition, a proof that we do intend to make some difference in the status of Ireland in this Bill. It has been constantly demanded by Irish representatives. Financial automony, and particularly the control of customs and excise was one of the things they always asked for. At any rate, on these two grounds, that the Irish have asked for it, and because everybody has admitted that it would be an act of trust in Ireland, I support it.
      The next point is, would it do any harm to England? On this question there can be very little controversy. Suppose, by this Amendment, we were unsheathing a sword; then the hilt of the sword would be in the hand of England and its point would be at the heart of Ireland. If there is one thing of which the world is more afraid than the British sword it is the British business man. When the British sword is unsheathed everybody is afraid; when the British £ sterling is thrown into the balance everybody gives up the struggle. Surely the big business men of England are not afraid of a customs war with the agricultural population of Ireland? The thing has only to be stated to see its impossibility. The economic weapons which we can loose against Ireland are so much more deadly than anything the Irish can loose against England that the campaign would be won almost without a battle. At the present moment we are subsidising Irish coal; we are paying a heavy subsidy to Ireland, which produces no coal; we are giving
      2044
      them coal at the cost price at the pit head. If we took away that privilege and made them buy coal in the open market, we could wring far more money out of Ireland than we should stand to lose by any of the adjustments proposed under this Bill. That is merely one example. The financial struggle of Ireland against England would surely be too difficult to be lightly undertaken; and if it were undertaken then experience would be the only thing that could teach the Irish. We have tried to look after the Irish from the island of England long enough. The mere fact that the population of Ireland fell from 8,000,000 to 6,000,000, and again to 4,000,000 shows that however good we have been in looking after their bank balances, we have not been very successful with their homes and cradles. I was astonished to hear the President of the Board of Education, himself a cultured man, neglect the figures of population and quote bank balances. We might have remembered the famous couplet:
      "I ll fares the land, to hastening ills a prey. Where wealth accumulates, and men decay."
      What is the use of coming here and saying that the dividends paid through the Bank of Ireland have been a great deal higher this year than a few years ago? At any rate, will this do any harm to England? No. Will it do any harm to Ireland?
      Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
      Captain ELLIOT: Is the right hon. Baronet then here to plead the cause of the Irish? They must learn by experience, and experience is the only thing by which they will learn. It is said that this discussion has entirely turned on giving the Customs and Excise to South Ireland, and has entirely neglected the difficulty that that would involve to North Ireland. I would ask North Ireland whether, at this moment, owing to the strain that has been set up in Ireland, the economic ties between Ulster and the rest of Ireland are not snapping one by one? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] I only know that in my own home town of Lanark, to our horse fair only last month there came a man who had never been near Scotland for the purchasing of colts before. He had bought his colts at Mullingar, but he said that he would not dare go near Mullingar just now. It is an axiomatic

      2045
      fact that if you have practically a state of war existing between two parts of the country the economic relations will not for ever stand the strain. South and North Ireland cannot, under the present conditions, continue in the easy state of trade in which they have been. Economic conditions are worsening between Ulster and the rest of Ireland, and will continue to worsen unless we come to some arrangement, and in some way gain the goodwill of the moderate men in South Ireland. One of the ways in which we can get these moderate men into the open is by giving over to them power which it will be worth their while to exercise. If the country is governed, as it will be under this Bill, by a nominated Parliament under the Lord Lieutenant, then, surely, if they see that Council exercising real power, such as the control of Customs of Cork and Dublin would give them, the men in the South of Ireland would be much more anxious to get it than if they were asked to pass a vote of thanks to the bountiful and beautiful British Treasury which had given them so much money in the past-There has been so much unreality about the discussion, as though we were not embarking upon this desperate adventure as an attempt to escape from a desperate certainty. We have conditions in Ireland which cannot go on. I am greatly concerned at the fact that we have locked up nearly the whole of our general reserve in little packets in the country, from which we cannot withdraw it except at the risk of seeing the whole country burst violently into flame. There are some things that are difficult to say in the open on the floor of the House of Commons, but can anybody suggest, if grave civil disturbances had broken out in this country, or were yet to break out in this country, on account of some industrial dispute—and there are desperate men in this country who are only too anxious to bring about civil disturbances—that you could withdraw any largo number of the troops from the places where they now are—up and down South Ireland—for any effective use in this country. I ask the Committee to contemplate the danger in which we are, not only in Ireland, but also in England, as a result of the policy which we are at present carrying out in Ireland. I beg them and the Government to see whether it is not possible, on this
      2046
      occasion, to make some concession to the small group who have brought forward this Amendment, and who are inspired, I believe, with a genuine desire for the better government of Ireland. These are men who, in most cases, have a War record which is sufficient to show that they do not desire in any way to weaken the position of Great Britain, either at home or in the councils of the world, and they ask the Government if they cannot, even as a symbol, give us this concession for which we are asking.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILL: My hon. Friend has made a very humorous speech which has covered a very variegated field on the value of the word of an Englishman and other topics, the relevancy of which to Customs and Excise was not exactly conspicuous. Ho said the only thing that was as much feared as the British soldier was the British business men, and he went on from that proposition to infer that the British business man ought not to be scared by a Customs barrier either between Great Britain and Ireland or between the North and South of Ireland. I do not suppose for a moment he would be frightened of anything of the sort, but I would ask him, if the British business man is the formidable creature that he is, what is it that has made him so? If he is the formidable crature that he is it is because he has learnt to conduct his business upon sound principles, and it is because he does conduct his business on sound principles and has made himself formidable by doing so that I believe the great majority of British business men would be unalterably opposed to the proposal to set up a Customs barrier either between different parts of Ireland or between Ireland and Great Britain. This is entirely an economic proposition, and I think we should do well to leave out of account all those irrelevant questions which have been dragged into it. I have one disadvantage perhaps in discussing this matter. I have to speak in this House as a representative not of Irish, but of British taxpayers, and I have to have regard to the interests of British taxpayers. But if I were to go to my constituents, and were to tell them it was a matter in which the British taxpayer was to be generous I should, no doubt, be met by the objection on the part of my constituents, "It is all very

      2047
      well for you to say the British taxpayer—that is us—ought to be generous to Ireland, but unfortunately for you you are an Irishman yourself," and if I regard it, as I am bound to do, from the point of view of those whom I represent, I say this is a matter upon which the very last thing that Irishmen ought to demand is any special generosity at the hands of the British taxpayer.
      I go further. I think it was the Prime Minister who the other day made a speech upon the contrast which would De drawn, and naturally drawn, between the taxation of this country and the taxation in Ireland if complete fiscal autonomy were conceded to Ireland. I am afraid the Irishman is not particularly popular in this country at present, in view of the record of the War, and I do not believe on platforms in this country it would be at all a popular proposition to say, "It is quite true you have to pay Income Tax at 6s. in the £, and that you have to pay enormous duties upon your tobacco, sugar, tea, wine, and beer, but the Irishman, who at all events did not surpass you—I will not put it higher than that—in the record of the War is to be exempt from a very large proportion of his fair share in paying for the debt incurred by the War, and he is to emerge from that period, in virtue of his War record, in a privileged financial position." I do not think for a moment that is a proposition which British taxpayers and their representatives in this House will tolerate for a moment. My hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Bench below the Gangway (Sir Godfrey Collins) put forward a most extraordinary proposition in support of the Amendment. He said, if the Bill as it stands becomes law, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Southern or Northern Ireland would not have as much power as any ordinary mayor of an English city. But does my hon. Friend realise that he would have as much power as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ontario or of New South Wales, or any other of the great component States that make up our Dominions? Can anyone seriously allege that the position which the Parliament In North or South Ireland would occupy is not sufficiently great to attract the allegiance of its people merely on the ground my hon. Friend emphasised, that it is
      2048
      actually not to have greater powers than those great States which for a long time were sovereign Colonies until they were brought into the federation of which they now form part. Therefore, on that aspect of the case I think the advocates of the Amendment have really no ground to stand upon.
      The right hon. Gentleman opposite (General Seely) strongly appealed to the Committee on the ground that these financial proposals, as they now stand, are repugnant to five-sixths of the Irish people. He said although as an economist he was not in favour of the proposals contained in this Amendment, nevertheless he was willing to depart from his economic principles if by doing so he could make the Bill acceptable to these five-sixths of the Irish people. Does he or any other hon. Member seriously imagine that the carriage of this Amendment would alter in the slightest degree the attitude of those five-sixths of the Irish people to this Bill.
      Earl WINTERTON: Then drop the Bill.
      Mr. MCNEILL: That is another proposition.
      Earl WINTERTON: No. it is the same.
      Mr. MCNEILL: That is not at present before the Committee. The proposition we are now debating is the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). On economic grounds, on sentimental grounds, and on grounds of justice to the people of Gt. Britain, as well as Ireland, I hope the Government will persevere in resisting the Amendment.
      Mr. STEWART: I listened to the opening of the Debate by my hon. and gallant Friend with great interest. He stated his case well. He spoke about the depopulation of Ireland and its being in an anæmic condition, owing to having blood squeezed out of it by the British Government. But although Ireland may not have as many people to-day as it had in days gone by, those people are largely in Great Britain, having come here for their own ends, and are deriving very great benefit from the transfer of their labour to this island. There are probably more Irishmen in Glasgow and the neighbourhood than in Belfast, and I am sure in Lancashire there are a great many more than there are in

      2049
      Dublin. Therefore that Ireland should show a little depopulation I think need not be taken too sadly to heart, because the people are here for their own benefit. I thought the Minister for Education had demolished the case altogether. I had to go out of the House for a time, and when I came back I found that everyone who had spoken had spoken in favour of the Amendment. I therefore take the opportunity of asking the Government to resist firmly this Amendment. It is well meant, and I think the Gentlemen over there, who have studied the Home Rule Bill very carefully and honestly, and have done their best to make a good arrangement between Ireland and Great Britain, in this case at any rate are adopting rather an an sound course. I imagine this is still the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Murray Macdonald) drew attention to that fact, and he has been on the Speaker's Committee on Devolution. This proposal would make it cease to be a United Kingdom altogether.
      We might take an example from our enemies. The Germans used to have taxes in all their different States. They stopped that and united into one. In the United States each individual State is a sovereign State, but they do not go in for giving Customs to each individual State. I have seen it stated by those people who particularly affect support of the League of Nations that it would be very much better that a great many of these new States which are being called into existence in the East of Europe should have no Customs barriers between them at all. If that is a fair proposition why should we willingly, and with our eyes wide open, make Customs barriers within the very restricted area of the United Kingdom? My own feeling is that there are elements of danger in such a proposition, and there would be various quarrels between us and Ireland and between the two Parliaments in Ireland, and so on, and little duties put on here and there which would make for friction and create points of discord. In addition to that we may imagine that a whole mass of petty officials created in Ireland would cause a great leakage of public money and would make for patronage and lobbying and all sorts of things, and I think the Government would be well advised not to en-courage anything of that sort. Those who thought that the friendship of Ireland
      2050
      could be bought with money were pursuing a phantom. I think the Irish are extremely well treated financially in this Bill. The British taxpayer, for the defence of the United Empire, has to pay £14 13s. 4d. a head against £4 2s. 6d. or something of the kind in the Home Rule Bill for the Irish taxpayers. They do not like it. They do not realise it for the moment, but when they do they do not like it. It is not fair to our people and to our constituents that we should assent to any alteration in the Home Rule Act whereby the people of Great Britain have to bear this enormous burden. They fought and won the War and now they are paying for it. I think the Government would be well advised, in resisting this proposal.
      Captain COOTE: I rise to try to re-move, if I may, the slur which was cast upon the escutcheon of Coalition Liberals by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot). I support this Amendment as earnestly as I can, and indeed, I took some hope that the Government might perhaps be wavering when I saw the hon Member (Mr. McNeill) come and sit behind the Prime Minister and thence rise to make his speech. I should like to take up one of his points—the economic point. He said this was an economic question. He says we cannot go back to our constituents and ask them to agree that Irishmen should be put economically on a better footing than English and Scotch taxpayers. Has he ever considered, and has the Government considered, what it is costing thorn to collect their revenue to-day? That is the whole point. There is the maintenance of 50,000 soldiers in Ireland and there is the maintenance of an extra special police force. There is a vast payment by way of compensation for the destruction of property. Does that count for nothing, and is it not worth something to infuse a little generosity into a Bill which may have some possible chance of putting an end to that deplorable state of affairs? I should not support this Amendment if I did not believe that it is one of the few remaining chances that we have of putting an end by consent to that state of affairs.
      Let me turn to another argument which has been very frequently advanced and which I do not think has yet been answered, I moan the question whether

      2051
      this Amendment would lead to the establishment of a Customs barrier between Ireland and this country. That, I hope, was sufficiently answered by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot). What I would ask those who oppose the Amendment is to consider the question of the possibility of the establishment of a Customs barrier between the North and South of Ireland. Is it seriously to be considered that that would be a possibility under this Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes! "] If it is a possibility, then if such a Customs barrier is established it would bring the date of Irish union, for which everybody has professed such a longing, very much nearer, because the people in the North and the people in the South would not tolerate such a condition of affairs.
      I should like to refer to a question which I do not think has been touched upon, and that is as to how best we can accelerate the date of Irish union. I believe that the passing of this Amendment is one of the few real means whereby we can accelerate the date of Irish union, and I ask the President of the Board of Education to note that this Amendment is not put forward by those who malignantly, or for some special reason, absent themselves from the discussion on this Bill. It is put forward by those who have consistently shown an earnest and eager desire to further the Government's policy as regards Ireland, and who believe, at least I believe, that the germ of a true settlement is contained in this Bill. That is why I am so distressed and so grieved to see the Government throwing away a chance and a weapon which they have in their own hands. If I did not believe that by refusing this Amendment we are destroying one of the fairest chances which the Government's own plan gives them, I should not be supporting the Amendment. It scorns to me that this Amendment really docs raise in a concrete form the old difference between the Liberal point of view and the Tory point of view with regard to responsible government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am not going to insult any hon. Member who may have Tory traditions, but there is one school of thought which says, "We believe that nobody should be given autonomy or responsibility until they have been educated up to it." There is another school of thought which says, "We do not care
      2052
      upon what stage of political advancement people may be, the best way to make them competent to exercise self-government is to give them responsibility and to make them exercise it and find out by their own mistakes." The latter, I submit, is the Liberal point of view, and that is why I rather resent the slur which was put upon Coalition Liberalism by my hon. and gallant Friend. Surely that is a very valid and concrete difference. What I may call the Liberal point of view has been admirably exemplified by many incidents m history. Let me refer to one which has a direct bearing upon this Amendment. When the British North America Act was passed in 1867, a very few years after very grievous disturbances had taken place in that country, there was a deliberate provision in that Act that British Imperial troops should occupy two ends of the country, and that beyond those, Halifax and Esquimo, there should be complete fiscal and financial autonomy. I am not anxious to put into the hands of any Sinn Feiner or into the hands of the Irish Republican Army authorities any weapon which they can possibly use to the detriment of this country. I am not one of those who believe that they should be allowed to shirk the responsibility which Ireland as a part of this Empire has for the War debt. I submit that there is a better way within the limits of the Government policy whereby these very desirable ends may be achieved, whereby on the one hand we can obtain, with a measure of consent from Ireland herself, an acknowledgement of this responsibility, which you will never get if you go on as you are doing, and, on the other hand, you will be able to do so without in the very least, as it appears to me—and I have heard no argument which has convinced me to the contrary—endangering those permanent bonds between Ireland and this country which I, for one, should be the last to wish to see her destroyed.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have listened to practically the whole of the speeches this afternoon and there has been a good deal of talk about Liberals and Conservatives, Coalition Liberals and Tories, and the rest of it, and it seems to me remarkable that it should be possible in this House as at present constituted to get a party of people under 50 and a party of people over 50. I do not say that a Government

      2053
      of the under fifties would be any better, and I do not say they would be right, but there is a distinct cleavage of opinion between the two sections of thought, and anybody who looks through the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will see what I mean. I want to put one point of view which is rarely touched upon, but which has some bearing in this controversy, and that is as to the whole fiscal future of Ireland. Suppose that the improbable event happens, and that the two Parliaments in Southern and Northern Ireland are set up and that they function. I put this point of view to hon. Members from North East Ulster. You will have in Ulster, very probably, a succession of Radical or Labour governments. Normally speaking, the industrial part of Ulster is one of the most politically advanced and progressive parts of the country. I am leaving out of account the normal political differences and the religious differences. In the South you will have a government resting largely on a majority of small peasant proprietors, and those men are by nature Conservative. Some hon. Members may say that they are reactionary. At any rate they are Conservatives. Farmers all over the world are farmers, and they are mostly Conservatives. When they are smallholders they are more Conservative and when they are Catholics—I say this with all respect to my Catholic friends—they are even more Conservative. You see that in Bavaria, in Hungary and in Russia. In Russia it is the Greek Church. The present proprietors in Russia if only they could be left alone would probably be more Conservative than the peasant proprietors of France.
      You would have this state of affairs in the South and West of Ireland, that there would be Conservative Governments, and the taxation would be conservative. There would be no talk about capital levies, or anything of that sort. In the North you would have, on the other hand, advanced Radical, Labour, or even Socialist Governments; at any rate, very progressive Governments. The Government in the North would attack the vested interests, the great wealthy industries, and you would have the captains of industry, the great shipbuilders, and the great linen spinners, and the great business men generally of the north-east of Ulster drawn politically
      2054
      towards the peasantry and their representatives in the Southern Parliament. That, I believe, will bring about union in Ireland. You will have the peasants in the South naturally anxious, in spite of the Radicalism of the north-east of Ulster, to see unity in Ireland. I believe you would see the great captains of industry in the north-east swallowing union with the Southern Parliament in order to stabilise the Government and, as they hope, to bring about a more conservative fiscal policy. If His Majesty's Government are sincere—I believe the right hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government, although he disappointed so many of us, is sincere—in wishing to see a united Ireland, I commend this view to them. I think it will bring about unity in the long run, and that is to give the fiscal autonomy which this Amendment partly brings about.
      I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) said about the undesirability of putting up economic barriers in regard to the narrower point of view of Customs, and I hope he will bring that view forward in the Cabinet when the Dumping Bill is under discussion. One of the curses in Europe to-day is the fact that the great economic units of the Austrian, German, and Russian Empires have been broken up, and artificial Customs barriers have been set up between the new States. I am not comparing the case too closely because we are not discussing now an independent Ireland, but I am pointing out that this state of things has brought about terrible results in Europe to-day. The Amendment suggests giving power to set up a Customs barrier to the Irish Parliaments. That hangs on the larger question of fiscal autonomy. We do not want to see fresh barriers set up; on the contrary, I want to see them swept away, but I would rather see them cut down as low as possible or swept away by the free consent of the Parliaments, otherwise, if you take away their right to put up these Customs barriers, they will always be wanting to put them up. The fact that Ireland depends so much upon us for coal is an important fact. She also depends upon us for iron. There is a little coal in Ireland, and there is peat which can be exploited much more than it is at the present time, because we have scarcely begun to touch peat commercially, but there is practically no iron in Ireland.
      Major O'NEILL: Ireland exports iron ore to this country.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) is my guide in this matter. The other evening he was justifiably boasting of the great success of the shipbuilding yards in Belfast, and he said that their success was even more remarkable by the fact that the whole of the iron ore had to be imported.
      Mr. MOLES: Steel.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I stand corrected. I am entirely wrong. At any rate, the whole of their steel comes from this country. The fact that Ireland is so economically dependent upon this country is a safeguard against these Customs barriers which it will be most unfortunate to see set up between the two countries. Their not having the liberty to set up such barriers, if they so desired, would have the very effect which we wish to avoid. There is great irritation in Ireland about the export of cattle. I understand that they are not allowed to export directly to the continent. For various reasons their cattle has to come here, and I know from my friends who write to me from Ireland, Protestant farmers from the North East of Ulster, that that is a very real grievance. Those are the sort of things that irritate and embitter relationships, and for that reason I am most disappointed that the Government have not been able to accede to this Amendment. The hon. Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire (Mr. Stewart) said it was no good giving Ireland money; that the more she gets the more she wants. We propose to take £18,000,000 a year from Ireland. I wonder whether hon. Members over read the Irish newspapers. I do not mean the Nationalist organs. Do they ever read the "Irish Times?" Did they read a leading article in the "Irish Times" of the 15th of this month, in which that great Unionist organ, or that one-time Unionist organ, stated that Ireland was divided into two sections—the Republicans and the Dominion Home Rulers. I suppose they know what they are talking about, and if that is the case, what is the use of our making proposals such as have been made from various quarters of this House? We cannot go
      2056
      back to the union with Ireland. We have got to give a measure of self-government, and the more generous it is the safer for this country, and the better its chance of support in Ireland.
      Major BARNES: Two dangers have been apprehended from the acceptance of this Amendment. First, that the Imperial contribution will be imperilled, and, second, the setting up of customs barriers. But these powers are to be given in the first place to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and there is no danger that the Imperial contribution from Northern Ireland will be imperilled. Also, there is no danger, if Northern Ireland gets these powers, that she will set up Customs barriers. The relationship between Northern Ireland and this country is such as to make that impossible. Then, these powers are to be given to the Parliament of Southern Ireland. We know that no Parliament in Southern Ireland is going to be set up except under the conditions prescribed in the Amendment of the First Lord of the Admiralty: There is going to be no Parliament in the South of Ireland composed of Sinn Feiners. It will be a Parliament of moderate men who will take the Oath of Allegiance. There is no reason to fear, with such a Parliament, that the Imperial contribution from Southern Ireland will not be paid or that Customs barriers will be set up. Failing that Parliament, we are to have a nominated Parliament. There is no reason to expect that a Parliament nominated by the Crown would refuse to make an Imperial contribution or would set up Customs barriers. It is evident, therefore, that the granting of Customs and Excise under these Amendments cannot lead to the dangers that have been apprehended. On the other hand, these Amendments offer a great inducement to work the Bill. That is a result for which it is worth while to take a risk, and if as a result of being granted Customs and Excise Southern Ireland is prepared to accept and work the Bill, the gain to the Government and to this country will far outweigh any possible dangers that may arise.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 37.

      Division No. 343.]

      AYES.

      [7.50 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

      Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

      Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

      Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

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

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Neal, Arthur

      Archdale, Edward Mervyn

      Gregory, Holman

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

      Baird, Sir John Lawrence

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Gritten, W. G. Howard

      Nield, Sir Herbert

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

      Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

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

      Barnett, Major R. W.

      Hanna, George Boyle

      Parker, James

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

      Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

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

      Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

      Pearce, Sir William

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

      Haslam, Lewis

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

      Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

      Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

      Perring, William George

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

      Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

      Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

      Betterton, Henry B.

      Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

      Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

      Pratt, John William

      Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

      Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

      Purchase, H. G.

      Breese, Major Charles E.

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

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Brittain, Sir Harry

      Hopkins, John W. W.

      Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

      Britton, G. B.

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

      Broad, Thomas Tucker

      Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Reid, D. D.

      Brown, Captain D. C.

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

      Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

      Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

      Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

      Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Bruton, Sir James

      Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

      Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

      Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

      Insklp, Thomas Walker H.

      Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

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

      Jephcott, A. R.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

      Butcher, Sir John George

      Jodrell, Neville Paul

      Seager, Sir William

      Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

      Johnson, Sir Stanley

      Seddon, J. A.

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

      Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

      Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

      Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

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

      Churchman, Sir Arthur

      Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

      Simm, M. T.

      Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

      King, Captain Henry Douglas

      Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

      Stanier, Captain Sir Seville

      Cohen, Major J. Brunei

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

      Steel, Major S. Strang

      Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

      Stewart, Gershom

      Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

      Lloyd, George Butler

      Sturrock, J. Leng

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

      Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

      Taylor, J.

      Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

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

      Thomas-Stanford, Charles

      Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Lonsdale, James Rolston

      Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

      Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

      Lorden, John William

      Townley, Maximilian G.

      Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

      Loseby, Captain C. E.

      Tryon, Major George Clement

      Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

      Lynn, R. J.

      Whitla, Sir William

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

      Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

      Dixon, Captain Herbert

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

      Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

      Donald, Thompson

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

      Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

      Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

      Wise, Frederick

      Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

      Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

      Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

      Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Mason, Robert

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

      Mitchell, William Lane

      Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

      Ford, Patrick Johnston

      Moles, Thomas

      Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

      Forrest, Walter

      Molson, Major John Elsdale

      Younger, Sir George

      Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

      Fraser, Major Sir Keith

      Morden, Colonel H. Grant

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

      Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

      Gilbert, James Daniel

      Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

      NOES.

      Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

      Hayward, Major Evan

      Rodger, A. K.

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)

      Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

      Bennett, Thomas Jewell

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

      Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

      Birchall, Major J. Dearman

      Hogge, James Myles

      Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

      Briant, Frank

      Holmes, J. Stanley

      Wallace, J.

      Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

      Johnstone, Joseph

      White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

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

      Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

      Entwistle, Major C. F.

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

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

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Newbould, Alfred Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Glanville, Harold James

      Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.

      Lieut.-Colonel Guinness and Earl Winterton.

      Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words, "and excess profits duty."
      This Amendment raises a point which is small in comparison with what we have been discussing, but is still important. The Bill reserves to the Imperial Parliament
      2058
      Excess Profits Duty, and I am going to submit a simple argument why that tax should be conferred on the two Irish Parliaments. The tax falls with very different incidence on the two countries. It is mainly a tax which applies and is intended to apply to industry, and therefore

      2059
      in that view hardly affects Ireland at all. That being so, I do not see why we should go on collecting it. But a further explanation is that agriculture is further excluded from Excess Profits Duty. No doubt you will get a certain amount of duty from the big businesses of the North-East of Ireland, but the vast area of Ireland is entirely free from liability. No farmer pays this tax. The larger part of Ireland is entirely agricultural. Therefore I do not see why you should go to the trouble and expense of collecting a tax that will not bring in a great deal of revenue and will be troublesome to collect. And every single tax which you do collect and bring over here will be regarded in a hostile spirit by the South and West of Ireland.
      8.0 P.M.
      Then the tax is entirely a temporary tax. It is a war tax. It is going to come off in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he needs to substitute another duty, and I do not see why a temporary tax which will be off, I suppose, next year should be included in the reserved taxes and remain part of the financial system. There is a further and a much stronger reason. In the financial provisions of the Government's scheme in March last a sum of £2,000,000 is credited to the two Parliaments of Ireland and it expressly says that the Excess Profits Duty has been excluded from the statement and this £2,000,000 is inserted to represent the Irish yield of whatever permanent tax may take its place. You have not given Ireland credit for Excess Profits Duty. The tax that will take its place is the Corporation Profits Tax, and by an Amendment that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend he expressly includes the Corporation Tax in the reserved taxes. Therefore, you are imposing Excess Profits Duty on Ireland and not giving Ireland the credit for it. I am sure that is a mistake. The only part of Excess Profits Duty that we as a British Exchequer are entitled to is the unpaid balances. As the Committee knows, Excess Profits Duty is not paid in the year for which it is leviable, and there are large unpaid balances. I agree that those ought to form part of what we get. But the Bill goes far beyond that. The share of the Northern and Southern Parliaments of the reserved taxes will not be increased by a single penny of Excess
      2060
      Profits Duty. I am quite sure that that was not intended. Except for the unpaid balances which, on the passing of the Act, are due to the Imperial Exchequer, I appeal to the Government to omit Excess Profits Duty altogether.
      Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS (Minister without Portfolio): I think my hon. and gallant Friend has moved this Amendment under a misapprehension as to the facts regarding Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax. If he will refer to White Paper No. 707, which shows the estimates for the later period, he will find that the reserved taxes, which figure in the revenue statement at £43,336,000, do not include Excess Profits Duty. That figure is made up without taking into account Excess Profits Duty at all. Excess Profits Duty is entirely outside this account, but included in these reserved taxes is the share of Corporation Profits Tax. Excess Profits Duty is treated outside this account as a temporary receipt retained by the Imperial Exchequer for temporary war purposes. It has not been overlooked in any way. The principle has been adopted, rightly or wrongly, of retaining that as Imperial revenue to meet special war expenditure, such as the bread subsidy and other things of that sort which do not appear in the estimate of expenditure. The receipt has been excluded from the revenue side of the account, and the expenditure for which it is allocated has been excluded from the expenditure side of the account.
      Let me deal with the Amendment on its merits. My hon. and gallant Friend asks that Excess Profits Duty should no longer be a reserved tax, and should be passed over to the two Irish Parliaments, and it is said that if they like to levy it they should be entitled to levy it. The tax was put on for the purpose of meeting an Imperial expenditure arising out of the War; it is in the nature of a reserved tax and should any contingency arise which calls for some special taxation, it is there always as a reserved tax. It is not intended as an ordinary peace-time tax, and therefore it is not intended to pass it over to the Parliaments for their ordinary revenue purposes. As a matter of fact it would be extremely difficult for them to deal with it, even if they were entitled to do so. It is levied through the income tax authorities, dealt with for practical purposes on income tax accounts,

      2061
      and if two authorities were concerned, one in dealing with Income Tax and another in dealing with Excess Profits Duty, both intended to be levied on the same basis, you would have one authority coming to one decision with regard to Income Tax, and another authority coming to a different decision upon the same facts with regard to the other tax. You would have such a state of chaos that the taxpayer would be rightly entitled to complain. There is another reason which is not less important from the English taxpayers' point of view. The Excess Profits Duty comes in front of the Income Tax. If the two Parliaments chose to levy the Excess Profits Duty, the Income Tax, which is a reserved tax under the Bill, might be adversely affected. Therefore I am unable to accept the Amendment.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I agree there is a great deal of force in the right hon. Gentleman's contention that the Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax must be levied by the same authority. Obviously it would be most inconvenient to have two lots of officials going over the accounts of companies and individuals. We have put down this Amendment because we hope that the Government will transfer the more important tax, the Income Tax and Super-tax, to the Irish Parliament. The argument that the right hon. Gentleman used is fully realised by us, and it is largely because we feel that the two taxes hang together that we felt it necessary to raise this question. Apart from this fact, I think the Mover of the Amendment is to be congratulated on raising the matter, for it has produced a very interesting bit of information. We imagined that the financial statements that have been published in the form of White Papers disclose the true balance sheet of the future Irish financial position, and that they keep nothing back from the public knowledge. Now, quite by the way, it appears that this matter of £2,000,000 does not appear on either side of the account.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is in the White Paper.
      Major HILLS: Corporation Tax, not Excess Profits Duty.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is in words on page 3. Excess Profits Duty is entirely excluded along with the broad subsidy and any other War services which
      2062
      can be treated as Irish services under the Bill.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It appears in the White Paper, but it is not credited to Ireland with the proceeds of the other reserved taxes after the deduction of the Imperial contribution.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is stated in the White Paper.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Whether stated or not, the point is that, in fact, this £2,000,000 is an addition to the Imperial contribution. I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. We are in a fog about it. We understand that this £2,000,000 is quite apart from the Imperial contribution. It is going to be retained over and above it. Therefore the Imperial contribution is at least £20,000,000. We were told that the Imperial contribution was the amount which Ireland could spare, and, anyhow, we had a great case made by the Government that they were acting very generously. I think it is well that my hon. and gallant Friend should have elicited this information I hope we shall be told whether any other taxes are treated in the same way. I do not know why it should be considered natural, because the Excess Profits Duty is a war tax. After all, most of our taxation is war taxation. The increased Income Tax, increased Customs Duty, and so forth are war taxation. It is very remarkable that the Government have never thought it necessary to explain this matter previously. I think Excess Profits Duty is a most un-suitable duty for a cummunity in the condition in which the Irish arc. It may be a suitable tax for large businesses and great commercial concerns which keep elaborate accounts, but it is a tax which imposes enormous trouble on individuals who are trading on their own account, and it is a tax which rather encourages people who have not a good accountancy system to resort to dishonest methods.
      Amendment negatived.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "duty" ["Excess Profits Duty"], to insert the words "Corporation Profits Tax and any other tax on profits."
      This is really a consequential Amendment, and I hope it will be accepted without any further statement from me now.
      Major HILLS: The country ought to know that we are taking a tax from

      2063
      Ireland for which Ireland has not got credit.
      It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (CONSOLIDATION) RILL [Lords] (By Order).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. A. SHORT: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  The original Bill which gave rise to the creation of the Port of London Authority was before the House in 1908. Its provisions gave rise to serious and severe criticism from all parts of the House. The Bill was justified on one ground, and one ground only, namely, that the time had arrived when if we were to maintain the prosperity of the port, and if its trade and commerce was to be properly developed, some authority should come into existence capable of co-ordinating and consolidating the resources of the port, which at that time were only partially utilised, and thus improve the economic and commercial position of the port. It was contended, and, I think, not without reason, that the trade and, indeed, the development of the port was being stifled, and, shall I say, strangled, because of the cut-throat competition of various dock companies then in existence and operating within the ports. The Act of 1908 brought into being the Authority, upon which were conferred extraordinary powers of monopoly, controlling all shipping interests within the port, and empowered to acquire and carry on existing works, and to construct and equip new undertakings, and, still further, to issue, as they thought fit, licences to the promoters of new undertakings. The only limitation, apparently, which I have been able to discover upon the powers of the Authority is that, in so far as issue of new capital is concerned,
  2064
  the Authority has to come to Parliament to secure authorisation through some power vested in the Board of Trade, and it can only increase its charges by resorting to the same method.
  The Authority is composed of 28 persons, of whom 18 represent and are elected by the trade and commercial interests involved. Despite the great controlling power and influence that this authority has over great public services, I submit that through its general policy it has subordinated public interests to the advantage of the commercial and financial interests involved. When this Bill was before the House in 1908, Sir Hudson Kearley, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, used these words, "We want an authority which will take broad views." Sir Hudson Kearley, now Lord Devonport, became chairman of this Authority. I venture to think there has never existed an authority which has pursued so reactionary a policy and which has been so conservative a body and which has so neglected its opportunities, and has failed to develop the port upon sound lines. In addition to failing to do so, it has declined to assist or to allow others—people with greater foresight—to develop the port. This failure, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate, has led to congestion and confusion inside of the port, which is a menace to our trade and prosperity and is driving trade from the port, and leads in no small measure to the increase in the cost of commodities needed by our people. The authority has consistently opposed the development of modern deep-water wharves. I know we shall hear a great deal regarding the extensions at the Royal Albert Dock, but we are told by exports who study the problem of transport that those extensions will not avoid the congestion that will arise in the future as our commercial prosperity and commerce increase. We are told also that these particular extensions will not increase the trade of the port. In addition, they have opposed the Gravasend Municipal Council erecting and equipping modern deep-water wharf. Further, they have blocked the proposals of the Thames Ocean and Railway Company, who desired to develop deep-sea wharves at Canvey Island with an extensive railway system and with great warehouses and cold and bonded stores. That company was also willing to provide suitable accommodation in the

  2065
  shape of a garden city for those they were going to employ.
  I am not complaining that the authority have taken this power or used the power that the Act of 1908 gives them; I am not challenging the principle of co-ordination and consolidation; I am not challenging the necessity of some authority capable of co-ordinating the resources within the port, but if that power is given to them, it is desirable and essential that they should use that power aright, and if they prevent others, such as a great company, representing large amounts of capital, capable and willing to develop the great commercial interests of the port in a certain neighbourhood, then they must have a case and they must have some real business and commercial reason for so doing, apart from the one which I understand is offered by those who speak on behalf of the authorities. The development of the port below Tilbury is absolutely desirable and essential to ease the congestion. I admit that the congestion at the moment is not so great, but then the trade of the country is not so great owing to unemployment and a certain slump, but it would ease congestion and avoid it in the future, and it would attract trade and would also, I venture to think, retain trade which is being compelled to go elsewhere.
  What is the opposition to the development of the port upon the lines that I have suggested—and I do not think my views regarding the necessity of easing the trade within the river can be challenged—what is the justification for the opposition? We are told by Sir Joseph Broodbank, who until recently was a member of the Port of London Authority, that the authority is responsible for the interest upon some 30,000,000 of money. That is something real, it is important, and it is something that must be considered, and I do not overlook it, but it is not the only consideration which should occupy the minds of those who have been elected or appointed to this Authority. Surely they must take into the consideration the needs of the public, the great vital services that they control and are responsible for, in so far as they affect not merely the commerce of London itself, but, indeed, the commerce of the United Kingdom. I venture to think, with all due respect, that there has been studied
  2066
  indifference to the real needs of the community. These vital services were handed over under the Act of 1908 to this great monopoly. The monopoly has done its work well as a monopoly, because, judging from its balance sheets, it has consolidated profoundly well the financial interests and the trade and commercial interests which it represents. I have no doubt that I shall hear to-night that great improvement has been made, and we shall be told about the millions that this Authority now control, and the great commercial and financial progress made by the Authority since 1908, but if I take the view of Lord Devonport, the chairman of the authority, who pointed out at the outset that the trade and commerce of the Port of London was in a parlous state; if it were in a parlous state in 1908, it would not require much to improve it or to justify the position which will be placed before us, so far as finance is concerned, to-night.
  I may be allowed to turn from the question of the development of the port and the trade and commerce side to deal with the attitude of the Authority to Labour. Under this Act they were not only granted the powers which I have endeavoured to enumerate, but they were empowered to regularise casual labour, to provide houses in connection with their great developments, and to provide accommodation for the workmen. I wonder what the Authority have done, beyond discussing the question and having various meetings with other employers and shipowners, of their own accord, to de-casualise or to regularise casual labour. They have done very little. I think it was in 1911 or 1912 that they submitted at the request, if I remember aright, of the Board of Trade, something in the nature of a scheme providing for the creation of a number of labour exchanges throughout the port, the cost of which would be covered by the Authority and the State, and that is as far as it got. Any action that has been taken arises largely out of the action and the results of Mr. Justice Roche's Commission, which is, after all, the product largely of trade union action, and the demand of the dockers in particular, expressed through their trade unions. This great and vital problem, which was mentioned from that Bench by the present Premier when he was acting as the President of the Board of Trade, which was referred to by Mr.

  2067
  Kearley, and which was also referred to by the present Secretary of State for War when he at a later stage acted as President of the Board of Trade, this provision regarding casual labour was used, as my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) would say, as a little bit of sugar for the bird. Nothing has been done. What obtains now in the port regarding registration and the issuing of tallies is not the outcome of the conduct or the attitude of the Authority, but is largely due to the concerted efforts of the Labour movement through the trade union organisations in this country. As to housing, I must admit that at some place the Authority have provided a number of houses, but they only provided the houses in place of those which they knocked down, and, as far as I am aware, in connection with all their developments going on at the moment, or that have taken place in the past, or that are contemplated in the future, they have, up to the present, despite the great housing problem, failed to use their powers and resources as laid down within the provisions of the Act of 1908.
  The attitude to Labour of this Authority, I regret to say—a great Authority controlling great commercial and other interests on which the prosperity of our people depends—has been antagonistic, and I would say on occasions provocative. With the aid of lawyers, it would appear to me, they have juggled with the rights of transferred persons in connection with their pensions. They have instituted a system of deductions which cannot be justified, and which is resented by those affected, and this Authority, about which I have no doubt we shall hear so much financially, only quite recently offered ex-service men employment at 36s. per week. As a result of trade union action, there was an increase to 40s. a week, and they are now being paid 43s. per week. They have to work a month on probation, and, owing to the traditional indifference—I will not say, in this case, of the Authority itself—but of officials, when the probationary period of a month has been finished, they have still been retained for three months and longer, receiving the same wages that I have enumerated. In these days, after the great War, after so much has been said regarding democracy and democratic sentiment, it may surprise
  2068
  the House to know that, before a clerk can find employment in one of their offices, not necessarily down at the docks, where there is any water, they must, in the first place, be vaccinated and, finally, be able to swim 60 yards, a regulation which is obnoxious, out-of-date, and an insult to the intelligence of men who are compelled to seek employment.
  There would appear to me, judging from my knowledge of the Port, very little to encourage industry. The loyalty of the employés has not only been strained, but in a large measure destroyed, because of the indifferent attitude of the Authority. What is the attitude to labour? How is it explained and how is the failure to develop the Port on proper lines explained? The explanation is to be found in the undemocratic constitution of the Authority itself. We have had 12 years' experience. I am not denying the need for the creation of such a power in 1908 or saying that it does not exist to-day. I believe it docs. I believe in communal power. I believe that in these great vital public services we have got to destroy this cut-throat competition which is menacing commerce and jeopardising in 4many cases the existence of our people. But, having regard to our experiences of the past 12 years, having regard to the narrow and antiquated policy of the Authority, it is time that the constitution was revised, and I think it is time that labour was adequately and effectively represented upon this Authority. I believe that the great local authorities, the Borough Councils, in addition to the London County Council, should be represented upon this Authority. The Borough Councils have expressed their desire for this representation. A number of these Councils, including Poplar, Bermondsey, West Ham, East Ham, and Camberwell, have all made a demand for representation, and desire this Bill to be amended in some form or another to enable them to secure representation upon this Authority. At a meeting called, representing the Borough Councils, a resolution was passed in favour of such representation.
  At present the activities of this Authority make serious inroads within the boundaries of the operations of borough councils. Their activities affect the condition of the roads, and bridges, unemployment, housing and sanitation, and there is little or no control of an

  2069
  effective character, which is absolutely essential in the interests of public health, and there is no voice, apart from the London County Council, which can be raised upon these vital matters affecting the public health of the community at large. Borough councils have no representatives at all. The London County Council are entitled to two only; that is, two from the elected members of the Council. They are responsible for the appointment of two others. Labour is entitled to no representation whatsoever, except by appointment through the London County Council on the one hand and the Board of Trade on the other. The demands of Labour are becoming more and more insistent for some share in the management and control and the shaping of the destinies in these great vital services, and these demands cannot go on much longer unsatisfied. It is labour's right, and whatever may be said regarding these great commercial interests, labour is entitled to be adequately and effectively represented upon an authority which is public in character, public in its functions, and which is controlling these great vital public services. We hear a great deal in these days about disputes. The world is full of tumult and turmoil. I will not say our industrial peace would be entirely maintained, but undoubtedly the relations between captains of industry on the one hand and labour on the other would be improved and consolidated if labour were given some adequate share in a form of representation upon boards of management or upon authorities of this kind. In this connection I venture to quote the opinions of one or two in support of my plea. Lord Devonport, the chairman of this Authority, asked his opinion at the Coal Commission in regard to Labour representation, said:
  "I do not think Labour representation has been detrimental."
  Sir Joseph Broodbank, who has been associated with this authority for very long, in a recent address delivered at the Institute of Transport, said:
  "He would say by all means let official labour have a voice in the management. There were men whose experience in port work not only as labourer, but as clerk and official, would entitle them to sit as colleagues in the Port Council Chamber and advise upon the working and management with the greatest benefit to the port, and he would like to see two or more such men by Statute added to the Board,"
  2070
  I know that this plea of mine for Labour representation will meet with the sympathy and support of many upon the opposite side of the House. But I come now to the dockers' inquiry, the great inquiry presided over by a very eminent and able man, Lord Shaw, an inquiry which was wide and sweeping in its character, and which took note of almost every phrase of industrial life within dock-land. What is the considered judgment of Lord Shaw's Committee? It is this:
  "It appears to the Court manifest that the Labour situation might be ameliorated and the conditions of labour might undergo advantageous reform, and loss of output might be avoided if the direct representation bore recommended in principle were introduced."
  I have attempted in the course of my speech to demonstrate, first of all that the authority which fails to develop the port upon which I conceive, and what experts conceive, to be the right and proper line, and unless there is a departure from the present method of development, this port, the great shipping trade is likely to leave the port, as, indeed, it has done, and the prosperity of the port will suffer. With the prosperity of the port suffering the commerce and trade of our country suffer. I have tried to demonstrate, I think fairly, without using extravagant language or resorting to extravagant arguments, the unsympathetic attitude of the authority to labour, not only to the manual but also to the non-manual labourer. I have demonstrated still further that all this is duo largely to the fact that the constitution of the authority provides for the representation of trade and commercial interests to the tune of eighteen elected persons, whilst the remaining ten are more or less appointed. I think great improvement could be made. I hope that in the course of my speech? have convinced those, few though they may be who have listened to me, that there is a case to be made out for a reconstitution of this authority, and if the authority is reconstituted, there must be adequate provision made for labour, manual and non-manual to be represented there.
  This is an opportunity, and a unique one, for this House and the Government to put into operation some of the sentiments they have expressed, and to give

  2071
  them tangibility. We talk a great deal about the necessity for increased output, and for better relations between employer and employed. Here is an opportunity to try to do something to give labour fair and square representation upon the authority governing not purely trade interests, for it is a great public service. Further, it gives the House the opportunity of also making provision for the representation on a wider and more generous basis of the great borough councils and authorities within the London area. I hope as a result of the Motion that we shall receive something tangible from the representative of the Government.
  Mr. WIGNALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The matter has been put before us admirably by the Mover of it. I am not going to attack the Port of London Authority on the aspect presented by the hon. Member as to their inability or unwillingness to develop the port in the best interests of the community. The probability is that with their expert advice and knowledge they possibly have acted in what they considered the best interests and the greatest advantage of the trading community. I do not pretend to be an expert as to the defects or otherwise of the Port of London Authority in carrying out the functions and duties devolving upon the Authority. I do want, however, to emphasis this, that it has not been sympathetic, so far as my knowledge goes—and it extends for a very large number of years—from the labour point of view; it has never shown that sympathetic attitude towards labour that you might have expected. I say that in the experience and knowledge I have gained in a period of over 30 years dealing with dock workers all over the country, I have never known a more brutal condition of affairs existing in any port of this country, or in any other country that I have had the opportunity and privilege of travelling in, as I have seen in and around and about the docks of London. I charge them here to-night, with all the emphasis I can put into it, with the brutal conditions of employment that have existed for the labourers and dock-workers in and round and about the London docks. They are a disgrace
  2072
  to civilisation. It is a serious charge that I am making against the Authority, that they have never in my experience and knowledge made a serious attempt to tackle the problem and to relieve and improve the conditions that have existed.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: In what way is it brutal?
  Mr. WIGNALL: If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument, I will try to prove that if he is responsible for this state of things in any way it is no credit to him. Since the docks inquiry, presided over by Lord Shaw, there has been an attempt to tackle the problem, not brought about by any action on the part of the Port of London Authority or through any desire on the part of those responsible, but simply because the revelations of that court of inquiry were of such a terrible character that they were bound to co-operate in conjunction with the labour organisations to improve and bring about a better condition of affairs. I want to give them credit for the latter day attempt which has not yet developed, because there has scarcely been sufficient time. The Port of London Authority did not go into this matter very readily. They had to do it in conjunction with others, and I sincerely trust that the outcome will be a better condition all round.
  9.0 P.M.
  My charge against the Port of London Authority is since it has been in existence it has been absolutely indifferent to the welfare of the workers. The most abject thing that human eyes can look upon is to be seen outside some of the London Docks at taking-on time, where you see men struggling for half-a-day's work. I have stood in the crowds where thousands of them have been asking for a job, and when the tallies have been given out I have seen a brutal man, with about eight or nine tallies left, throw them among the crowd, and then I have seen the men fighting like mad dogs for a bone and struggling to get hold of one of those tallies to give him the right to a few hours' work. Is that a credit to our civilisation? If it was done in the ignorance of the powers that be they could not be blamed, but this matter has been brought continually to the notice of the Port Authority, and it suits them to have a big reservoir of unemployed to flock to

  2073
  the dock gates to be taken on once or twice a day. This condition of things is brutalising and dehumanising, and it ought not to continue for a single hour more. You cannot wonder at the drastic statements contained in Lord Shaw's Report, not only in regard to the Port of London, but more particularly that port because it is the worst of a bad lot. The attitude of this authority to labour organisations has always been oppressive and cruel. Time after time they have attempted to smash trade unions, and they have succeeded, but those unions have been revived and have become stronger. During all my experience, up to the time of Lord Shaw's Report, the Port Authority of London stands condemned for allowing the continuance of a system which is brutalising and dehumanising, as well as discreditable to everybody connected with it. That is my view of the conditions prevailing in and around our dock gates.
  This casual labour element is a very serious problem and while there is considerable unemployment it must, of course, increase, because every failure in life, as a last resort, will flock to the dock gates. There you see all sorts and conditions of men, even politicians who have been failures find a resting place at the dock gates. The very system itself encourages it, and it is allowed to continue without the authorities making any attempt to alter it, and this is why they stand condemned. When the powers were first given to the Port Authority of London there was a great agitation for a fuller and better representation of labour and there was a great deal of opposition to it. The wharfingers had one representative, the Admiralty one, the Ministry of Transport two, the London County Council two, the City of London one, Trinity House one. The commercial interests have 18 representatives on the Authority, Government Departments four, the Local Government Authorities have six; and Labour has only two, and that is not direct representation because one of them is nominated, and subject to confirmation by the London County Council and the other is nominated after consultation with the various trade unions, and is subject now, I suppose, to confirmation by the Minister of Transport. These two Labour representatives are appointed in this way! So far as it has been possible
  2074
  for two men to render good service, these two representatives have done so, and my complaint is that there are not more of the same sort on the Authority. I believe if we had allocated to labour 10 out of the 28 representatives of various interests very much good would result from it. In that Report of Lord Shaw there is a very striking paragraph, and, lest it should have missed the notice of some hon. Members I propose to read ii, because it is very pregnant to the case we are putting forward. It is paragraph 27 which deals with the representation of labour on the Authority, and it is to this effect:
  "There is, and it is a serious matter to a port authority where employers are engaged in daily contact with enormous bodies of men, a system to which they cannot be blind, under which the fringe of unemployment is great and under-employment is greater. In the opinion of the Court the organisation of all the ports in the Kingdom would be strengthened by the admission of or increase in the direct representation of labour on the governing body. It appears to the Court manifest that the labour situation might be ameliorated, that the conditions of labour might undergo advantageous reform, and loss of output might be avoided if the direct representation here recommended in principle were introduced. The extent and manner of such representation would be for the National Council to determine."
  That is the finding of a Court of Inquiry into dock conditions. It is a most emphatic declaration of the policy which we for years have advocated, and it will stand for ever in the history of the nation as a direct condemnation of the old order of things and desire bring in the workers. All interests are represented. Labour is not. What would the docks be without this human element? That is the mighty living machine that makes it possible for your docks to become remunerative and profitable to the undertakers. Yet all interests are fully represented with the exception of labour! The worker is the wealth producer, the mainspring of activity, and without him we can do nothing. This is, your opportunity to give fuller and better representation to the labour element in your constitution. What is being done even to-day? Lord Shaw's Report states that the claim of the men should be met. I have here a large number of letters to which I would like to draw attention. An order has been issued for the discharge of all men over 65 years of age.
  I know the authority in doing that is acting strictly within its legal right. We

  2075
  have given them a superannuation allowance of 5s. per week. They could get that in 1914, but the authority has not taken into consideration the increased cost of living and the terrible expenses to which people are subjected to-day. No matter whether a man of 65 is fit, strong and healthy, no matter whether he is capable of performing his duty to the satisfaction of the manager of his department, he now has to go. There are hundreds of them who are being dismissed to-day. They are being thrown on the scrap-heap with a paltry allowance of 5s per week. It may be suggested that I have no right to introduce this question, because there is power vested in the authority to compulsorily retire men at 6.5, but my contention is that if they exercise that power they ought to make more adequate provision for the men so retired. The men who have made your docks a success, who have given you the wealth you possess are at least entitled to more than a paltry sum of. 5s. weekly. We cannot undo what has been done, but I can expose the brutal conditions that exist at the present time, and I hope the Port of London Authority, or rather the 26 members of it—there are, I know, 28 members, but two of them are prepared to do all they can in the interests of labour, although their votes are easily overwhelmed by those of the majority, however conclusive their arguments may be—I hope that the Port of London Authority, as constituted to-day, will realise that they have a duty to perform to the people they employ and we trust that the outcome of this Debate will be to bring about better conditions for labour inside and outside the dock gates, and especially for those who, having given 40 years of their lives to the service of the port authority, are now being compulsorily retired with a paltry allowance of 5s. weekly.
  Mr. GILBERT: We have heard from the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment a good deal about the bad qualities of the Port of London Authority, and I hope the House will bear with mc for a few moments while I endeavour to explain some of their qualities which I think deserve to be recognised. The Mover of the Amendment made several statements regarding the Port Authority. He said, in the first place, that we had failed to develop the port. Surely, the hon. Member must know better than that.
  2076
  We have, since the Port Authority has been in existence, spent up to the present time, in works completed and under construction, more than £6,290,000. Without giving the House details, I think it is sufficient to state the amount which has been spent on the various docks and undertakings of the Authority to afford a complete answer to the Mover of the Resolution, who declared that we have taken no steps to develop the port. Then he went on to state that there was congestion inside the port, although it is true a few sentences later he admitted there was none at the present moment. It is quite correct that last year, immediately after the cessation of hostilities, there was a good deal of congestion, not only in London, but in other ports, owing to the goods which had been held up by the submarine menace being dumped into all the ports of the country immediately the War had ended. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment knows that to-day there is no congestion in the port. As far as the Port of London Authority is concerned, we have taken every possible step, and our organisation has proved, I think, that we have been successful by the speedy way in which we are able to deal with shipping. The hon. Member stated, further, that we were driving trade from the port, but I should like to point out to the House that he gave not a single instance of what trade was being driven from the port by the action of the Authority. He simply made this bald statement in order, I take it, to prejudice the Port of London Authority. He went on to make a point about deep-water wharves, and he said that we were opposed to them and had done nothing to develop that side of the River Thames. Anyone who is connected with the River Thames, and knows the details with regard to it, knows that the question of providing deep-water wharves is one which is open to a great deal of argument. The Thames is a very strong tidal river, and the question has been debated by experts whether a deep-water jetty is the proper method of dealing with cargo and ships. In order to test the case, we have constructed at Tilbury a two-storey deep-water jetty, which is now nearly ready for use. Its length in the river is 1,000 feet, and it is equipped with modern appliances for the rapid discharge of vessels into railway trucks, barges, or covered stores.

  2077
  The hon. Member went on to make a charge that the Port of London Authority had stopped the Gravesend deep-water wharf. If, however, he had followed the matter, he would know perfectly well that there was an appeal to the Board of Trade in that case, and that the Board of Trade refused the Gravesend people the power to go on with their scheme for a deep-water wharf. The hon. Member made a further attack in regard to what is called the Canvey Island scheme, but he should also know that in that case the Bill was turned down by the other House on the financial clauses. Any hon. Member who is interested, and who will read the financial evidence regarding the company that wished to put down deep-water wharves on Canvey Island, will, I think, be quite satisfied that the decision of the other House was right.
  Statements were made that the Port of London Authority was simply trying to study and strengthen financial interests. From statements of that kind one would think that the Port of London Authority was a great capitalistic undertaking, working entirely for profit, and that this profit was to be as high as possible and was to be divided amongst the particular capitalists or trade interests connected with the port. The hon. Member knows that that is quite wrong. The Port of London Authority simply work for the interest on the dock stock which was handed over to them when the Authority was established. There is no question of their working for any financial or trade interests at all. The only profit that they make is out of their dues and charges, the first charge upon which is the interest on the dock stock. The rest of the money is devoted to improvements and further development of the port. Then we heard a great deal about the present constitution of the Port Authority. I am not an original member of the Port of London Authority, but I am a Londoner who took a very great deal of interest, as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think, know, in the formation of this Port Authority in London. A good many of us who were interested, and who agitated for a good many years for the establishment of a Port Authority in London, were not in favour of the constitution under which the Authority was set up in 1908. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Member
  2078
  who moved this Amendment does not know the difficulties with which those of us who wanted to improve the port had to contend before 1908. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Ham docs know the difficulties, and knows that it is quite fair to say that the Bill which established the Port of London Authority was a compromise, which tried to represent all the interests in the port.
  I think that my hon. Friends on the other side who denounced the Port of London Authority do not realise that, although it was only established in 1908, it took over a great many old undertakings, and there was a great deal of difficulty owing to the geographical position of the docks in London. They are not together, and we have a great deal of difficulty in improving them and bringing them up to date. Anyone who is discussing the question of the Port of London must look at it from that point of view. If we had had a virgin river, and were going to establish docks and a port authority there to-day, it would be done on quite different lines from those of the existing Port of London Authority. We had to take things as we found them, and that has added very considerably to our difficulties in regard to many improvements.
  On the labour question, may I quote to the House a few figures which, I think, will show that at any rate we have done something since we have been in existence in order to improve matters in the Port of London. In 1910, which was the Port of London Authority's first year, the rate of pay of dock labourers was 6d. per hour. In 1914 it was 7d,; to-day it is 2s. The average number of men employed by the Port of London Authority per day in 1910 was 15,043, and the wages paid per week to those men were £15,884. In 1914 we employed 18,148 men on the average per day, and the wages paid per week were £21,889. In the present year, 1920, the average number of men employed per day is 20,399, and the wages per week are £75,437. With regard to the trade of the port, I can give the House figures which will show that at any rate we have done something to keep trade in London. The imports and exports in the first year of the Port of London Authority, 1910, amounted to £360,390,903. In 1914 they were £396,190,333. Last year, 1919, they were £819,875,330.

  2079
  It was said that we had done nothing to deal with the question of casual labour, but that statement, again, is not correct. Since we have been established we have made a permanent weekly staff. Originally it consisted of 3,000 men, and that number has been gradually increased until, at the present time, there are 4,025 men on the permanent weekly list. In addition to that we provide to-day for a minimum wage, for overtime payment, six days' annual leave, and a retiring allowance after long and meritorious service. We have put up and maintained our own canteen at the docks, in order that the men working there may obtain cheap and well-cooked food; while, as was stated in the Report of Lord Shaw's Commission, a 44-hour week was granted during last year.
  Mr. WIGNALL: Will the hon. Member tell us what is the number of casual men employed, as distinguished from the 4,000 of the A and B classes?
  Mr. GILBERT: I think I gave that figure just now.
  Mr. WIGNALL: I did not catch it.
  Mr. GILBERT: I gave you the average number per day as being employed at three periods—1910, 1914 and 1920. The average number to-day is 20,399. The statement was made that we had done nothing to deal with casual labour. My answer is that we have done something, and nobody knows better than the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean the extreme difficulty of dealing with the casual labour question not only in London but in any other port. In the Debate that has taken place a good deal has been mentioned about Lord Shaw's Commission. Listening to the statements by the mover and seconder of the Amendment one would have thought that the Port of London were opposed to Lord Shaw's Commission, that since the result that they had done nothing to carry out the findings, and that, in fact, they were trying to oppose it. We were parties to the Lord Shaw Commission. We have loyally carried out the findings of the Commission so far as we have been able to at the present time. Both the mover and seconder of the Amendment know that certain recommendations of the Commission are at present under the consideration of a joint Conference of employers and employees,
  2080
  and until that Conference comes to a decision it is quite impossible for the Port of London Authority to act, because Lord Shaw's Commission not only dealt with London but with the port and dock authorities all over the country.
  Coming back to the Bill, my hon. Friend on the other side put up the case that there should be a different form of representation. My case respectfully is that this is a Consolidation Bill. It unifies and brings into consolidation forty-nine Acts of Parliament, which go back as far as 1777. I suggest to the House that it is not a type of Bill upon which the question of the representation of the Authority should be brought forward. When my hon. Friends denounced the present constitution of the Port Authority I did not hear either of them suggest any practical form that the new Authority should take. If they want to alter the form of the Authority they must necessarily give notice to all the interests and all the people at present represented on it, so that, after consideration, they may put up their case if the question of the alteration of the Authority is to be dealt with. In 1908 we took over the undertakings of several London dock companies. These people had various Acts of Parliament, and it has always been the complaints of the Law Courts and Parliamentary Committees that our Acts of Parliament were so scattered and difficult to find. The object of this Bill is to consolidate those Acts and put them into a simple and readable form for the Law Courts and the Parliamentary Committees. In view of this, I hope the House will see its way to give it a Second Beading. The other point which I understand hon. Members on the other side wish to object to, namely, the question of bridges in connection with the opening of lock gates at some of our docks is a Committee matter. The other House had cases from some of the petitioners in front of them, and they gave the Bermondsey Borough Council a clause which, I believe, is quite satisfactory, because that Council are not petitioning in this House. I hope I have been able to prove that the Port of London Authority is not nearly as bad as the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have tried to make out. I hope the House will grant the Second Reading, and will allow the Bill to go upstairs to a Committee, where the

  2081
  petitioners against the Bill could be heard. I am quite certain, if they put up a reasonable case, as they did in the House of Lords Committee, they will not find the Port of London Authority at all unreasonable.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I hope the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill will pardon me if I do not follow them through the very eloquent and very general speeches which they delivered on this particular matter, because the issue before the House to-night lies in a very small compass. It is simply whether the House is now to give a Second Reading to what is, in fact, a purely Consolidation Bill which has come down from another place. Very strong reasons would be required for the House not to adopt that course. As the hon. Member for Southwark has said, this Bill is, in substance, a Consolidation Bill. It is a very useful, a very businesslike Bill. It contains an enormous number of Acts under which the Port of London Authority is being operated, and it collects them into a very serviceable document, in which everyone can find what he wants relating to that Authority. The only points in which it is not purely a Consolidation Bill are the proposed transfer from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Transport of certain functions consequent on the passing of the Ministry of Transport Act. There is also a small point about the length of time for which certain bridges are to be kept open. The gravamen of the charge made by the hon. Members who proposed and seconded the rejection of the Bill was that the constitution of the Port of London Authority was wrong and that Labour ought to be more largely represented. I do not propose to go into that question at all, and I submit it is not a matter which, on this Bill, the House ought really to consider. What the promoters of the Bill have done is what they were perfectly right in doing. They have taken the constitution of the Port of London Authority as they find' it in the Port of London Authority Act of 1908, which is a general and not a private Act of Parliament; they have taken out that constitution and compiled it word for word, as they were bound to do, in the Consolidation Bill now before the House. I think the hon. Member for Southwark was
  2082
  perfectly right when he said that if there were any question challenging the constitution of that body, the proper method would be to challenge it in a Bill designed for that purpose, and to give notice to all the various interests now represented, which would then have an opportunity of answering. My hon. Friend has made a very eloquent speech. He told the Port of London Authority certain things which the two small Amendments that are being made on this Bill gave him a good opportunity of saying, but which possibly, under the Standing Orders, he would not otherwise have had the chance of saying. We have had some very interesting figures given us about the work of the Port of London Authority, and I hope the House will now proceed to give a Second Beading to what is simply and solely a Consolidation Bill. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. A. Short), in a very eloquent speech, hoped for the prosperity of the Port of London. So do we all; but its prosperity will not in any way be affected by consolidating 49 existing Acts into one single Act. There may, of course, be differences of opinion as to whether the work ought to be undertaken at one time or another. There will always be differences on that, but really that is no reason for not passing a Consolidation Act, and I hope the House will give it a Second Heading.
  Mr. J. JONES: My only reason for taking part in this discussion is that I represent one of the riverside constituencies to a large extent interested in the passing of measures of this character, and although I can agree to a largo extent as to the good work which has been done by the Port of London Authority, I am still compelled to associate myself with the Amendment on behalf of a constituency mainly composed of the class of men who come under the control of the Authority. One of the principal complaints we have to make against the Authority is that whilst efforts have been made to improve the river and dock accommodation, nothing has been done to improve the means of communication to and from the docks and that the roads and bridges in the immediate neighbourhood I represent are becoming more and more congested as the days go by, and the more you improve the accommodation of the docks and the river the more you are increasing the congestion on the roads and bridges in the immediate neighbourhood of the

  2083
  docks. Consequently we find ourselves in this position that although it is a recognised fact that this congestion is increasing, we have the Authority asking in this Bill for the right to increase the amount of time that they are allowed to keep the dock gates open and so add to the very congestion we complain of. Therefore, as a representative of one of the local authorities—I am a member of a local authority as well as of the House—we object to any extension of the time, which means that all the factories upon the riverside—and the manufacturers are as much interested in this as the workmen—strongly complain about the claim of the Authority to be allowed the opportunity of opening the swing bridges in the dock area and so adding to the congestion that is already so great. We, living in these poorer neighbouhoods, are not in a position to make any road improvements ourselves. Our rates are very high and our people are very poor. Consequently we are not in a position to make any great changes. We have not the same powers that a great authority has got and I hope when the proper time arrives we may get such an Amendment carried as will at least not add to the congestion, but will try to the largest possible extent to minimise it
  Another question in which we are interested is the matter of direct representation of labour on the Port Authority. It is very good and interesting to have the figures given us by the hon. Member (Mr. Gilbert). They show a progressive rate of development which we are all pleased to be able to see. But the point we have tried to stress more than anything is the relationship of casual labour to that progressive development—the number of men who turn up at the docks day by day and are disappointed and for whom no provision is made. At least we might say the Port of London Authority has never demonstrated its capacity or desire to solve this pressing problem of casual labour in the dock districts. I might say more. An hon. Member has boasted of the fact that the Authority is paying more wages than it paid in 1910, but he did not tell us that the Authority was strongly opposed to paying those increases. I am not blaming him as a member of the Authority. I do not think he leans in that direction. He knows that the Minister of Transport or the
  2084
  Ministry of Munitions during the course of the War threatened to proclaim the Port and they did proclaim the Port because it refused to carry out the award of a Government Court appointed under the Munitions of War Act. So I hope he will never boast of the virtues of the Port of London Authority in the matter of paying wages. If the key to Paradise is the paying of a good rate of wages, the Port of London Authority will never have a front seat in Heaven.
  In the matter of representation we do not in the East London district take a narrow view. When we ask for representation for the riverside constituencies, for the borough councils in various parts of London, the argument against us is that we are asking for it on parochial grounds and that we look at things from the standpoint of West Ham, Stepney, Poplar or any other of the localities along the riverside. The same would apply to the southern side of the river as well as the northern. We have no such idea. We claim that the lives of our people are more directly connected with the river than some of the people who sit upon the authority now. Their interests are purely impersonal and, to a large extent, financial. Ours means the very existence of our people. The lives of the people in West Ham, Poplar, Stepney and on the southern and northern sides of the river round the riverside are bound up with the success, the development and the prosperity of the trade of the river, and we are not going to take the parochial view of looking at it from the West Ham or Stepney point of view. We want to look at it from the standpoint of how much the development of the river is going to make for the prosperity of the whole community, of which we only form a part, and therefore we ask not for representation upon the narrow parochial ground of each in dividual borough council, but from the standpoint of the fact that the people's lives are directly connected with the prosperity of the river, and we want to see that prosperity and development from the standpoint of the people who have to live by the riverside.
  As regards labour representation there are reputed to be about 75,000 men who depend upon the Port of London for their livelihood. These are men directly connected with transport. I am not going to belittle the interests which may be represented by wharfingers or dock

  2085
  shareholders, and by all the gentlemen end ladies who may be interested as personal shareholders in the property in and around the docks, but surely no one will suggest that the interest of ladies or gentlemen who may live at Brighton, Eastbourne, Folkestone, Worthing, Hastings or any of the other seaside towns, and have their money invested in the Port of London, is more vital and more direct than the 75,000 men whose wives and families and dependants have to depend upon the success of the transport trade of London.
  I know technically we may be told, as we have already been told by the Government representatives, that this is a Consolidation Bill, and that if we want to do certain things we must do them in a certain way. You know as well as we do that a private Member's Bill stands a poor chance. But the Government representative ought to be able to tell us some-thing of what the Government think of the situation, and not about whether we ought to do certain things in a certain technical way. We know how we stand. We know what little power we have. A private Member's Bill is just like trying to shave a bald head. Consequently we can only raise our objections when we get the opportunity, and the opportunity is now presented, and we are doing our best, in our limited capacity, to put the case so far as we understand it. We are asking, seeing that labour is so important, that it should have a more direct representation. We have had Gentlemen who are Members of this House, but who do not belong to our section, and other gentlemen outside, who are not Members of this House, but who have great influence on industrial and social questions, pleading yesterday for what they called not merely co-partnership in industry so far as sharing profits are concerned, but also making a very strong plea for the sharing of control and a voice in the management and administration; interests which labour must necessarily take in connection with industry and its control and general development.
  Even if we cannot under this Bill introduce Amendments which would be technically right, surely we have the right to ask the Government to recognise the change which has come over the industrial
  2086
  situation since 1908. We might ask them to recognise that we are dealing now with the most important maritime port in the world, and we have a Bill introduced dealing with a set of circumstances in the Port of London Act of 1908. In that, labour is not allowed representation of its own right. Labour has no right to representation on the Port of London Authority as a matter of right. The County Council and the Board of Trade have certain rights laid down under the Act. The County Council has the right to nominate two men, who may represent labour, but what labour is claiming and what the trade unions are claiming—and you cannot ignore trade unions to-day—is that they should have representation of their own right. We claim direct representation, and not that we should have indirect representation upon the Port of London Authority. The numbers may be a matter for argument, but the principle cannot be argued down. We assert our right in justice to direct representation. If the impersonal capital, the money which the individual may risk in the conduct of business, claims the right of representation and receives such, surely the personal capital, the capital of the man who goes to work in the dock and whose capital is his human labour power which he puts into industry, has just as much right to representation, because his capital is as important in the industrial development of the port as any form of impersonal capital which is represented by money. That being the case, we have a strong claim in the matter of representation. We have two men on the Port of London Authority who are there by consent. Those men are doing their best, and, I believe, have done good work on the authority. They have not proved themselves to be less efficient from the business point of view than others who may differ from them on various questions.
  We also base our objections to this Bill from the standpoint of the local authority and from the fact that a good many members of the Port of London Authority are riverside men; that is, they may know a great deal about the docks and the river and the technical machinery in connection with transport so far as ships and railways are concerned, but they know very little of the actual circumstances of the people living on the dockside, or of the means of transport.

  2087
  It is no good improving your docks or the machinery of transport from the waterside if the roads to the docks and the means of communication by land to the docks are not what they ought to be. That is the foundation of one of the claims we are making for local representation, because we claim that we know our own districts better than anybody else who may happen not to live in them. My own constituency is one of the most important industrial parts of the East End of London, and it is to a large extent a bottle-neck district. The road transport is very congested and very inconvenient, and we want to bring about improvement; but we can only get those improvements when we have an understanding with those in authority, and we very regret that up to the present time there has been no such understanding. If there had been an understanding there would not have been in this Bill a Clause providing for an extension of time for the keeping open of bridges and lock-gates. If the Government can give us no hope in regard to this Bill in the matter of increased representation, we hope that they will reconsider the situation. Although we are proud of what has been done in London since the Port of London Authority Act was passed, and since consolidation took place, we want to see still greater developments; but that development can only come about when labour is treated as a partner in reality and not as a kind of poor relation. That is how we are treated to-day. I support the Amendment in the hope that we shall get the promoters of the Bill to do something more definite in the shape of giving labour greater consideration, and that they will be prepared to deal with the other points of objection which we have raised.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I was a member of the Port of London Authority for eight or nine years, from the commencement. I am no longer connected with it, having resigned, but I have great pleasure in testifying to the fact that the two Labour members on that body during the years I was a member were very useful members, and I should be very pleased in another Bill to see the number of Labour members increased. When that is done I hope the opportunity will be taken to reconsider the original plan for the appointment of so many members I
  2088
  believe that the Port of London Authority has done magnificent work since it was formed, but the time has now probably arrived when the number of nominated members, which is very large, might be reduced. When that question is reconsidered, the number of elected members should be largely increased, and I hope that provision will then be made for increasing the number of Labour members and doing away with the nominated members. The Mover of the Amendment, in a very eloquent speech, made many statements against the Port of London Authority, and said it was reactionary. I have had a great deal to do with the port of London and other ports, and I claim that, notwithstanding the War, the record of work that has been done in London during the last 12 years will compare very favourably with what has been done in any other port in the world. The Port of London Authority have the same difficulty as every other public authority to-day, and that is the difficulty of raising money at a reasonable cost. If they can get over that difficulty, I hope that within the next few years we may see not only the present works that are under construction completed, but that they will get on with the other great new dock, which will be badly wanted long before it is completed. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) accused the Authority of having driven away trade from the port. I think that he was speaking without accurate knowledge, because, whatever the faults of the Port Authority may be, they have certainly done their level best to increase the trade of London. One of the great difficulties of the Port of London Authority, and of every port authority throughout the country, is the question of casual labour. Some years ago, as the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) knows so well, a great effort was made by the shipowners of Liverpool, in which I took part, to do away with casual labour in Liverpool. I regret to say that that bona fide effort which was made did not have the satisfactory results expected by some of those who advocated it, and I do not think that those efforts made eight years ago were so successful that they would be good to copy in the Port of London.
  Mr. SEXTON: They would.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir O. PHILIPPS: I agree with hon. Members opposite that the present

  2089
  position of casual labour in London is a serious difficulty that ought to be faced, but after my personal experience of the Port of Liverpool it is useless to shut our eyes to the fact that it is a very difficult problem to solve. Personally, I should be only too pleased if a solution can be found. I was pleased to notice that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) appreciates the good work that has been done by the Port of London Authority. I agree with him in his view that the roads to and from the docks leave much to be desired. The amount of time lost to trade and commerce, and to everybody connected with shipping, owing to the great majority of the roads to the docks being inadequate for the present traffic upon them, is also a very difficult problem. It might have been easy in pre-War days to widen many of these roads. To face widening at present would involve a cost which even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would hesitate to face, and the work can only be done by degrees. I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill. It has taken a very long time to prepare, and it will be of great use to everyone who has to do with the docks to know what the law is. If, later on, the whole question of the constitution and the form of election of the Port Authority comes up for consideration, as I hope will be the case in the next few years, I, for one, will be pleased if there are more Labour representatives.
  Mr. SEXTON: I am not going to attempt to discount the good work done by the Port of London Authority. I am not directly connected with the London docks, but, being a representative of the same industry in another part of the Kingdom, I have been more or less associated with the conditions of casual labour ever since I was able to do any manual work. I look back to the position in the London docks previous to the existence of the Port of London Authority and the horrible, chaotic condition of the numerous dock owners and dock companies that then existed, and I want to pay my grateful tribute to the heroic work that the Port of London Authority has done from a commercial standpoint. But we want to look beyond a commercial standpoint, The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) spoke of the
  2090
  enormous amount of money spent on improving the London docks. I recognise that and value it. He also spoke of the fact that this was a Consolidation Bill, and therefore this was not the time to deal with any other question but consolidation. A representative of the Government used the same argument. I respectfully ask, when is the time? The only time we can take is when these authorities come to this House, asking for power and privilege, and we use our position to make a bargain with them when they present a Bill to this House. That is what they are doing now.
  We want to see the dock estate improved. We want to help thorn to improve the docks. We want to see a perfect system of docks in London, Liverpool and every part of the United Kingdom, but we say, "If you come here and ask this House to legislate on these docks, and we are shut out from participation in cither improvement or administration or arranging the conditions, this is the only time when, and this is the only place where, we can make our bargain, and we are going to do our best to do it." I would remind the hon. Member for Southwark that during the War I sat with him on the Port Transit Committee under the auspices and control of the Shipping Controller. I want to pay this tribute to him—that he was a very valuable member of that Committee, with his expert knowledge, but I would call his attention to this fact, that during the War the Labour representation on that Transit Committee in London was equal to that of the Port of London Authority and all the other representation on that Committee. In every other port in the country the representative of labour was equal to the employers. Will any hon. Member deny the value of the expert knowledge of the dockers' representative on those Committees? I think it will be admitted that our technical knowledge of the work of the docks was of great value to the Government. The representative of the Shipping Controller will admit that. The reason is that we have been through the system from the keelson to the topmast, and that we have no other work.
  The objection to the docker being on an equality with the employer on port authorities in the past has been an objection based largely on ignorance, slightly tainted with prejudice. The

  2091
  docker has been looked upon as a person not fit to associate with the employers. I have had some experience. He has been looked upon more or less as a person without any intelligence and education. In regard to the latter charge, there is some truth, but the best university for any man is the university of the world, of the workshop and of the docks. The docker is not an ignorant man; he is not an unskilled man. He is a skilled man. As a matter of fact, an all-round docker requires to be a combination of a Cabinet Minister and a ring-tailed monkey for intelligence and ability. When he stands on the deck of a ship he has to know and average what weight a sling will carry, what gear to put up; he has to lift his piece of machinery off the quay, over the rail and down the hold, and keep his load floating until he lands his goods at the place where he wants them to go. In other words, he wants to be an engineer as well as a docker. A man capable of doing that is capable, surely, of helping in the administration of our great docks to-day. While the record of the Port of London Authority has improved, and I hope will continue to improve, it appeared in the past always as an opponent of any suggestion of improvement in the way of labour representation. Let me give one or two cases. In 1907 I and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) and the hon. Member for Salford (who is not in the House now), instituted through the Homo Office a public inquiry into the cause and prevention of accidents at the docks. For Several months that inquiry went on in every port of the United Kingdom, and the greatest opponent we had was the Port of London Authority. No fewer than 19 King's Counsel opposed the regulations, but all the legal acumen and knowledge of the experts absolutely vanished into space in face of the evidence of the practical docker, who had probably left school when he was nine or ten years of age. That in itself is enough to show that we are quite able to help in administering the work of our great docks.
  The Regulations are very generous Regulations and if carried out, would prevent at least 40 per cent. of the accidents at the docks, but to-day the Regulations are practically a dead letter because there is no labour representation
  2092
  on the Port of London Authority or any other authority in the united Kingdom. The Home Office cannot keep in touch with the matter; their staff is not largo enough, and even if it were the Regulations are evaded every day. Those Regulations are a dead letter because we have no supervision of the authority. If our men report a case we can prosecute, but the difficulty of getting a verdict in a Court of Law is so enormous that it is hardly worth while prosecuting. I look upon that as a very grave matter. What prompted me to urge the inquiry was that I myself was a victim of horrible conditions due to defective machinery. I am not a very good looking fellow, but the deformation of my face is due to the fact that at the time I met with an accident there was no inspection, no means of safeguarding life and limb. In those days the rottenest machinery was at work, the hospitals were filled with cripples and the houses with widows and orphans. This House lately passed, after many years of agitation, an Act known as the Check-Weighman's Act. As far back as 1907, the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and myself sat on a Departmental Committee for the purpose of getting a cheek-weighman's Bill applied to the docks, and again the greatest opponent we had was the Port of London Authority. All we asked in that Bill was that the men who worked on piece rates and discharged coal, iron ore or minerals of any kind, should have some evidence that they were not being robbed of payment for the tonnage they handled. They were being robbed wholesale. We proved so in one case in London and half a dozen elsewhere. A gang of eleven men inside of four months were robbed of £220 on the tonnage they ought to have got. They had to take the word of the employer. In spite of the opposition of the Port of London Authority we got that Bill through. If we were members of these bodies we would have a better opportunity of getting the provisions of these Acts applied than we have to-day. Our men were capable of serving the nation during the War on port committees, and if it is admitted by the Shipping Controller, as I believe it is, that we gave valuable assistance, then why not continue the same principle to-day and extend it to the Port of London Authority and to every other port andd make it a permanent feature and allow practical men like ourselves to take part in the administration.

  2093
  With regard to Liverpool I can assure the hon. Member (Sir O. Philipps) that he is mistaken about the experiment there as to casual labour. I was one of those who advocated the Liver-pool scheme in strong opposition to my own people. So strong was the opposition that there was a strike for three weeks against the establishment of what we know as the clearing house system in Liverpool. The same men who did so would strike to-day if we took it away, because they know the enormous advantages of it. Let me give the hon. Member one or two examples to show him how it has succeeded there and could equally succeed in London. In Liverpool before the clearing house was established, a man would have to lose all day on Saturday going round collecting his wages from probably half-a-dozen employers. To-day, the Board of Trade or the Labour Ministry automatically collect the man's wages, and the men are paid at one table and can go on working on Saturday. Again, the National Health Insurance Act insisted that the man should carry a card and present it to the employer every time he was employed. The casual labourer might be employed by two different employers on the same day, and he had to take the card from one to the other. The Liverpool scheme has done away with all that. All the man does is to lodge his card in the clearing house, and it stays there for six months, and the man never sees it. The Labour Ministry, it used to be the Board of Trade, automatically stamp the card, gather up the man's wages, and deduct the insurance at the end of the week. It has done more than that. It has abolished the horrible, demoralising system of the ready-money job, where the men used to get paid for an hour, or two hours, or half a day, and where they would have to pass half a dozen public houses on the way home, and sometimes they did not pass them, and very often very little of the money they earned got to the mother and children. We have established in Liverpool, as you could in London if you had Labour representation on your port authority, a system of weekly payments, and no man gets paid, no matter how many employers he works for, but at the end of the week, when he takes all his wages home with him. I know it is possible that workmen in
  2094
  London, who have been reared in an atmosphere of ready-money payment, might themselves in the initial stages object to that kind of thing, but we have had all that to meet, and we have overcome it, simply because we have had sympathetic employers in Liverpool who are willing to help us to get rid of these horrible, depraved, and demoralising conditions.
  I submit again that we have before us possibilities of decasualising the labour at the docks. I was the "junior counsel" in the Shaw Inquiry, and I had a very brilliant leader, an exceptionally brilliant man, and in that award there is a suggestion for a maintenance scheme, a scheme which, if adopted, will do more to regulate the conditions of labour at the docks than has ever been done in the existence of the docks. It is reported to me by my leading counsel that the Port of London Authority have turned down the maintenance scheme or, if they have not turned it down, have said that the time is not opportune to put it into operation. There is no difficulty in putting into operation a maintenance scheme, which, if it will not do away altogether with casual labour, will at least minimise it so much that there will be practically no casual labour, or very little, left to be dealt with. I think it is important that the House should know those things. Another very important question, in my opinion, is the necessity of absolutely doing away with the horrible, demoralising inhuman fights you see at the dock gates, and I have had to fight myself to get a tally. I have had to fight or starve in every dock in London; nay, at every ship in London in a dock, and the same in Liverpool. The employer has his own men and has no particular rendezvous for putting men on. In one dock, as an example, there may be seven ships. In docks like we have in Liverpool, from the east side to the west is three-quarters of a mile. The men are all going to be employed at the one hour in the morning, and naturally the men sleep as long as they can, and if they do not follow any particular firm, they make for the first crowd of men they see. The result is that the man at the east side of the dock wants 500 men, and he has got 5,000 to pick from; the man at the west side wants 5,000 and has only got 500 to pick from. Now if we had a

  2095
  central rendezvous at one dock, where all employers could go, and the whole of the men could congregate, there would be no employers looking for men and men looking for employers. All these things could be done, and easily done, if you had labour representation on your port authorities. Because we have not got it, these horrible conditions prevail to-day, and I want to appeal to the Ministry not to shelter themselves behind the plea that this is not the time. This is the time. Any time is the time to do away with the demoralisation of human beings and this treatment is demoralising. The sooner the Government see it the greater the output will be, and the better the success of the Ministry of Transport.
  Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: It has been very truly said that this Bill is very largely a consolidation Bill, but there is one great change of great importance to which no speaker seems to have referred. I was in the House in 1908 when the original Bill was passed, and certain London Members—I was one of them—attached the greatest importance to getting the limitation in the Bill, beyond which dues could not be imposed. The original Act contained this proviso, that if the rates charged in the port were more than one-thousandth part of the value of oversea imports and exports at the docks, they had to come to Parliament before the dues could be increased. This Bill does away with that limitation, and leaves it to the Ministry of Transport to settle what dues and charges are right and proper. London is probably the greatest manufacturing city in the Empire, although it is very seldom realised, and its one great advantage is its water transport. Therefore, I look with great regret upon the removal of this limitation, although I agree it is inevitable, and I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and I did not think the Debate ought to pass without calling the attention of the House to what is the one important change this Bill really proposes.
  Many of the other points are Committee points. There is great force in what my hon. Friend has said, as I know full well, as to how inadequate are the approaches to the dock. It does seem to me that if this Bill goes to a Committee there might be a bargain made over the time the bridges are allowed to be up and with
  2096
  regard to the approaches to the docks. Therefore, I think, it would be a good thing for this country if the Bill went into Committee. I think we have all been impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). He has given the House a good deal of striking and useful information, and if I read the sentiment of the House, then the time will soon come to make a difference in the constitution of the Port Authority, and when that time comes there is no doubt that there will be some increase in the numbers of labour representatives on the Committee. I want at the same time to pay a tribute to one labour representative in particular who has always been a member of the Port Authority—I mean Mr. Harry Gosling. If I had a case to argue or to get through I would rather have Mr. Harry Gosling than six others. I do not think that up to the present the dickers' case—although I have never been a member of the Port Authority—can fad to have been well represented. I think even our labour friends have almost been convinced that it is not wise to hold up this Bill to-night because they think the constitution of the Port Authority might be amended. I think they are almost persuaded that that would be a mistake. This discussion has been extremely useful. I hope the discussion having served its purpose, we shall no longer hesitate, and that the Port Authority will be able to get its new Act which I cannot help regarding and feeling is an absolute necessity in the interests of London.
  Sir H. NIELD: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House is interested in the matter of dock dues, and one cannot help thinking that this is the proper place where those who have technical information should make use of it. I venture to think the objections urged against the Second Reading are not impelled with a desire that the Bill should be rejected; that a Bill of this magnitude which repeals and codifies something like sixty measures starting from the year 1828 should not pass. But that part of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House takes exception is that portion which gives the Minister of Transport certain powers. These powers, although they may override the provisions of the Act of 1908, are powers common to the docks and warehouses throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, from the point of view of unity of

  2097
  jurisdiction it is a desirable Amendment to make in this Act. The only other point—that is the smaller point—referring to the opening of certain of the bridges, though the 99th part of it may refer to extended jurisdiction. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) said that when these corporations and bodies came to the House of Commons to get extended powers that then was the only chance of being able to pin them down in such matters as labour representation. The Port of London Authority is a public authority constituted in a special way by members contributed from popularly elected bodies. The only way in which the speakers desire extended jurisdiction are in these two small matters, the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearse) and the other which deals with the time certain bridges may be kept open, and so interrupt traffic. I am quite sure the House would not for a moment contemplate the rejection of an important Measure or defeat it on one or other of these two small points. Hon. Gentlemen who represent labour seem to forget that there are those who know something of the conditions under which casual labour is recruited in dock-land. I have known it for many many years. The hon. Member for Southwark for many years has been a member of the Port Authority and he completely dispelled in his speech the statement that the Port of London was indifferent in regard to the question of the stabilisation of labour and diminishing the casuals. It must be in a trade of this sort, a fluctuating trade depending upon the weather, the tide, the arrival of vessels and so on, it must of necessity be very largely worked by casual labour so far as regards the handling of goods. But there are stevedores who are in a totally different category to the persons to whom the hon. Member referred to as casual labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. no!"] These latter are the flotsam and jetsam.
  Mr. J. JONES: You do not know anything about it.
  Sir H. NIELD: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, whose moderation during his speech was very remarkable. I was going to congratulate him; but I think I do know something about the matter, and I probably knew something of the facts when he was a very young
  2098
  man. I am speaking from my own personal experience as one who has frequently gone backwards and forwards to and from the London Docks.
  Mr. J. JONES: The hon. Member said it was only the flotsam and jetsam who were affected, but I assert that some of the most skilled men are perpetually found amongst the casual labourers.
  Sir H. NIELD: If the hon. Member means men skilled in the handling of ships and the work in the docks, then it is very remarkable. Men who have special knowledge of unloading vessels and dealing with cargo ought never to be in that position. If skilled men of this description are to be found daily in the crowds clamouring for tallies, it is a remarkable thing that the dock companies are not more alive, and that the men's unions are not more alive, to seek out those men and have them registered. [Interruptions.] The mere fact that these interruptions are becoming so numerous makes mc feel that I am getting to the spot. With regard to the Dock Regulations of 1907, it has been stated that they are a dead letter. I know that if an accident happens which comes under the Workmen's Compensation Act an action is brought, and the very moment a regulation has been broken that is the whole of their case, and damages are obtained without any further proof. If the regulations are not carried out, why are not those responsible prosecuted before the magistrates? It is all very well for Labour Members to throw up their heads in pity for my ignorance, but I know the side of the case they present when they try to enforce their claims for compensation. If the labour provisions that were sanctioned by the Home Office after a prolonged inquiry to regulate the conditions of dockers' work, and the precautions for their safety are broken, and if that passes unchallenged, then it is the fault of the workmen and those who represent them. There is no reason why an employer should not be fined heavily by a stipendiary magistrate on complaint being made, or why, in the case of personal injury, he should not have a verdict against him for heavy damage. This is one of the cases in which the time of the House has been taken up unduly. It is unfortunate that the regulations of the House permit a Bill of

  2099
  this magnitude and importance, a consolidating measure affecting Acts passed during a space of a hundred years, to be held up on a small matter like this and the labours of the Port Authority and their advisers in preparing a colossal Bill like this to be jeopardised.
  Mr. ALEXANDER RICHARDSON: I rather disagree with the last speaker's idea that there should not be a general Debate on a consolidating Bill. The Port of London is one of the largest statutory monopolies, and it is therefore important that every occasion should be utilised to consider the general policy of that body. It may be that the discussion has concerned itself with too much small detail, but still, details are of great importance in connection with the efficiency of the Port Authority of London. It is a matter of vital importance that the waterways of London should be utilised to the greatest possible extent, and when a dock scheme was brought forward by Gravesend the Port of London Authority put forward several objections to the construction of the proposed dock. All the objections were concerned with the navigation of the river, and not one of them was maintained by the Board of Trade. I can tell the hon. Member that the scheme was rejected because the Port of London Authority was a great monopoly. It was because Parliament in its wisdom had decided that that authority should be supreme on the Thames. That may or may not be right, but the Port of London Authority has chosen for itself the peculiar distinction of ignoring one side of the river and making all its docks on the other. In the whole county of Kent there is not a single public dock, although there is an immense population to the south of the river, not only in the metropolitan area to the south-west and south-east, but in the whole county of Kent; and the monopolists have decided that the county of Kent shall continue as it is. The Corporation of Gravesend has no desire to usurp the power of the Port of London Authority over the waterway of the river. They say: "Come and make your wharf here; make a wharf on this side of the river; take advantage of that great stretch of river front." But that has not been done, and that drives me to the conviction that the time has come when the local authorities on the river ought to
  2100
  have representation on the Port of London Authority. The more of a monopolist the Port of London Authority becomes, the more necessary it is that the rights of the citizens on the river front should be conserved. There is no difficulty in carrying this out. It is done on the Clyde, where the efficiency of the harbours and docks is as great as, if not greater than, in London. On the Clyde Navigation Trust there is representation from every municipal burgh and every county through which the navigable river runs. That being so, it seems to me that the time has come when the Port of London Authority should be similarly constituted.
  I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), because there is no doubt that in any great engineering enterprise you will find wise judgment and suggestion coming from the workmen. No employer of labour—and the Port of London must be classed as such—can, in striving for efficiency, afford to reject the advice and experience of the workmen. I do not know how we are to secure representation on such a body as the Port of London Authority direct from trade unions: but there is no doubt that Labour should have representation, and I think that it could be easily managed through representation of the boroughs and counties along the waterway of the river.
  While I hold these views, and hold them strongly, I do not think that it is desirable that this House should reject this Bill. I think, on the other hand, that we ought to have some assurance from the Port of London Authority, or on its behalf, or some assurance from the Board of Trade, that this question, upon which, I think, there is wide agreement, will be considered, and that an effort will be made to meet the very general desire that the constitution of the Port of London Authority—which is so very important a body in connection with the import and export trade of the country—should be modified. If we have that assurance, I am certain that no one would desire to vote against this Consolidation Bill.
  Captain LOSEBY: I desire to associate myself with almost every word that was said by the hon. Member for St. Helens. Speaking on behalf of the party of which I am a member, I desire to say that the movement to which I belong is with the hon. Gentleman all the way, and we would

  2101
  co-operate with him in every way in our power in order to bring before the Government the point of view of Labour as expressed by him. I cannot help hoping that his admirably chosen words have not fallen upon deaf ears, and I, for one, feel that the Government should seize the opportunity which he has presented to them of securing the co-operation of Labour, which, as he said, had such admirable results during the War. It is so infrequently, unfortunately, that one can speak entirely without reserve on the same side as my hon. Friends opposite that I thought the House would allow me just these three minutes to say how whole-heartedly one would wish to support them on this occasion.
  Captain Sir HAMILTON BENN: It should be made perfectly clear that no alteration with regard to the representation can be made in this Bill The measure is merely a Consolidation Bill. If there is any intention of altering the representation it will be necessary to introduce an entirely new Bill, which will allow of proper notice being given to all parties concerned. It is a question of either giving a Second Reading to this Bill, or of rejecting it altogether. I do not wish to add anything to the wide range of subjects which has been touched on to-night; I would only like to point out, with reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Gravesend, that the rejection of the Gravesend petition for the right to build wharves on the Thames was not entirely based on the ground that the Port of London Authority had a monopoly. I think it was largely influenced by the fact that the navigating officers, the harbour masters, and other people charged with the safety of the craft in the river gave evidence against the proposal to build on the ground of navigation.
  Mr. A. RICHARDSON: The Board of Trade specifically rejected that Amendment.
  Sir H. BENN: That was not my reading of the evidence. With regard to what has been said about the roads and bridges, implying that the Port of London Authority were not anxious to improve the roads and bridges over the docks, quite the contrary is the case. Great efforts have been made by the Port of London Authority to get the borough
  2102
  councils and the county council to improve these roads and bridges. There have been offers of contributions in the way of money for the improvement of these roads and bridges, which it is the duty of the local authorities to carry out. With these few words, I trust the Bill will be read a Second time.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has made the point that this must be either the Second Reading of this Bill or nothing. One would have hoped to have heard from him, as representing the Port of London Authority, something like a sympathetic response with regard to the question of the rearrangement of representation on the Authority. There have been many conflicts in the industrial world in recent days, and we have heard, not in a detached way, but in a comprehensive way, from different Members of the Government, expressions of belief that a great deal could be done to soften and to ease the acuteness of the conflict between capital and labour if labour were taken into consultation by the capitalists before the trouble arose. Here is a case well within the control of the Government. I know something of labour in the Port of London. I was one of those who were responsible for the great conflict in 1889, when the fight was for the dockers' tanner." I say this, with my intimate knowledge of labour in the Port of London, that if the Port of London Authority would really, instead of it being imposed upon them, instead of their being compelled, as they will be compelled if they do not move, within three or four years from now—if they would simply say, "We welcome the consultative voice of Labour in our counsels on this Authority," with all their experience they will do more than they dream of to secure a safe and certain industrial peace in the Port of London in the years that are to come, and with the development of Antwerp and the revival of Hamburg and other ports on that side—I am talking definitely in relation to a particular kind of trade that is transacted in the Port of London for the Continent of Europe, which if you can get peace in the Port of London under reasonable conditions we can maintain here indefinitely. The hon. Baronet (Sir I. Hamilton Benn) will realise from conversations we

  2103
  have had with members of the Port of London Authority how very keen I am in helping them in this matter. I suggest that they should come here and now with the suggestion that they are prepared to entertain sympathetically a revision of the present proportion of interests represented on the Port of London Authority so as to give a real voice to labour in that Authority.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Postponed proceedings resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of postponed Clause 19.
Question again proposed "That those words be there inserted."
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

PENSIONS (ARREARS).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
11.0 P.M.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to call the attention of the House, and more especially of the representative of the Ministry of Pensions, to the increasing number of complaints that are being received by hon. Members in regard to the delay in paying arrears of pension. I have raised it on two occasions, and have received an answer which consisted of two parts. The first part was a denial that there was any increase in the number of complaints. The second part was a statement that a Committee was being appointed to inquire, not specifically into this question, but into the general question of local administration and
2104
machinery. This Committee will inquire into the general question without having its attention directed to this grievance; and we have an official denial that the grievance exists. I join issue with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Pensions, as to whether this grievance exists. My own experience in my own constituency shows conclusively that there has been a remarkable increase in this class of complaint within the last six months. I think the denial is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the complaint to which I refer. It is based upon the total number of complaints, upon all subjects, received by the Minister. He denies that the total number of complaints has increased. I accept that denial. It is my own experience that the total number of complaints I receive on the whole field covered by the Ministry has diminished; but upon the particular item to which I refer, the arrears of pension, there is a remarkable increase in the number of complaints. I am informed by other Members, representing widely scattered areas, that their experience is the same. I am not bringing a general complaint against the Ministry, and I hope my hon. Friend (Major Tryon) will believe me that I have no hostile intention in raising this question. My experience is that the general machinery of the Ministry has steadily improved and that the total Volume of complaints has diminished; but I want to direct attention specifically to this particular question in regard to which I think some part of the machinery is out of gear. I have no complaint as to the way in which these matters are handled, when I have brought them to the attention of the Ministry I find that the complaint is promptly and efficiently dealt with, and I get a settlement in a reasonable time. The Ministry has been well served under the present Minister and the late Minister in the Department which deals with these questions. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton) certainly raised it to a very high state of efficiency under the late Minister, and from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Major Colfox) and the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Captain Brown) I have received the promptest satisfaction. I know of no Department in which the difficulties are greater, and I know of no Department which is more efficiently served in this respect.

2105
The evidence on which I base my com plaint is the evidence in which I have received direct from my own constituency. I am not going to try to build up an indictment upon an individual case. I have selected seven or eight cases, particulars of which I have handed to the Minister. All these cases show a delay in payment of arrears of pensions varying from four months to three years. Since I sent in these others have reached me. These are not doubtful claims. They are claims which have been granted, but the persons are unable to recover arrears of pensions. It is almost as difficult to recover arrears of pensions as it is to recover overpaid Income Tax from the Income Tax Commissioners. This denial of redress is causing grave discontent which has been used in many instances against the Government. There must be some lack of cooperation between the central and the local organisation. The evidence shows that the blame is not always on the side of the local organisation. In some instances it rests with the central organisation. I do not know whether there has been the full devolution that was promised. Whatever the cause of delay it ought to be ascertained. Another matter to which attention must be drawn is the failure to reply to complaints which are sent up by the individual. In almost every one of these cases the story is the same. "I have written repeatedly to the Ministry of Pensions and can get no reply, or only a formal acknowledgment." In some cases registered letters are sent and not acknowledged. I know the volume of work, but if it is possible to secure prompt redress when a Member raises the case, it ought to be possible to secure prompt redress when the individual takes up the case. A Committee is being appointed to inquire into the question, and I want to secure that it is not a general roving commission on all questions of administration, but that the attention of that Committee should be specifically directed to this particular class of complaint. That, I think, will secure that the matter is at least fully and fairly investigated.
Captain BOWYER: I feel diffident in expressing what I had in mind to say, because my views are somewhat different from those of the hon.
2106
Gentleman (Mr. MacCallum Scott). On the one hand, I cannot express sufficiently my admiration of the courtesy and kindness that have been extended to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Tryon) who represents the Minister of Pensions. I should not be surprised if I have written him more letters on more cases than any other Member of this House. During the last long recess I visited 126 villages in my constituency and I met with many cases and sent them all, with a few exceptions, to my hon. and gallant Friend. What was I to do? These were men who served in my own regiment and battalion. Am I to be blamed because I took up their cases with keenness? In very many cases they have had an acknowledgment of their letters almost by return of post; but nothing else, and it is the further step after the acknowledgment upon which I rely to call my attention to the case; otherwise, I am afraid it gets lost and forgotten. In one or two cases I have not even had an acknowledgment and that applies to a letter dated 9th October. I would ask, first, that when a Member of Parliament writes to the Ministry, even though he is as great a bore as I am, the cases to which he calls attention should be taken up. If the Department finds that Members of Parliament have many cases brought before them, it is proof that there is something wrong with the system. I should have thought that if the Minister "made it hot" for those deserving of censure, matters would be speeded up and things would be put right. I receive letter after letter in this strain:
"May I ask you to press my case re pension, as mentioned in my first letter to you. This terrible suspense of waiting is more than I can boar. I have not as yet had any reply to any of my letters, and have received no information now for eight weeks. All I have is 12s. weekly from the relieving officer for four of us. The relieving officer has written to the Pensions Office several times, but gets no reply. Will you kindly endeavour to get my pension through?"
That is a most tragic case, but beyond an acknowledgment I have had nothing from the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Ministry, although it was three weeks ago that I sent him the case. I have given him the name tonight. As a Committee is being set up I should like to emphasise the fact that there have been delays and gaps in the

2107
working of the machinery. I should like cases dealt with with a little more of the human touch of which we have heard so much.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): With regard to the particular case just mentioned, is it not that of a man named Nokes?
Captain BOWYER: Yes, it is.
Major TRYON: What happened was that my Parliamentary Secretary explained matters to the hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday. So far from his not getting an answer, the case was explained to him within an hour of my getting his letter. The difficulty in this particular case is not due to the Ministry, but is due to the fact that the pensioner has disappeared and his wife does not know where he is. It is impossible to give a pension to a man whose whereabouts we do not know.
Captain BOWYER: I did not know that. I have not received your letter.
Major TRYON: It was explained to the hon. Member.
Major HAMILTON: The proposition put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Bowyer) is not that a-verbal message should be given to him, but that there should be received by him from the Ministry a letter which he can show to his constituents. That would immediately allay the trouble.
Major TRYON: With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Scott), I would mention that all the seven cases he sent to us have been settled. At the same time, I agree that it would be very much better not to put Members to the trouble of making inquiries. We want to secure a system which will obtain justice for the pensioner without hon. Members and without the Minister having to intervene in individual cases. We do not grudge a moment of the time we devote to these cases, and I feel myself strongly how enormously these individual cases do matter. If a man has fought during the War and has been wounded, and by some mistake or through the address not being known or on account of there being several men of the same
2108
name, and if that man loses his pension for a time, no time which hon. Members or which the Minister can devote can be better spent than in trying to clear up those cases. Nothing is right as long as there are individual cases to be cleared up, and we must do all we can to clear them up. Every individual case matters vitally. But when we come to judge the system we must take care that we do not forget the enormous area covered by the work of the Ministry. I know a sergeant who was greatly distressed because he had not got an answer from the Controller, Pensions Issue Office, and I suppose he imagined that there was one single individual who opened all the letters and refused to send him an answer. The fact is that there are 80,000 letters per day. I know there were great arrears of work, but I know, too, that things are getting very much better. Last July, on stocktaking in the evennig, we found that there were 200,000 cases to be dealt with, letters and unfinished cases. The last available figures on Wednesday week—eight days ago—showed that the figure had been reduced to 81,000 cases in hand. It is a very great improvement to cut 200,000 down to 80,000.
Mr. SCOTT: Has that any bearing on the specific point I raised?
Major TRYON: I am referring first to the question generally. When the, number of letters coming in is 80,000 daily I think to have arrears of 81,000 in the evening is, on the whole, very satisfactory. I think it is a great credit to the work done by a number of devoted people at the Pensions Issue Office in working at and clearing off those arrears. The staff have done a lot of very hard work in securing that result. With regard to the payment of arrears, I think that is not getting worse. At one time we used to send the arrears in full, but it was found in many cases that the local War Pensions Committee had advanced considerable sums to the men, and these had to be recovered out of the small weekly pension. It is very much better to clear off the advances made against the arrears duo and start square. With that object, in almost all cases we write to the local War Pension Committee to ascertain the advances made. Very often long delays occur, and in one of the hon. Member's

2109
cases we have had to write three times to the local committee before we get an answer as to what amount of the arrears had been advanced. Quite lately, last May, we have made a change, and now there are comparatively few cases in which we make these inquiries, but I am not satisfied yet, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that we can get it better. We are considering a change, into which I do not think it is necessary to go until we have tested it, but which will considerably alter the system under which these arrears are paid. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) has not got the letter, because I myself signed a letter on the 26th inst giving him the details about Nokes, which is partly why I was familiar with the case when it was brought up. When hon. Members write to us it is quite impossible to identify cases unless we are given the regimental number. I had a very natural complaint from an hon. Member, who said we had written back to ask for the regimental number when he had given the address. The people are not classified by addresses, which are continually changing. You cannot classify by names, because there are hundreds with the same name, and even with the same name and initial. They are classified by regiments in blocks, and having regimental numbers also associates the case with the original particulars which we get from the Army.
Therefore, any hon. Member in not giving the regimental number, very often not in the least through his fault, delays the matter. To show that is necessary, I may say that at the Pensions Issue Office there are 1,700,000 "live" files, and that may give some idea of the immense amount of work to be done in that office. It is colossal. It also shows how necessary it must be to classify these cases by regiments and by numbers. Furthermore, we are starting there on the work of classifying them by regions.' Here in London we are separating them into regions, so that if the system proves a success here we can develop and extend it and so decentralise. Moreover, we do realise that although things are improving there is room for further improvement, and we want to get it as good as we possibly can. For that reason my right hon. Friend is appointing a Committee to inquire into the system
2110
and methods of administration of the Ministry of Pensions, with special reference to the working of the regional and local committee system and existing arrangements for the issue of pensions. In reply to my hon. Friend's question, I can say the point of arrears is of vital importance and will be dealt with as one of the urgent matters by this Committee when it is sitting.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has that been modified a little since it was read out?
Major TRYON: No, it is just the same The issue includes the issue of arrears. Therefore we are realising the enormous importance of it, and the thing will not be perfect till we have got rid of any faults in the system which come to light. We must also remember the enormous area covered by the scope of the work. There is one further point, and that is the charge that orders have been issued to reduce, if possible, the award of pensions. No such orders have been issued. It has been suggested that orders have been issued to medical boards to cut down pensions, but if the hon. Member who gave notice of the question had been here this afternoon to put it my right hon. Friend would have told him that not only have no such orders been issued, but that no such orders will be issued as long as he is Minister of Pensions. Furthermore, the charge is obviously incorrect, because he has got the returns for four months a year ago, and for four months recently for the same period of the year, showing how very little change there has been in the rate at which ponsions are being reduced. But that pensions are being reduced in numbers necessarily follows from the fact that we are spending millions in a year in endeavouring to cure the pensioners. More than 50 per cent. of the pension cases exit mined are cases of sickness. Some of these men are in hospital, and we are doing our best to cure them. There is a perfectly steady improvement in these cases, attributable to the skill of the medical men. We have not had a Pensions Debate for some time, and I was anxious to clear up the these points.
Captain COOTE: I should like to pay a tribute to the courtesy that we have always received from the Ministry, and, in particular, from the Controller of the Pensions Issue Office. Although I am

2111
glad that the Minister is going to appoint a Committee to inquire into these various matters of administration, I would point out that a Select Committee on the same subject has only recently concluded its findings, and that Select Committee gave its blessing to the system of regional devolution on the strict understanding that it was to be a real and not a partial or camouflage devolution. The reason for a great majority of these delays is that devolution has not been real and that work is still centralised in London to an almost intolerable extent. There is another point I do implore the Ministry to concentrate their attentions as far as possible on making the pensions which are paid to the men permanent. It has a very real bearing on the point of delay. I have knowledge of a considerable number of cases where men whose disabilities are obviously permanent—having lost a leg or an arm—and yet their pensions are not permanent. That appears to be a waste not only of the Ministry's time and taxpayer's money in holding medical boards on the cases, but also necessarily it has an irritating and aggravating effect on the pensioner. He may be better by treatment, but this is a scheduled liability. I do ask the Minister, for his own sake as well as for the sake of the taxpayer and the pen-
2112
sioner, to concentrate on getting the pension award settled instead of having it subject to revision from time to time. This is aggravating to the pensioner and creates a suspicion that there is some attempt on the part of the Ministry to defraud the pensioner.
Major TRYON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me that case; it would be a mistake if the man has lost a leg.
Captain COOTE: I am certain of it.
Major MOLSON: I wish to confirm the great attention I have always received from the Ministry of Pensions That does not alter the fact, which I think is perfectly right, that many of the soldiers had not had their pensions attended to when they apply to the proper authorities. I have had letters sent to me which have shown very great delay in that way, but it has been cleared up at once when the matter has been put into the hands of the Minister of Pensions when he has been asked to attend to it.
It being half-past Eleven of the clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October.
Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

IRELAND.
  REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).
  REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).
  RESTORATION OF ORDER ACT (TRIALS).
  RESTORATION OF ORDER ACT (TRIALS).
  SINN FEIN PRISONERS.
  SINN FEIN PRISONERS.
  MAGISTRATES (RESIGNATIONS).
  MAGISTRATES (RESIGNATIONS).
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, AMERICA (PASSPORTS).
  COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, AMERICA (PASSPORTS).
  OUTRAGE, ATHLONE.
  OUTRAGE, ATHLONE.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.
  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.
  FUNERAL REGULATIONS, CORK (MICHAEL FITZGERALD).
  FUNERAL REGULATIONS, CORK (MICHAEL FITZGERALD).
  VICTIMS OF OUTRAGE, POLICE AND MILITARY (COMPENSATION).
  VICTIMS OF OUTRAGE, POLICE AND MILITARY (COMPENSATION).
  MURDERERS (SIR NEVIL MACREADY'S STATEMENT).
  MURDERERS (SIR NEVIL MACREADY'S STATEMENT).
  CONDITIONS IN 1917 AND 1918.
  CONDITIONS IN 1917 AND 1918.
  ATTACK ON BARRACKS, MALLOW.
  ATTACK ON BARRACKS, MALLOW.
  MILITARY FORCES (ARMAMENT).
  MILITARY FORCES (ARMAMENT).
  UNEMPLOYMENT, BELFAST.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, BELFAST.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  CHEAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).
  CHEAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).
INDIA.
  ARMY PENSIONS (INVALIDED OFFICERS).
  ARMY PENSIONS (INVALIDED OFFICERS).
  PUBLIC SERVICES (PENSIONS).
  PUBLIC SERVICES (PENSIONS).
  BENGAL CIVIL FUND ANNUITANTS.
  BENGAL CIVIL FUND ANNUITANTS.
  ARMY OFFICERS' QUARTERS.
  ARMY OFFICERS' QUARTERS.
  ELECTORAL RULES, BOMBAY.
  ELECTORAL RULES, BOMBAY.
EDUCATION.
  PROPOSED SOUTH WESTERN UNIVERSITY.
  PROPOSED SOUTH WESTERN UNIVERSITY.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
  INSPECTORS AND ORGANISERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  INSPECTORS AND ORGANISERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  EDUCATION ACT, 1918.
  EDUCATION ACT, 1918.
PEACE TREATIES.
  FINANCIAL COMMISSION, TURKEY.
  FINANCIAL COMMISSION, TURKEY.
  BRUSSELS CONERENCE (COAL EXPORT DUTIES).
  BRUSSELS CONERENCE (COAL EXPORT DUTIES).
  TREBIZOND.
  TREBIZOND.
  ARMENIA.
  ARMENIA.
  RUSSIAN PRISONERS (REPATRIATION).
  RUSSIAN PRISONERS (REPATRIATION).
  BRITISH PRESS.
  BRITISH PRESS.
  NATIONAL WAR MEMORIALS, YPRES.
  NATIONAL WAR MEMORIALS, YPRES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MEMORIAL SCROLLS.
  MEMORIAL SCROLLS.
  SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT (DRIVER T. WILLACY).
  SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT (DRIVER T. WILLACY).
  SOLDIER'S ESTATE (SAPPER T. E. GAINER).
  SOLDIER'S ESTATE (SAPPER T. E. GAINER).
  SOLDIER'S FATE (PRIVATE P. V. B. HUNT).
  SOLDIER'S FATE (PRIVATE P. V. B. HUNT).
MESOPOTAMIA.
  KAPURTHALA INFANTRY.
  KAPURTHALA INFANTRY.
  INDIAN TROOPS (TINNED MILK).
  INDIAN TROOPS (TINNED MILK).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MEDICAL BOARDS, BELFAST.
  MEDICAL BOARDS, BELFAST.
  RE-ASSESSMENTS OF PENSIONS.
  RE-ASSESSMENTS OF PENSIONS.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  LAND SETTLEMENT (TRAINING, RODBASTON).
  LAND SETTLEMENT (TRAINING, RODBASTON).
  POST OFFICE (EMPLOYMENT).
  POST OFFICE (EMPLOYMENT).
  BUILDING TRADES, DUBLIN.
  BUILDING TRADES, DUBLIN.
  FURNITURE MANUFACTURE.
  FURNITURE MANUFACTURE.
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CONFERENCE.
  BANKS (POLITICAL PRESSURE).
  BANKS (POLITICAL PRESSURE).
  CONFERENCE REPORT.
  CONFERENCE REPORT.
EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  SALT UNION.
  SALT UNION.
  DUTY YIELD (SIX MONTHS).
  DUTY YIELD (SIX MONTHS).
  CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY.
  CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY.
  RE-PAYMENTS.
  RE-PAYMENTS.
  TRADING CONCERNS (REMOVALS ABROAD).
  TRADING CONCERNS (REMOVALS ABROAD).
  OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS.
  OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS.
  CUBAN CIGAES (DUTY).
  CUBAN CIGAES (DUTY).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
LONDON ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTANTS.
  PUBLIC AUDITORS.
  PUBLIC AUDITORS.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (JOINT SECRETARIES).
  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (JOINT SECRETARIES).
  GOVERNMENT STATIONERY (IMPROPER USE).
  GOVERNMENT STATIONERY (IMPROPER USE).
  IRISH DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
  IRISH DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
HOUSING.
  GEORGETOWN, RENFREWSHIRE.
  GEORGETOWN, RENFREWSHIRE.
  TIMBER SUPPLIES.
  TIMBER SUPPLIES.
  CORRUGATED IRON ROOFS.
  CORRUGATED IRON ROOFS.
  BUSINESS PREMISES.
  BUSINESS PREMISES.
  POLICE QUARTERS, LONDON.
  POLICE QUARTERS, LONDON.
  CONSTRUCTION, IRELAND (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
  CONSTRUCTION, IRELAND (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  BAKING TRADE, GLASGOW (WOMEN).
  BAKING TRADE, GLASGOW (WOMEN).
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWERS, DUMBARTON).
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWERS, DUMBARTON).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL CASTINGS (IMPORTS).
  IRON AND STEEL CASTINGS (IMPORTS).
  LEATHER TRADE.
  LEATHER TRADE.
  OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS).
  OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS).
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY (LAPSED POLICY).
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY (LAPSED POLICY).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BREAD PRICES.
  BREAD PRICES.
  SURPLUS MEAT STOCKS (SALES).
  SURPLUS MEAT STOCKS (SALES).
  RAILWAY ANNUITANTS.
  RAILWAY ANNUITANTS.
  TANGANYIKA.
  TANGANYIKA.
  BRITISH WEST AFRICA (DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES).
  BRITISH WEST AFRICA (DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES).
  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (WAGES).
  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW (WAGES).
  KENT AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE
  KENT AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  NATIONAL GALLERY (SMOKE NUISANCE).
  NATIONAL GALLERY (SMOKE NUISANCE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE (Deputy Speaker) on the Woolsack.

THE COAL STRIKE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make in relation to the rumoured settlement of the strike.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, had I known that this question was going to be put to me I would have come prepared to make a statement similar to that which has, I believe, been made in another place; but when I left the Cabinet room this morning the subsequent interview with the leaders of the Miners' Federation had not taken place and I only heard myself for certain an hour ago that an arrangement, or what it is hoped will be an arrangement, has been arrived at. I wish I could be more definite in the terms in which I announce it to your Lordships' House.

EMERGENCY POWERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, notice was given by my noble friend Lord Crawford yesterday of my intention to move this afternoon at the commencement of business the Motion which stands in my name and which appeared on the Order Paper this morning—namely, that Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended in the event of a Message being received from the Commons that they had passed the Emergency Powers Bill. That condition has been fulfilled, and I should, therefore, be quite prepared to make the Motion which stands in my name. On the other hand, not having, unfortunately, been here myself yesterday, I noticed in the papers this morning some remarks winch were made both by Lord Buckmaster and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, with the general spirit of which I was in hearty concurrence. Both those noble Leeds represented that,
98
willing as your Lordships always are to waive your rights and privileges in the event of an occasion of national necessity and to meet the Government, as you have so constantly done, you yet felt anxious to maintain your rights of discussion in cases where such an urgent necessity was not shown conclusively to exist.
While I should prefer to make this Motion and to carry the Bill through all its stages to-day, I am quite prepared, if the sentiments expressed by the two noble Lords reflect those of the House in general, to ask your Lordships to proceed only with the Second Reading to-day and to meet to-morrow to take the remaining stages of the Bill. Of course, we could meet to-morrow at any hour that the House liked, but I do not think there would be any necessity to meet at other than the usual hour. Therefore if that proposal meets with the general acceptance of the House I will make the Motion in order that we may take the Second Reading to-day, but on the distinct understanding, if my suggestion is accepted, that we go no further than that stage this afternoon. I should then submit the Motion again to-morrow and ask your Lordships to take the remaining stages to-morrow afternoon.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting so that the Emergency Powers Bill may be passed through all its stage.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl has perceived that the House was somewhat taken aback by seeing the Notice on the Paper yesterday, and that surprise was by no means diminished when we saw it on the Paper again to-day. We awaited, of course, the explanation that would be offered by the Government of the presumed extreme urgency which would justify the House in agreeing to a Motion of this kind, which is so contrary to our usual practice, and which, as the noble Earl cordially agrees, deprives this House of its power of discussion. The noble Earl has, however, somewhat modified the position by the statement he has just made.
The noble Earl still apparently regards the measure as so urgent that it is necessary that it should receive its Third Reading to-morrow. Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Viscount Lord Milner, the reasons

99
for this extreme urgency. So far as I was able to judge from what passed in another place, the Government carefully dissociated itself from the idea that the measure had any particular bearing upon the industrial crisis through which we have just passed. It was stated that it had been prepared months ago, and the Labour Party were especially asked to observe that it was not intended to deal with the particular dispute in hand.
A great deal of discussion took place as to how far the introduction of the Bill was or was not provocative, and the Government safeguarded itself by saying that it was a most ordinary and necessary measure, and apparently its introduction at this particular moment and the speed with which it was pressed: merely represented a series of not very fortunate coincidences. I do not desire to oppose the Motion of the noble Earl in its modified form, subject to the possibility that some noble Lords may desire to introduce Amendments which can hardly be ready by to-morrow. The measure is one which evidently needs close examination and possibly full discussion by your Lordships' House. That will, no doubt, take place on the Second Reading to-day. But I hope the noble Earl will agree, if it is found that noble Lords desire to move Amendments which might take some time for consideration, to defer a little longer the Committee stage and the passing of the Bill which he desires to take to-morrow.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Marquess has pushed my remarks certainly further than they were intended to go, and, if my recollection is right, further than they actually did go. What I said was that I was quite prepared to limit the application of my Motion, if it was accepted, to the Second Reading to-day, and to put down the Motion again to-morrow on the understanding, with which I hoped all noble Lords would agree, that the whole of the remaining stages of the Bill should be taken tomorrow. To that I adhere; those are the conditions under which I made my proposal. I did not mean—and I must be quite explicit—to encourage noble Lords to lengthen the discussion by producing a series of Amendments which might take us over until next week, and might prolong, I will not say indefinitely, the further stages of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords, if they are good enough to
100
accept my suggestion, will interpret it in the same way that I have done.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his appreciation of the reasons that led me to enter a word of caution and protest yesterday against this Motion. I am not quite certain that I understand exactly what attitude the noble Earl desires to adopt to-day. He says that if the First anti Second Readings are taken to-day the rest of the stages should and ought to be taken to-morrow. I can well understand, if he gave us any reason why that should be done, that the House would be extremely anxious to meet the convenience of the Government in the matter. But he gave us no reason at all. The only suggested reason which has been brought forward for granting at this stage of the session exceptional treatment to this Bill was the fact of the deplorable industrial difficulty through which this country has recently been passing. But we are informed that that trouble has gone. What is it that is going to happen between now and next Tuesday to render it essential that this House should alter its procedure in order to pass this Bill? That is what I am anxious to be informed upon.
This is matter of the procedure of your Lordships' House, and no one would be anxious to insist on principles of procedure which have no material value. To my mind the question of procedure is really only of secondary importance here. What led me to protest yesterday and also leads me to make these observations now is that I am extremely anxious that it should not appear to the country that your Lordships regard this Bill, brought forward in these circumstances, as a Bill the passage of which is a matter of course and not a matter to take place after full and, if necessary, elaborate discussion. It is, in fact, speaking as a lawyer, one of the most serious measures that I ever remember being introduced into Parliament, and it is impossible to over-estimate the danger that might arise if it were thought that we were treating it as merely a trivial thing which could be passed through all its stages without regard to the forms of procedure and to which this House as a matter of course would consent. The suggestion which was made about putting down artificial Amendments was not, of course, made seriously.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: did not use the word "artiticial."
LORD BUCKMASTER: The suggestion was that if the concession was granted noble Lords might avail themselves of it and put clown Amendments which might carry the Bill over to-morrow. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl. Whatever offences have been urged against your Lordships' House it has never been suggested that you have engaged on one side or the other in the obstruction of a. measure that was to pass; and any Amendments that will be put down—I speak for myself and I am satisfied I can also speak for other noble Lords who may want to table Amendments—will be moved for the purpose of seeing that this Bill does not impinge on the liberties of this country further than the circumstances render necessary.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I apologise for speaking again, but really the protest with which the noble and learned Lord concluded is quite unnecessary. I was merely following the line of argument pursued by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and who, I understood, pleaded that noble Lords might require greater time to make up their minds as to Amendments than would be provided if the discussion was to be concluded to-morrow, and it was with reference to remark that I spoke of Amendments carrying the discussion over to next week. The noble and learned Lord has, I think, quite justly and fairly vindicated the right of your Lordships' House to give due attention to a measure of this sort—a measure obviously of very great and capital importance—but I submit, in reply, that his conditions will be satisfied, and amply satisfied, by a discussion lasting over two days.
The noble Lord put another question which again I think was quite fair. He said, "Is there anything in the circumstances of the case or in the altered circumstances of the case which leaves the question of urgency as prominent as it was before? "I think the answer is in the affirmative. What the precise terms are of the agreement that has been concluded or that it is hoped has been concluded I do not know, because it was only just now before coming down here that I heard it was hoped that such an arrangement had been arrived at. I enquired at the same time whether all
102
risks and chances of trouble were eliminated, and I was told "No." There are other factors in the situation besides the leaders of the miners to which I need not refer, but the existence of which is well known; and the fact that an agreement is believed to have been reached with the miners by no means precludes the possibility that there may be difficulties elsewhere, or in any way mitigates the necessity for proceeding with this measure without delay. Those are the reasons why I ask your Lordships to pursue the course that I have indicated, and I venture to think in the circumstances of the ease that they are not unreasonable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and in doing so I greatly regret the absence, for reasons which we are all aware of and deplore, of the Lord Chancellor on this occasion. He would be the member of His Majesty's Government who, under ordinary circumstances, would naturally take charge of a Bill of this character, lying, as it does, directly in his province, as it certainly does not in mine. The Bill I take it will be challenged, if it is seriously challenged at all, on points of detail by noble Lords learned in the law, of whom there are a number in this House, and for whom, on points of law, I certainly feel that I am no match. I hope I am justified in saying that it is only likely to be challenged on points of detail, for, as I read the discussions of the Bill which have taken place in the House of Commons, I find that the necessity for the Government being armed with powers of this description is one which was admitted by almost all parties in that House—by leaders not only of the Liberal Opposition but even by the Labour Party. The necessity for such powers, and, more than that, of their being kept permanently in reserve in case of emergency, was admitted on all sides, and the discussion turned almost entirely on the question of opportuneness. It was urged over and over again that, however desirable it might be at some time to arm the Government with the powers which the Bill confers upon it, the introduction of such a measure at the present time was calculated to imperil the negotiations which were in progress for the settlement of the present strike. I think circumstances have proved that those fears were ill-founded.

103
It is, I am afraid, too soon yet for any of us to say that we are definitely out of the wood as far as the present strike is concerned. I hope we are, but the situation is still a very uncertain one. At mid-day yesterday I think almost everybody believed that the trouble was over, but in the evening and until the middle of this day an entirely contrary impresson prevailed, certainly among many members of the Government. Now indeed, so far as I know—though I know nothing for certain—the prospect is again a much more cheerful one, but the situation is still in doubt. What I particularly want to call your Lordships' attention to is the fact that, whatever may have happened during the last twelve hours, it is evident that the introduction of this Bill has not had an unfavourable effect, or any effect at all, upon the progress of these negotiations. To the best of my belief, in the long and critical discussion which has taken place between representatives of the miners and members of the Government the Bill has not even been I referred to. I do not believe that its introduction at the present time has had any unfavourable effect whatever upon the course of negotiations.
A Bill of this kind will never be admitted to be opportune. The time never is the right time for introducing a measure of this kind. If it is introduced at a time when there is no trouble someone is quite certain to say, "Why cannot you let sleeping dogs lie? It is surely unwise to set people thinking about industrial strikes at a time when everything is quiet and when ideas of that kind are not in everybody's mind? Why cannot you leave it alone? Wait till you need it." On the other hand, if it is introduced when trouble is actually upon us or is imminent then it is certain to be said that the introduction of such a measure is provocative, that it is calculated to inflame passion and to bring about the very evils against which it is intended to guard. As I say, nobody will ever admit that the time is opportune whichever way it is, and all that any Government can do in the circumstances is to see that the measure is so conceived and that the exceptional powers which are asked for are so safeguarded that no reasonable person is justified in taking exception to them. That is what I claim with respect to the present measure.
I claim that the exceptional powers that the Bill confers are so hedged round with
104
safeguards of every kind that it would be practically impossible for any Government to abuse those powers, even if any Government was likely to be disposed to do so. Look at what the provisions of the measure are. In the first place, the Government cannot be armed with any powers at all under this Bill until after a Proclamation that a state of emergency exists, and the conditions under which such a Proclamation can be issued are very clearly defined in the Bill itself. They are very strict, very grave, and exceptional conditions. The Proclamation can be issued only if 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 such an extensive scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or other necessities, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life."
LORD PARMOOR: In the copy of the Bill that I have, which I thought was a correct copy, the words "or other necessities" do not occur.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I beg your Lordships' pardon; the noble and learned Lord is quite right. I was reading from the original Bill. The words in the Bill as amended are "… by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or with the means of locomotion …"
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his correction, which has possibly saved me from other errors as I had the wrong document in my hand.
LORD PARMOOR: I should not have interrupted the noble Viscount but that I thought those words were of importance.
VISCOUNT MILNER: They are of importance. My contention is that those words are descriptive of a state of things which has rarely existed in the past, which we hope may rarely or never exist in the future, but which if it does exist is a condition of extreme national danger and emergency and one which does clearly justify and indeed demand, the exercise

105
by the Government of very exceptional powers. As I have said, in the first place before any power can be taken by the Government under this Bill there must be a state of things of this gravity and a Proclamation by the Government that an emergency exists.
If you will permit me, at this stage I should like to give your Lordships some information which has just been put into my hands with regard to the actual state of the present negotiations, a knowledge of which, I think, is material to your Lordships' judgment of the position. It is that the agreement which I am glad to say has been arrived is between the Government and the lead ors of the Miners' Federation, but it has to be submitted to a ballot of the miners, so that in the meantime the strike continues. Unfortunately experience has shown that it does not always follow that the result of a ballot is in accordance with the advice of the miners' leaders. The situation, therefore, though certainly greatly improved, is not by any means an absolutely clear situation or one in which we can a ford to dispense with any precautions that otherwise might be, necessary. Returning from that digression, which I hope your Lordships will forgive—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MILNER: —to the main course of my argument, I want to point out that after the Proclamation has been issued according to the Bill it is then within the power of the Government by Order in Council to issue Regulations, and, of course, it is the Regulations which are the essential thing. It is only by virtue of the Regulations that the Government is armed with whatever exceptional powers may be necessary to deal with the particular emergency. Then if the Proclamation is issued and Parliament is not sitting at the time it is issued, Parliament must be summoned within five days.
In the next place—and this is the most important point of all—any Regulations which may be issued under the Proclamation must be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made; that is, practically immediately. They must be laid before Parliament within a day or two after they are made. So that if Parliament is sitting Parliament will be seised
106
of the whole matter and able to deal with it within a couple of days. If it is not sitting, the Regulations must be laid before Parliament as soon as it assembles, and it will have to assemble within five days. Therefore, as it seems to me, it is impossible that at the most more than seven days can elapse before Parliament is in a position to be seised of the whole matter and to deal with it.
More than that, the Regulations made under this Proclamation lapse automatically unless within seven clays from the date at which they are laid before Parliament both Houses of Parliament have passed Resolutions providing for their continuance. Therefore what it comes to is this, that whatever exceptional powers the Government may have under the. Proclamation to which I have referred, they cannot possibly exist for more than fourteen days altogether from start to finish, unless they have the approval, not of one, but of both Houses of Parliament. I ask your Lordships whether it is reasonable to suppose that both Houses of Parliament will approve of the continued exercise by the Government of such exceptional powers if those powers really transcend the necessities of the case. Parliament is the natural and rightful defender of the liberties of the subject. Once granted that conditions exist which may make the exercise of exceptional powers by the Government necessary, I do not think it is possible to provide more stringently than this measure does for the absolute power of Parliament to control the exercise of those powers in the interests of the liberties of the subject.
It is hardly necessary for me to argue at great length at this stage of the Bill in favour of the principles of the measure. That is all that on the Second Reading we are really concerned with. The criticisms that may be raised by noble Lords as to this or that point; in it are proper matters for another stage, and I must do my best to meet them as they arise. I think it would be wasting your Lordships' time were I to dwell at greater length upon the scope of the measure. The Bill is very short and very simple, and it is a very intelligible Bill. We maintain—and that is our justification for introducing it—that conditions exist which admittedly may make the exercise of exceptional powers by the Government necessary for the protection of the community.

107
This is not an offensive measure; it is a defensive measure. It is admitted on all hands that there are conditions of industrial strife which, even without that being the intention of the parties engaged, do involve great danger to the life of the community. We had an instance of it last year. Without the exceptional powers which the Government at that time possessed under the Defence of the Realm Regulations the strike last year could not have been successfully got over. I believe it is generally admitted that those exceptional powers which we then possessed were temperately and effectively exercised. I do not think there has been any serious criticism of the use the Government made of the exceptional powers which it then had. I venture to say that without them the community would have been exposed to very much greater hardship and sufferings than those which it actually had to face. Those powers no longer exist, or at any rate it is doubtful whether they exist, and, even if they existed, I think there is very general and legitimate objection to the continued exercise of powers granted to meet the necessities of war for any other purposes than those for which they were originally granted. I think it will be admitted that, if the Government ought to be armed with certain special powers for emergencies of a civil character, that ought to be done by a Statute providing directly for the case, and not in a roundabout way by the use of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which were meant for purposes of war.
The course which we are pursuing in bringing in a measure to meet a new set of circumstances is, I think, the only proper and straightforward course. If it is admitted that there are dangers arising from industrial strife on its vast modern scale which must be guarded against, then I say that I do not think it is possible to guard against them in any manner less subversive of the liberties of the subject or more calculated to maintain the power and authority of Parliament to protect the subject than is done by the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not in any way purpose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I am in
108
agreement with the noble Viscount—and I believe the whole of the House is—to this extent, in the belief that some permanent powers have to be given to the Government of the clay, whatever it may be, to meet the particular dangers named in this Bill. It is no doubt true that the character of industrial disputes and of strikes has materially altered within quite recent memory. It is no longer a matter of disputes arising between a single employer and his employees or between a body of employers and the men whom they employ. The ramifications of an industrial dispute in these days may be infinitely wide. They may affect the whole life of the nation, and it may be that those who engage in such a strife have in their minds not merely the improvement of certain material conditions in their industry, a rise in wages, a shortening of hours, but have in view social and economic changes which may affect the whole structure of society. Therefore I do not for a moment dispute the necessity for some permanent legislation of this character.
The noble Viscount said, with reference to the still existing coal strike, which, as we hope, will be fortunately terminated, that we are not yet out of the wood, That is true, but, as the noble Viscount frankly admitted at the close of his speech, the Government are still in possession of the special powers given to them under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. He argued that it was undesirable, so long after the formal close of the war, to rely upon an enactment which was passed in war time and meant to deal with war conditions.
VISCOUNT:MILNER: I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me for interrupting him. I am afraid that I did not make myself quite clear. I did not admit that we are still in possession of those powers. I said that it is a matter as to which there is considerable doubt among person more competent than I am to judge of a legal point of that kind. There is considerable doubt about it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I need not inform the noble Viscount that if he is not competent I am at least equally incompetent to express an opinion en a point of that kind. But I certainly had believed that the Government were at any rate still in possession of considerable powers which they could use if need be

109
But they argue that it is preferable to rely upon a permanent Statute than upon such powers as those. I cordially agree, once it is admitted that the permanent Statute has had full and complete consideration. That, I think, is where the argument of urgency has to be carefully considered. In my opinion it would be wiser for once to rely on the possession of temporary powers, assuming they exist, than to hurry through an ill-digested measure without the full consideration of Parliament. There is a balance of disadvantages, but I think that the latter course would involve the greater disadvantage.
The noble Viscount slated that this Bill really bristles with safeguards for the public, and that no possible hardship or injustice could arise as it is framed. I am not going to attempt to discuss the details of the Bill. Some other noble Lords may find points to which they object, and upon which they will be prepared with an. Amendment. But I should like to say this—that all the concessions, all the principal safeguards, which the noble Viscount mentioned were, without exception, I think, concessions introduced in another place and altering the original form of the Bill, and that, if the public are so safeguarded as the noble Viscount boasts, that was not the original mind of the Government; every one of those, unless I am greatly mistaken, represents changes grade by His Majesty's Ministers at the request of other people in another place. The Bill there was in the hands of two most adroit and courteous Ministers, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, and, so far as I can judge from looking at the debate, they adopted a Host conciliatory tone throughout. But practically all the safeguards were Amendments; in the first place, that of saying that no Proclamation should have life for more than a month but would have to be succeeded by a second Proclamation the terms of which Parliament would of course consider; then the calling together of Parliament in five days instead of fourteen; and also, I think, the laying of the Regulations on the Table at once, instead of within fourteen days after the meeting of Parliament. Those, I think, are most valuable changes. As the noble Viscount said, the matter now does become a subject of immediate consideration by Parliament, whereas in the terms in which the Bill was introduced it might have taken a month from the
110
time of the issue of the Proclamation before Parliament could have any say in it.
Then, again, other safeguards referring to the possibility of the introduction of some compulsory industrial or even military service were, at the instance of the representatives of the Labour Party, introduced. It was also provided that the terms of the Trade Disputes Act relating to peaceful persuasion should not be abrogated, as they conceivably might have been, by Regulations under the Act. Those are all material safeguards. I have no detailed criticism to make on the Bill, but those who regarded it with the greatest alarm on its first introduction I have no doubt all admit that its terrors have been greatly reduced in its passage through the House of Commons. Whether any others are considered to remain, I have no doubt we shall hear as the debate proceeds, but I have no doubt that your Lordships will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading, and then the question of its amendment will no doubt be considered in due course.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I do not think that anyone in this House, and certainly riot the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill, will attempt for a moment to minimise the far-reaching character of its powers. Indeed, I gathered from what the noble Viscount said that he himself regarded the Bill as a very important change in our existing law, but one that was justified by the very important events through which we have recently passed, and which we may have to encounter in the future. It is in the light of that that I desire to say the few words of criticism that I wish to address to your Lordships this afternoon.
In the first place I would beg your Lordships to remember that this Bill, though it applies to circumstances which must be transitory, is a permanent measure, one which will always remain on the Statute-book and will be always available for every succeeding Government to use as they think fit. Nor, I think, is there to be found in the Bill itself any definite protection against an unreasonable or excessive use of its powers. If an emergency is declared to exist the whole of this Bill becomes operative at once, and the declaration of the emergency must, as it seems to me, rest in the uncontrolled opinion of the Government, whatever it may be,

111
that is for the moment in power. That is a very grave thing, because some Governments are more nervous than others, and no one can speak as to what the character of the Governments of this country may be in the next twenty years. No one can tell how those powers may be exercised, and the protection that is derived from the necessity for the consent of both Houses of Parliament may be entirely removed. No Government, of course, can act unless it has a majority; it will have the House of Commons behind it; and the protection of your Lordships' House, so far as I can understand, will be very shortly removed altogether. The consequence is that all hat will be left will be the wish of the Government and the assent of the majority which that Government may command in another place.
I have said this simply in order that your Lordships may realise that this is not merely a Bill to clothe with powers the existing Government in the face of an existing crisis nor any Government of the nature to which we have hitherto been accustomed. This Bill will remain as an instrument for whatever Government that may be called upon to assume command in this country in the indefinite future. I think your Lordships will agree that those considerations render it necessary that the powers which the Bill confers should now be carefully examined; because, if not, we know quite well that the amendment of those powers in the future may be a very difficult thing indeed to effect. In the very short time available I have acquainted myself as well as possible with the provisions of the Bill. Indeed. I have watched with care its progress through another place, and there are two things that I want specially to urge upon the noble Viscount with regard to which I propose to put down Amendments which I trust will receive his assent, but I shall feel obliged to insist unless I can obtain satisfaction by some equivalent words.
The Bill will place in the hands of the Government the power to legislate by Order in Council. It will clothe them with precisely the same powers that were used during the war under the Defence of the Realm Act. I do not say the same powers in extent, because that is not so, but the same powers in kind. Everybody knows that when once you proceed to work under these powers and avoid the necessity of obtaining Parliamentary sanction for all
112
that you desire, there is a tendency to strain the powers and sometimes to exceed them. I do not hesitate to say that in the course of the war that temptation was felt by nearly every Government Department, and that not a few of the Government Departments succumbed to the temptation. I believe we all felt that it really did not matter so much while the war was on; that everybody realised the overwhelming importance of the peril itself. It seemed such a little thing to quarrel about restrictions that were being used by Government Departments which we all assumed, and rightly assumed, were after all trying to do their best. But there was a tendency to stretch those Regulations, and that they were stretched, nay more, that they were broken, I do not for a moment doubt. And I say that the temptation that is placed in the hands of any Government when once you enable them to effect their will by the stroke of the pen and the assent of their own majority in the House of Commons is a very strong temptation which needs to be carefully and jealously watched.
There is one form of mischief to which I think these Regulations are peculiarly susceptible, and it is this. Trouble breaks out, violent speeches are being made, men become the object of suspicion, disorder creates the very necessary and natural anxiety as to the existence of dangerous gangs of people in our midst who, it may be believed, are provoking to improper and lawless conduct, and if these Regulations enable the authorities to seize these men upon suspicion and to imprison them because it is feared that if they are left at large they may be exercising a dangerous influence on the community, I have a very uneasy feeling that circumstances may arise in which that power would be very freely and very wrongly exercised. I therefore propose (and I sincerely hope the noble Viscount, on behalf of the Government, will meet me in this matter) to add a provision to one of the clauses to secure that no Regulation made under this Bill shall enable any man to be punished by fine or imprisonment without due trial, and that it shall not be open to the Government to alter existing forms of legal procedure for the purpose of enabling those offences to be examined and dealt with.
I trust that your Lordships will think that this is not only a reasonable but a very wise precaution to make, and I hope

113
the noble Viscount will so regard it that he will not tell me what he will forgive me for saying I have been sc accustomed to hear—that there is no danger of its being done, and that the Bill already provides ample safeguards. This danger is so great that you cannot sufficiently provide protection against it except by words that exclude it in express terms. We know quite well that at this very hour, under Regulations issued under the Defence of the Realm Act, people in Ireland can be arrested and may be imprisoned without trial and without a charge being formulated against them. This is merely the exercise of the provisions that were required for the purpose of protecting ourselves in the time of national emergency. Therefore I am not dealing with an imaginary case, but one that might very well arise, and I trust that the noble Viscount will see that it ought certainly to be prevented. It ought not to be possible, under Regulations such as those, to deprive any man, when we are not at war, of his clear right to have his charge stated and his trial held.
I hope that your Lordships will not think that in this matter I am insisting on something of little value. It would be a grievous thing for us if we regarded so lightly the liberties and rights which after all have been won for this country by very determined action on the part of our ancestors, and that we should give up, even in the fear and apprehension of a great national emergency such as this Bill contemplates, the privileges which for centuries our ancestors would never have yielded without a very bitter and prolonged struggle. That is one thing upon winch I am anxious to be assured.
The next point is this. When it is provided that "the Regulations may provide for the trial by Courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the Regulations," I want to secure that there is no other method of trial provided. When it is said that the maximum penalty which may be inflicted are those mentioned in the Bill, want to provide that it shall be tile maximum penalty for any offence against any of the Regulations. For that purpose I shall propose the introduction of words, and perhaps I might state my Amendment now.
I shall propose in subsection. (3), Clause 2, after the word "penalty" the insertion of
114
"for any offence against any of such Regulations." The subsection will then continue—"… so, however, that the maximum penalty for any offence against any of such Regulations which may be inflicted," and so on. That will make it quite plain. The exact words of the other Amendment, have been borrowed from me and I regret to say have not up to the present been returned, but it would take the form of the addition at, the end of subsection (3) of Clause 2 of words providing that no such Regulation shall alter any existing procedure in the trial of criminal offences or permit the punishment by fin or imprisonment of any person without due trial. Those really are the two main matters to which I am anxious to direct your Lordships' attention. There are other smaller points upon which it might be possible to raise a discussion, but my intention in speaking on the Second Reading was not to discuss smaller matters and to point out how they might have been altered a, little this way and that.
I recognise what the noble Viscount said, that some Bill of this nature is necessary. I understand thoroughly that in the national crisis through which we might have been called upon to pass if the difficulties with which we have recently been confronted were not happily solved it would be essential that the Government should be able to act either by rationing food, controlling transport, exercising orders as to light, and even by exercising orders compelling people in certain areas to keep within their houses in certain times. I thoroughly recognise that the Government ought to possess such powers as these in a moment of national emergency, and I raise no objection at all to the Bill being introduced or to its main provisions, but I hope that your Lordships will find that the matters to which I have called attention are not small and that they will receive the due attention of the Government.
LORD ASKWITHMy Lords, I endorse the remarks of Lord Buckmaster as to the necessity of taking care over this Bill, and the Amendments he has suggested to make it more difficult to put these Regulations and Orders in Council into force. The noble Lord truly said that this Bill may have to be administered in the future by different Governments and by different Ministers. During many years there have been a great many strikes. I have been glancing

115
through the record of the strikes from 1900 to 1919 of which I knew the details behind the scenes in one form or another. I do not think in any one of those strikes that there was any case in which strong use could reasonably have been made of any of the provisions that could be well put down in an Order in Council, except possibly in the case of two strikes in Ireland—and Ireland is excluded from this Bill; they were strikes connected with a revolution or rebellion in Belfast in 1907 and in Dublin in 1913.
But among the strikes from 1900 to 1919 there were many where an unreasonable exercise of powers under an Order in Council would probably have prevented a settlement and have had a very bad effect. We might have a Home Secretary who would listen to advice given to him from one side or another, or who would become alarmed by the reports of the Inspectors of Police. Under this Bill he could at once issue an Order in Council which would embitter a settlement in the dispute that was going on. There is also this difficulty. The Home Secretary might be bombarded with requests for an Order in Council in circumstances in which it might be unwise that it should be issued. If the dispute is in London it is possible for the Home Secretary to consult those engaged in the attempt to settle it or confer with the employers and employed concerned. But if the dispute is in the Provinces—at Hull, at Glasgow—no such consultation can take place, and from the Midland towns will come complaints that they have been deprived of fresh salmon or fresh eggs or, as happened in 1911, that ice could not he got through in hot weather. Alarmed by these notifications, and without any chance of a personal interview to find out what the condition of affairs was, the Home Secretary might easily be led to issue an Order in Council which would have disastrous effects.
It was said in another place that one of the chief reasons for this Bill was the existence of what is called the Triple Alliance. The Triple Alliance was suggested to be an alliance under which the miners, as most able to hold out longest, should come out first. If coal was then handled in various places in the country it should be treated as "tainted goods" and the railways should come out second. Then if the railways were no longer in use and carts or motor ears were used for the
116
conveyance of coal, or if coal was attempted to be imported from America or abroad, that then those who were in the ports—the transport-workers—should come out last. That arrangement was suggested as the one that was most likely because, as has been said, "labour marches upon its stomach," and the transport-workers would be able to hold out least. With a view of meeting the requirements of the stomach it was also suggested that the co-operative wholesale societies should supply the strikers with food, either for payment or on credit. Whether that has come to any further head at the present moment, it is difficult to say. It has been denied that it has been so. There is certainly not an alliance with the co-operative societies at the present time. But this is a very old report, and I cannot conceive anything more likely to bring it to a head than the promulgation of this Bill.
As long ago as 1913, when there was a dispute about a man named Larkin in Dublin, there was a special Trade Union Congress to decide as to the assistance that should be given to the Dublin strikers. Mr. Larkin spoiled his own case. He issued fulminations against the trade unions of this country which they did not like. But an amendment was brought forward at that Congress that there should be an immediate general strike. The railwaymen would have nothing of it, and the miners, represented by Mr. Smillie, made a protest against it. These are the words Mr. Smillie used at that time—
"They had not gone there that day with a mandate on the question of the extension of this fight to other trades. Neither were they in a position to vote on the question of a general stoppage. There might be a difference of opinion as to how best to fight the capitalists, whether by localising a strike or by extending it. That was a matter which would have to be seriously discussed in the future. It did not arise here and now, but when the time came either to hue a general strike or to take action which the miners' organisation was tending in the direction of—that was, the knitting together of the miners, the railwaymen, and the transport-workers for common action—it would not require to be done in a slip-shod fashion. It would require to be done after full discussion and negotiation between the representatives and the rank-and-file of those organisations. So that if such a step was taken it would have to be the final step by which they would win."
That was in 1913. The Government has had a good deal of time which to consider whether they would require to bring in a Bill of this kind.

117
What has happened since 1913? As I said, the co-operative societies have not agreed to provide food. In 1919 the railwaymen went out. Mr. Smillie and the miners did not support them. Now the miners have been out. The railwaymen have discussed whether they should support them. The miners have requested them not to do so; they have felt that interference by the junction of their forces at the present; tine would be inadvisable and would hurt conciliation; and no alliance has taken place between the executives with the approval of the rank-and-file. It takes a long time to have ballots and to get tare approval of the rank-and-file in a matter of this kind. It is an open thing, and the whole of the country would know, and it has not taken place up to the present.
At this juncture the Government have brought in this Bill. There have been seven years during which it was possible to bring in a Bill of this kind. Of course, the war intervened, and the enactments under D.O.R.A. may have had some effect. But there have been seven years during which it would have been possible to bring in a Bill conferring these supposed necessary powers. The Government say that this Bill is necessary in the future. I think every precaution should be taken that the liberty of the subject is not unduly infringed by the use of the powers that are given to the Government. Further, care should be taken that an unreasoning Home Secretary should not have too much power, and should not be able without due notice suddenly to interfere in the midst of a strike. Such interference in the midst of an attempted settlement might embitter feelings and possibly prevent a settlement.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not rise to object to the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish to state quite frankly that the Bill appears to me to have been drafted generally in a reasonable manner, but there are three points upon which I should seek to raise questions in Committee. I am not quite sure how far those points have already been cowered by what has been said by Lord Buckmaster. I should, however, like to give notice now, because the time is so short. In the first place—and I understand this was part of Lord Buckmaster's criticism—there ought to be provision that no new Court of criminal jurisdiction can be established
118
by Regulations made under the terms of the Bill. That is a very important matter. Secondly, I think that there should be no. imprisonment without trial; in other words, that the ordinary principle of habeas corpus should be preserved, for that principle has been looked upon as the sanction of our legal liberties in this country. Lastly—and I think this was also a point to which Lord Buckmaster referred—no penalties should be imposed other than those which are provided for in subsection (3) of Clause 2. On these three points I wish to give notice now that I shall put down Amendments for the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
VISCOUNT MILDER: My Lords, the Second Reading having been passed, I think it would be in accordance with the understanding which was arrived at at an early stage in the evening that we should adjourn and take the Committee stage to-morrow. I have not the least wish in any way to depart from that arrangement, but it occurs to me that as the only Amendments which I understand are to be moved are Amendments that the Government are prepared to accept it might be for the convenience of the House if we took the Committee stage at once. Supposing we got through the Committee stage without difficulty, we might then conclude the proceedings to-night. If in the course of the Committee stage we found that the agreement was not as complete as I believe. it to be, I should myself propose the. adjournment. But I should think we might discuss immediately the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, wishes to propose. I am really not considering my own convenience in the matter any more than that of any other member of the House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, if any consent on my part would facilitate the conduct of business in your Lordships' house or save the necessity of re-assembling to-morrow, that consent would be very readily given, and, speaking for myself, the acceptance of my Amendments would remove all reasons from my mind for asking for a further adjournment till to-morrow. Having followed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said I think he will find that my Amendments cover al1 his

119
objections as well. They deal with three things—no alteration whatever in criminal procedure; that is to say, no opportunity for establishing a new Court; no chance for saying, "Well, this man has been seized and he shall be tried by anybody von like to name." The existing criminal procedure is to be preserved. That is one thing. The maximum penalty is to be limited for all offences; that is another thing. And nothing in the Regulations shall permit interference by way of punishment through fine or imprisonment without trial. Those are the three things which the noble Lord referred to, and those are the three things in my mind. They are all accepted, as I understand, by the noble Viscount. Therefore if your Lordships are willing I shall be perfectly prepared to proceed with the further discussion of this Bill to-day in order to save the necessity for reassembling to-morrow. I may add that there are certain members of your Lordships' House who discharge judicial duties at other hours of the day who would be very glad indeed if your Lordships would proceed with this Bill to-night.
LORD PARMOOR: Those three points have covered my objections. They are practically the same three points.
VISCOUNT MILNER: In the circumstances I am in the hands of noble Lords opposite. I cannot press them to go into Committee to-day unless they think proper.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am in this position, that as far as I know no Amendment is going to be moved from amongst those noble Lords who generally act with me. I am not aware whether the noble Lord who addressed the House a few moments ago proposes to move an Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I have not drafted any Amendment, but I should like very much to ask what is going to happen in regard to these Proclamations when Parliament is sitting. The Bill seems to be designed to deal with conditions when Parliament is not sitting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are all most anxious to study the convenience of the Government and of your Lordships. What the noble Viscount has just said is that if we consent to waive our
120
privileges—privileges confirmed, at any rate, by the kind promise of the Government at the beginning of business—and if it is found in the course of the discussion in Committee which would then ensue that there are points which require further consideration, he would not then oppose the resumption of the House so as to put off the further proceedings until to-morrow.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Certainly not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that case my noble friend Lord Askwith will be able to put his question when the proper moment comes, and if he found that he had no satisfaction the pledge would operate and the proceedings would then come to an end. If I had known of any other Amendment which was going to be proposed by noble Lords with whom I generally act I should not have felt it possible for me to have said this; but, as things are, I do not want to stand in the way of an arrangement which seems to me for the mutual convenience of all your Lordships.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Emergency regulations.
2.—(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

121
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) Ally 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 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 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 enacted in this Act, but ins y 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 regular ions 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 lave 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 say such punishment or penalty.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (3), after "inflicted," to insert "for any offence against any of such Regulations." The noble and learned Lord said: T beg formally to move the insertion of these words in the said subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, after ("inflicted") insert ("for any offence, against any of such Regulations").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: I ant prepared on behalf of the Government to accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I move to insert a proviso to subsection (3). It runs: "Provided that no such Regulations shall alter any existing procedure in criminal cases or confer any right to punish by fine or imprisonment without trial."
Amendment moved—
At end of subsection (3) insert the said proviso.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: Personally I have no objection to this Amendment, but I should like to be sure that it meets the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it does. I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, to show me the words of the Amendment. The only question I had was whether the word "court" as well as the word "procedure" ought to be introduced, but I am satisfied that the word "procedure" would go far enough to meet my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH: Perhaps it would be convenient if I asked my question now. Apparently the Bill is drafted largely to deal with cases arising when Parliament is not sitting is this Proclamation or Order in Council to come out and all the executive action to be taken when Parliament is sitting, without any opportunity for Parliament to express an opinion beforehand? Or why should it not be brought before Parliament so that Parliament might come to a Resolution that in their opinion it was desirable that the Order in Council should be issued?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I am not quite sure that I perfectly appreciate the point raised by the noble Lord. I do not know how Parliament can express an opinion upon Regulations without seeing them. The mere Proclamation does nothing and has no effect. It does not give the Government of the day any powers. It is the Regulations that give the powers. The moment the Regulations are made, if Parliament is sitting, they are put on the Table. The words in the Bill are "as soon as may be," and I understand that to mean at once. If Regulations are made to-day and Parliament is sitting they would be laid before it to-morrow.
LORD ASKWITH: The moment the Regulations are made Parliament can object to anything that is in them?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Certainly.
LORD RUCKMASTER: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, can rest satisfied about that. It seems to me that this provision is reasonably plain. If Parliament is sitting then the Proclamation

123
of an emergency is immediately communicated to it; the provisions in the Bill which provide what will happen in case Parliament is not sitting at the moment are the only provisions that deal with the interposition of those few days. In either case, once Parliament has reassembled the procedure is exactly the same; there is no difference at all.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Amendments reported.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I suggest for the convenience of the House that to-morrow we should meet at four o'clock.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: For Commons Amendments?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In that event, yes. It had been suggested that we should meet at an earlier hour, but I understand that from a legal point of view it would be convenient if the House met at four o'clock. I hope that the Amendments which your Lordships have inserted in the Emergency Powers Bill will prove acceptable, and that the business to-morrow will be purely formal. None the less I think it advisable to meet at four o'clock to provide for any possible conversations that may take place between the two Houses.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What will the business be for next week?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: So far as the Government are concerned there is no business, except possibly the introduction by my noble friend Lord Peel of the Bill dealing with the acquisition of land—an emergency Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That would be on Tuesday, I suppose?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Second Reading will not be taken next week in any case. The learned Clerk of the Parliaments reminds me that my noble friend Lord Curzon may have to submit a Motion—but, of course, it will not he done without notice—relating to emergency meetings of Parliament during times of emergency. Notice has been handed in, and it will be in print to-morrow; otherwise there is no business, so far as I know, except what appears on the Paper.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until four o'clock to-morrow.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of October 27.]

BRODICK, LAMLASH, LOCH RANZA, AND WHITING BAY PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock until tomorrow, four o'clock.