Sitting of 4 April 1921

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 24 th March for the Easter Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Portsmouth Water Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Bill,
As amended considered; to be read the Third time.
Corporation of London (Bridge) Bill [Lords],
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORTS FROM GERMANY.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the
    2
    Board of Trade the number of gas mantles imported from Germany into this country since the commencement of the year; and whether he is aware that the whole of the British gas-mantle industry is threatened with ruin owing to the importation of German gas mantles, which are sold in this country below the retail price in Germany?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The number of incandescent gas mantles imported into the United Kingdom, consigned from Germany, registered during the period 1st January to 31st March, 1921, was 12,668 gross. Consideration has been given to the general position of the gas-mantle industry, and I am fully aware of its difficulties.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Can the hon. Gentleman—whom I congratulate on his promotion—state what has become of the Report made at the time by the Committee which dealt with the Merchandise Marks Act, and before which important evidence was given with respect to this industry?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the Government undertook to introduce a Bill to bring into effect the recommendations of the Merchandise Marks Committee as soon as possible.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will this industry be included in it?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The recommendations of the Committee are perfectly general in their character.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will that Report be available?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Report was published as a Parliamentary Paper some time ago.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of gas lamps and burner fittings imported from Germany into this country since the commencement of the year; and if he is aware that the importation of these German-made goods which are sold at a lower price here than retailed in Germany, threatens men engaged in this trade with unemployment?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Gas lamps and burner fittings are not separately distinguished in the trade returns, and consequently I am unable to state the number imported. The number of lamps and lanterns (except electric) registered as imported into this country during the period 1st January to 31st March, 1921, consigned from Germany, was 43,739. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information as to the relative levels of German domestic and export prices for the commodities mentioned; but dumping, whether as an effect of collapsed exchanges or otherwise, is a matter covered by one of the Financial Resolutions to be moved to-morrow.

    IMPORTS (PREFERENTIAL DUTY).
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the goods imported from British Dominions and possessions and from foreign countries, respectively to which preferential rates of duty apply?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander E. Hilton Young): The preferential rates of Customs duties authorised by the Finance Act, 1919, apply only in the case of deliveries for home consumption of imported goods which comply with the statutory conditions as to Empire consignment and origin. For information as to the quantities and values (where available) of such goods delivered during the year 1920, as compared with the corresponding quantities and values of goods delivered at the full rates of duty, I would refer the hon.
    4
    Member to the written answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East on the 10th March last.

    UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any increase in the exportation of worn-out horses within the last six months over the preceding period; what steps the Government are taking to prevent the exportation of such animals suffering pain by movement; and whether this traffic is on the increase and brutal treatment is being meted out to horses exported for the purposes of human food?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I am informed by the Ministry of Agriculture that, taking the six months from 12th September, 1920, to 12th March, 1921, the total number of horses passed for shipment in Great Britain was 39,869, as compared with 24,259 during the preceding six months. The Exportation of Horses Act provides for the examination of all horses shipped to the Continent by a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Ministry, who is required to see that they are fit to travel and work. The Ministry has recently made special inquiries into the trade, and it has been ascertained that in some individual cases insufficient care has been taken to enforce the standard laid down by the Act. The services of the officers concerned have been dispensed with, and the Ministry has taken steps to improve the administration of the Act. Attempts are also being made to arrange for the export of carcases instead of live animals.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the report of the inspector who was recently appointed to look into this matter yet been received, and will it be published?
    Mr. PARKER: I will make inquiries in regard to that; I do not know.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman promise in any case that he will do his best to stop altogether this traffic in worn-out horses?
    Mr. PARKER: I will call attention to that suggestion.
    Mr. PAPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the great suffering inflicted upon old and decrepit horses exported from this country to the Continent; and whether steps can be taken to put an end to this traffic by arranging that the animals shall be humanely slaughtered in this country?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which has been given this afternoon to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that the Minister to whom I addressed the question recently visited the Continent to inquire into the matter, and might the House be given the benefit of the report he made on the subject?
    Mr. PARKER: I have not the report, but I will make inquiries in regard to it.

    PROFITEERING ACTS (COMMITTEES).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Profiteering Committee for the urban district of Consett, in the county of Durham, was appointed on the 23rd September, 1919; whether it has had one case altogether; whether, having held three full meetings on that case, it found that a pair of men's goloshes, which were sold at 7s. 11d., might have been quite properly charged at 8s. 3d.; whether there is any other work requiring the continuance of this committee; and whether there are many other cases of Profiteering Committees for which no work is forthcoming?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Board of Trade have delegated their powers under the Profiteering Acts relating to complaints in respect of retail transactions to local committees established by local authorities, and while many committees have not reported the hearing of any complaints, the deterrent effect of the existence of a committee armed with powers under the Acts should be borne in mind.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the hon. Gentleman mind answering the last part of the question?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have already said that there are a number of committees who have not actually heard complaints, but, as I have pointed out, the deterrent effect of the Act at the time when profiteering was going on was sufficient in itself to prevent those committees having to function.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is of any use continuing these committees at the present time?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have already said that it is not proposed to continue them. The Profiteering Act is coming to an end.
    Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recommendations of the Committee on Trusts set up by the Ministry of Reconstruction, backed up by the findings of the Central Profiteering Committee, particularly in respect of the effect of the Light Castings Association in increasing the cost of housing, the Government will introduce legislation to carry out any or all of the recommendations of these committees; and, if so, at what date such legislation will be introduced?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As I have previously stated, it is hoped to introduce permanent legislation dealing with trade monopolies; but I do not think it will be possible to do so during the present Session.
    Major BARNES: If it is necessary at this present time to make great reductions in wages in order to bring about a reduction in prices, is it not equally urgent and important to prevent associations of this kind from forcing prices up?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think one has to look at this question broadly and largely. Undoubtedly the condition of trade at present is not such as to admit of profiteering, and, as the hon. and gallant Member will see from the Report, the publicity of the inquiry has in itself led the association in question to reconsider its policy.

    DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATIONS) ACT.
    Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the list of products prohibited under the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill will be published?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The printed list of products coming within the scope of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act has been available to applicants since the 10th March. An announcement stating where copies could be obtained was issued to the Press and inserted in the Board of Trade Journal of the 10th March.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Postmaster-General if he will state how many telephone subscribers have cancelled contracts within the last two months?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: About 7,000 agreements expired during February and March, on notice given by the subscribers. This number is above the average, but it is impossible to say how far the increase is due to the revision of rates, and how far to other causes.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    OCCUPIED TERRITORY (EXPORT DUTY).
    Major BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether exports from German territories that are in the occupation of Allied forces are subject to export duty in the same amount as goods from unoccupied German territory?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I understand that at the moment the rates of export duty leviable in the occupied territory are the same as those in the rest of Germany. The question of the Customs duties to be levied in future in the occupied territory is being arranged by the Allied Governments.

    TURKEY.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether the latest official advices from the Near East show that Turkey has accepted, or will accept, the Treaty modifications recently outlined in London; and what action, in that case, may be expected from Greece?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): His Majesty's Government are still waiting to be informed of the acceptance by Turkey of the proposals submitted to their Delegations in London.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether India or any of the Dominions have introduced or passed legislation similar to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative, with the exception of Newfoundland.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether any agreement has been reached with the other Allied Governments as to the allocation of the payments under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act; if so, what are the terms of the agreement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether the Allied experts at Brussels recommended that no further shipping should be taken from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles; on what grounds this recommendation was based; and whether it is going to be carried out?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The delegates to the Brussels Conference suggested for the consideration of the Allied Governments the offer, for the purpose of facilitating a general agreement, of certain alleviations to Germany's obligations under the Treaty, amongst others in regard to shipping. The attitude of the German Government towards its responsibilities for reparation has precluded any further discussion of these suggestions.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether, since the sanctions have been put into operation, negotiations have been reopened with Germany on the subject of reparations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Negotiations have not been re-opened.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister the amount which will be due to Great Britain from Germany by way of reparations in the year from 1st May, 1921, to 1st May, 1922, under the Treaty of Versailles?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Under Article 233 of the Treaty of Versailles, it is the duty of the Reparation Commission to fix the amount to be paid by Germany in 1921–22 towards the discharge of her reparation liabilities. Subject to

    9
    the satisfaction of the priority accorded to Belgium, the British Empire is entitled under the Spa Agreement to 22 per cent. of the amount recovered under the head of reparation. The hon. Member will, however, remember that there are prior charges on all receipts from Germany for the costs of the armies of occupation and the repayment of the advances made in respect of coal deliveries.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Prime Minister the amount paid by Germany by way of reparations under the Treaty of Versailles?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The estimate of the Reparation Commission of the value of deliveries made by Germany up to 31st January last is approximately 6,055,000,000 gold marks, which, at 20 gold marks to the £, would be about £303,000,000. To arrive at the amount paid by way of reparation, there has to be deducted from this sum the costs of the armies of occupation and the advances made in respect of coal deliveries under the Spa Agreement. The approximate costs of armies of occupation up to 31st December, 1920, was 3,530,000,000 gold marks, say, £177,000,000. The coal advances, which have, I understand, now been completed but for minor adjustments, will amount to approximately £25,000,000. When account has been taken of deliveries made since 31st January and the costs of occupation since 1st January, the amount paid to date by Germany by way of reparation may prove to be about £100,000,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the price of goods handed over by Germany, such as ships, is at the time they were handed over or at the present market price?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I am not informed on that point, but I will ascertain for my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister which of the Allied Powers have introduced or passed legislation similar to the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Belgian Parliament have passed, and the French
    10
    Government are taking the necessary Committee steps to pass legislation similar to the Reparations (Recovery) Act. The Italian, Portuguese, Roumanian, Greek and Siamese Governments have intimated their intention to introduce similar measures.

    WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    Mr. WHITEasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the trial of war criminals in terms of the Treaty of Versailles?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked to reply to this question. I cannot usefully add anything at present to the answers recently given upon this matter.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has a difficulty arisen with regard to the evidence to be submitted—some technical difficulty with regard to the form of the declaration?
    Sir G. HEWART: Yes, there are difficulties which naturally arise where persons are being prosecuted in one country and the evidence is being taken in another. But I think we have surmounted that difficulty, and before the end of the month we shall be in a position to say that depositions will be taken in London.

    PALESTINE.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any concessions for development work of any sort, including mineral research, have yet been granted in Palestine; if so, will he state to whom they have been granted and on what conditions; and what is the nature of each one?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the remaining parts, therefore, do not arise. I would, however, add that, owing to the long delay which has occurred in the ratification of the Treaty of Sèvres, and the urgent need for fostering the economic development of Palestine, the Secretary of State for the Colonies is considering, in consultation with His Majesty's High Commissioner for Palestine, the adoption of a new policy whereby applications for concessions for constructional development and schemes providing for the

    11
    employment of labour might be granted by the Palestine Administration, provided that (1) the terms of the draft mandate for Palestine are strictly observed, and (2) the concessions are not in conflict with any existing concessions which it may be necessary to deal with under Article 311 of the Treaty of Sèvres. No modification of the decision not to grant concessions for working and prospecting for minerals and oils pending the entry into force of the Treaty of Sèvres is, however, at present proposed.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When are we likely to have the policy to be adumbrated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies presented to the House?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I hope the Secretary of State will be back in this country on Wednesday, and I have no doubt he will wish to bring the results of his journey before the House at the earliest moment after having communicated with the Cabinet.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that there will be no preference given to any special nationality in granting these concessions? Is that perfectly clear?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, I think so.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the most critical situation as regards land rights between Jews and Arabs, will my hon. and gallant Friend give an undertaking that these concessions will be given, if they are to be granted at all, to anyone applying for them, and not necessarily to one race?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir, I do not understand that there is any question of confining concessions to any one section of the community.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of houses which have been completed up to 31st March under the Housing Act and the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, respectively?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): As at 31st March the Scottish Board
    12
    of Health had paid subsidy in respect of 318 houses completed by private persons under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919. The figures with regard to the number of houses completed under the schemes of local authorities and public utility societies up to 31st March are not yet available, but as at 15th March, 1,198 houses had been occupied, and an additional 48 were ready for occupation.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (REPORTS).
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take steps to secure the early publication of the Reports of the Board of Agriculture, the Land Court, the Scottish Education Department, and of the Board of Health?
    Mr. MORISON: It is expected that the annual Report for the year 1920 of the Scottish Education Department, the Scottish Board of Health, and the Scottish Land Court will be published in the course of this month, and that of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland by the middle of May.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour what definition is given to the term ex-service in substituting ex-service men for women clerks in Government Departments?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): As stated by my right. hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Treasury on 17th March, for the purpose of substitution of temporary staff in Government Departments ex-service men are defined as men who served with His Majesty's Forces for a minimum period, or overseas, or who have been discharged unfit for those forces.
    Mr. RAPER: What constitutes the minimum period?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret to say I do not know. I will make further enquiries and communicate the information to the hon. member.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is it not a fact that there is no differentiation between men and women, but only between ex-service men and non ex-service persons?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that is so.

  IRELAND.

    SINN FEIN AND BOLSHEVISM.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, arising out of the decision of the Irish Executive to give greater publicity to the aims and methods of the Sinn Fein organisation in Ireland, he will give instructions that special attention shall be directed to the close association between that organisation and the Russian Bolshevists; and if in that connection steps can be taken to bring home to the Irish people some of the more notorious results of Bolshevism such as the destruction of religious life, the degradation of women, and the wholesale massacre and enslavement of the workers?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to persuade the Irish people that the policy of revolutionary violence which is being pursued by the Sinn Fein organisation is attended with grave dangers to the economic and social well-being of their country.
    Sir F. HALL: What steps are being taken to bring this home to the people?
    Mr. HENRY: It would be very difficult in the scope of an answer to a question to deal with that matter.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman the smallest ground for believing in this extraordinary claim—that there is any connection between any movement in Ireland and Bolshevism?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that it has been proved that these people have direct connection one with another?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the connection is so close between Sinn Feiners and the Germans, how can it also be so close between Sinn Feiners and Bolsheviks? Cannot you make up your minds which to choose?

    PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether any further progress has been made towards bringing about peace in and with Ireland?
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether since Christmas he has entered into any negotiations, direct or indirect, with the Irish Sinn Fein leaders; if so, with what result;
    (2) whether he will endeavour to arrange an immediate truce in the Irish war, with a view to negotiating a settlement?
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister if the Government will exhaust the possibility of making a peaceful settlement in Ireland by offering the President of Dail Eireann facilities for convening under a safe conduct a meeting of that body to appoint representatives to discuss with the Government the future government of Southern Ireland subject to the three conditions laid down by him; if so, whether he will invite Mr. Arthur Griffiths to convey the offer and, on his agreement, release him for that purpose; and if he will give the names of the members of Dail Eireann who on account of being charged with crimes cannot be permitted to take part in such a meeting?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am continuing to watch the situation most carefully, but no useful purpose would be served by adding anything to what has already been said on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Have there been negotiations, direct or indirect, with Sinn Feiners?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have really dealt with this fully in the course of discussion, and have withheld nothing from the House on the subject. I have informed the House of Commons of everything that has taken place as far as I can, recollect.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that since the right hon. Gentleman made his last full statement he has taken no further steps at all and is contenting himself with observing the situation? Has nothing further been done at all?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would help the object the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view if I were to state everything that has been done in order to ascertain whether Irish opinion is prepared for a settlement. I have only to repeat to the House of Commons what I have said so often—that the moment Irish opinion is prepared to negotiate,

    15
    and to discuss the matter, they will find the Government quite agreeable to meet them.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are there any negotiations now?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Do the Government yet realise that force alone will not settle this question, and are they trying any other method?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government that the Irish question should be placed before the forthcoming Imperial Conference with the Dominion representatives for discussion; and, if so, will he arrange that the Dominion representatives shall be fully informed of the facts regarding the assistance given to Germany by Sinn Fein throughout the War, and the long record of murders and outrages that preceded the adoption of military measures and which still continue in Ireland as well as in this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Irish question is not included in the Agenda which has been agreed for the forthcoming Conference.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in the Press of one of the members of the Government stating that this would be so, and under the circumstances does the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable that members of the Government should make these statements as to the intention of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not heard of any.
    HON. MEMBERS: Name.
    An HON. MEMBER: Lord Lee.

    MURDERS AND OUTRAGES.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the number of outrages attributed to Sinn Fein in the quarters ending, respectively; 31st July, 31st October, and 31st December, 1920, and 31st March, 1921; and the numbers of police and soldiers who have
    16
    been killed and wounded in each of these periods?
    Mr. HENRY: The following are the figures asked for:—
    Quarter ended 30th June, 1920.—Outrages attributed to Sinn Fein, 2152; police, 29 killed and 37 wounded; military, nil killed, 3 wounded.
    Quarter ended 30th September, 1920.—Outrages attributed to Sinn Fein, 4770; police, 53 killed, 96 wounded; military, 12 killed, 54 wounded.
    Quarter ended 31st December, 1920.—Outrages attributed to Sinn Fein, 1726; police, 73 killed, 92 wounded; military, 34 killed, 61 wounded.
    Quarter ended 31st March, 1921.—Outrages attributed to Sinn Fein, 2246; police, 88 killed, 156 wounded; military, 44 killed, 84 wounded.

    CENSUS (POSTPONEMENT).
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the decrees of Dail Eireann with reference to the Census; and, if so, what action he intends to take in the matter?
    Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Prior to the publication of the so-called decree I had received a report from the Census Commissioners in Ireland recommending that in view of the disturbed state of the country and of the impossibility of procuring accurately the necessary information the taking of the Census in Ireland should be postponed. In that recommendation my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary concurs although with reluctance.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number of local authorities outside Ulster which do and do not, respectively, recognise the Irish Local Government Board?
    Mr. HENRY: As the answer involves a good deal of detail, perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer referred to:
    The Local Government Board, which is the medium through which Government grants are distributed to local authorities

    17
    in Ireland, is charged by State with the duty of auditing the books of these authorities, in order to ensure that the grants have been expended on the objects for which they were voted by Parliament. In the following table, which I have prepared for the information of the hon. Member, only those authorities that have maintained their normal relations with the Local Government Board and which continue to submit their books to audit are included under the heading "Local bodies that recognise the Local Government Board." These bodies alone continue to receive Government grants. The remaining local authorities, by refusing to submit to this audit in the manner prescribed by Statute, have deliberately deprived the ratepayers whom they represent of the advantages of these grants.
    Local bodies that recognise the Local Government Board:

    Ulster.

    Rest of Ireland.

    Counties

    6

    0

    County Boroughs

    2

    0

    Urban Districts

    32

    32

    Unions

    31

    4

    Rural Districts

    37

    5

    Town Commissions

    3

    2

    Local bodies that do not recognise the Local Government Board:

    Ulster.

    Rest of Ireland.

    Counties

    3

    24

    County Boroughs

    0

    4

    Urban Districts

    5

    28

    Unions

    10

    105

    Rural Districts

    12

    125

    Town Commissions

    0

    3

    Local bodies whose attitude is doubtful:

    Ulster.

    Rest of Ireland.

    Counties

    0

    0

    County Boroughs

    0

    0

    Urban Districts

    3

    4

    Unions

    1

    3

    Rural Districts

    6

    16

    Town Commissions

    3

    17

    Totals:

    Counties

    33

    County Boroughs

    6

    Urban Districts

    94

    Unions

    154

    Rural Districts

    201

    Town Commissions

    28

    POLICE RAIDS.
    Mr. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary what are the circumstances attending the arrest and subsequent death of Christopher Reynolds and two other men; whether the house of Reynolds was entered when his father was in a dying condition; whether it is true that when the police raiders were remonstrated with, one answered "To hell with the father; they are all dying"; whether subsequently Reynolds and the others were taken away in a lorry and fired at; have any of the occupants of the lorry been identified or put under arrest?
    Mr. HENRY: A Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest is being held and the circumstances attending the death of Christopher Reynolds will be fully enquired into, but I may say at once that the police who effected these arrests have made statements from which it appears that there is no truth in the allegations contained in the question. They will, of course, be called upon to give evidence on oath at the inquiry.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: What allegations are denied? Is it denied that Reynolds is dead, that he was taken on a lorry by the military or police, and that he was killed while on the lorry?
    Mr. HENRY: All those matters will be dealt with fully.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the allegations denied?
    Mr. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to an address issued by the Bishop of Achonry and the priest of his diocese protesting against a raid, accompanied with threats, on the house of Father Denis O'Hara, of Kiltimagh, one of the most respected priests of the diocese and a member for many years of the Congested Districts Board; and whether steps will be taken to prevent such outrages in a district that has been hitherto quite remarkable for its peaceful conditions?
    Mr. HENRY: The attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been called to the statement of the Bishop of Achonry, and he has called for an immediate report of the facts in the case.

    RUSSIA (BRITISH OFFICIAL AGENTS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to send diplomatic and consular representatives of His Majesty's Government to Russia; and, if so, when?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The selection of British official agents to be sent to Russia under Article 5 of the Trade Agreement is under consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it right to describe these agents as diplomatic and consular representatives?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that that is technically correct, and I do not think that is the description given.

    SUMMER TIME.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to travellers by France and England starting summer time at different dates, he will in future years approach the French authorities with a view to the two countries starting on the same day?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply to this question. The matter has already been under consideration, and the French Government has approached us on the subject. The circumstances of the two countries are somewhat different, but the possibilities will be carefully examined in consultation with the French Government.

    DEVOLUTION.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has abandoned the intention of dealing with the problem of devolution; if not, whether he still adheres to the proposal to grant home rule to Wales so that Wales may deal with the liquor traffic on its own lines; and when a Bill for this purpose will be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it is not possible to make any statement on this subject at present.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MANDATES).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister if he will propose the immediate appointment of a Select Committee of this House to consider and report on the draft mandates presented or to be presented by His Majesty's Government to the Council of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Select Committee and I do not propose to take any action in the sense suggested by the Noble Lord.
    Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very desirable that these draft mandates should be fully considered by Parliament before they are dealt with by the Council of the League, and will he suggest any other way by which they can be dealt with except by inquiry by small bodies like Select Committees?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord knows very well that it is difficult for what are, after all, the conditions of a Treaty, to be discussed by a Committee of the House of Commons. It would be a very great departure from precedent for a step of that kind to be taken. The House of Commons has discussed the question frequently.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the discussions have been of a most general character, and necessarily of a most general character in this House, and that these mandates may involve a very considerable expenditure being placed upon this country? It is for those reasons that I suggest a more full discussion.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I agree, but I do not think the House of Commons can usefully deal with these matters, except by general discussions. That, if I may respectfully suggest, is the function of the House of Commons—in that respect. It may either accept or reject, or it may, by giving general indications in the course of debate, inform the Government of the line they should take. But for the House of Commons to go through all the conditions of a mandate, to examine them, and to tie the hands of the Government in entering into

    21
    negotiations with foreign powers in detail, would be quite impossible.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Does not the Prime Minister agree that this is the great differentiation between the Treaty and these mandates of which we have now some knowledge, that there are immense financial commitments in connection with them on which this House is fully entitled to be consulted before the country is committed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I know, but my right hon. Friend is aware that the general outlines of the mandates were determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and settled by a Committee of which my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) was one of the members. The main outlines of the mandates were settled there. There are, no doubt, details which have to be filled up, and if the House of Commons could be useful at all, and no doubt it could, it would have been upon the general principles that were laid down by my Noble Friend.
    Lord R. CECIL: As a matter of personal explanation, may I say that I had nothing whatever to do with Article 22, which was settled entirely by the Council of Ten, on the proposition of the Prime Minister.

    FINLAND (GERMAN MILITARY EXPEDITION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Parliament of Finland voted on the 10th March last a payment of 30,000,000 Finnish marks to the German Government for the German expedition under General Von der Goltz in the spring of 1918; whether the threat of this German army to Murmansk and Petchenga necessitated the despatch of a British naval and military expedition at great expense when every ship and soldier was required in the main theatres of war; and whether this money should be paid to the British Exchequer rather than to the Germans, particularly in view of the fact that General Ludendorf states in his memoirs that the expedition was not sent from any sentimental point of view, but simply to serve the military interests of Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The British expedition to North Russia was sent in
    22
    accordance with the general plan of campaign for the successful prosecution of the War, but no doubt, at that date, some apprehension was felt as to the attitude of Finland, and precautions were taken. On 10th March last the Finnish Diet sanctioned the inclusion of a sum of 30,000,000 Finnish marks in the Vote of the Ministry of Finance under the heading "For Restoration of Order in 1918." His Majesty's Government are not in a position to interfere in the disposal of Finnish funds.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Government not in the position to bring some pressure upon Finland, by diplomatic means or otherwise, to prevent this money being handed over to Germany? Should it not be handed over to relieve the British taxpayer?
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to arrange for the discussion by representatives of this country and of the United States of America of the naval programmes of the two countries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question was answered on the 24th March, and appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date [Col. 2765].

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. HOLMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the National Debt as at 31st March; the amount of the floating debt; and the amount of interest payable in the current financial year?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

    HOME-GROWN WHEAT (PRICES).
    Mr. HOLMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any estimate as to the amount payable to the farmers during the current financial year in virtue of the guarantee of prices under the Agriculture Act?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. No payments in respect of the

    23
    minimum guaranteed prices will be made in the current financial year. Payments in respect of wheat and oats harvested this year will not fall due till after 31st March, 1922, and the amount will depend on the difference between the guaranteed prices for 1921, which have not yet been fixed, and the average market prices of wheat and oats from September next to March, 1922. It is impracticable, therefore,. to supply any estimate at present of the probable liability on the State in respect of wheat and oats harvested this year.
    Mr. NEWBOULDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid up to 31st March, to the farmers in virtue of the Prime Minister's pledge guaranteeing the price of wheat?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The amount paid in respect of the period up to the 7th March is £3,770. As from that date millers were requested to buy homegrown wheat of sound milling quality at 95s. per quarter of 504 lbs. pending further instructions.

  TRANSPORT.

    SEASON TICKET HOLDERS.
    Sir T. BENNETTasked the Minister of Transport if he will call the attention of railway managers to the unfairness of the practice of refusing a refund to season ticket holders who have inadvertently neglected to bring their tickets with them of the cost of a ticket which has been incurred in consequence; seeing that sharp practice on the part of the railway companies is likely to provoke, by way of defence, sharp practice amongst the travelling public?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 28th April and the 3rd and the 10th May last to the hon. Member for Devonport. I have nothing to add to those answers, of which I am sending the hon. Member copies.

    BUDGET.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce the Budget?
    Mr. HOLMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the date on which the Budget Statement will be made?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: My right hon. Friend is unable to fix a date for the opening of the Budget until he has been able to communicate with his successor in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and ascertain his wishes.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the fact that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is entirely new to financial business, will the Government postpone the Budget, say, for six months to give him an opportunity of learning it?
    Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I will convey that idea to my right hon. Friend.

    EMPIRE COUNCIL.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister whether the formation of an Empire Council is to be considered at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. No Imperial Conference is in contemplation for this year, and the question of the formation of an Empire Council is not on the Agenda for the forthcoming Imperial Cabinet Meeting.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: In view of the opinion expressed in all parts of the Empire and in this country in favour of this course, will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of placing this matter on the Agenda of the next Imperial Conference?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Has not disapproval been expressed of this proposal in Canada?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: And in Australia?

    TERMINATION OF WAR.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether he can state when the termination of the War will take place in terms of the Termination of the War Act; and, if he cannot give an approximate date, whether he will introduce an amending Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act,

    25
    1918, provides that the date of the termination of the War shall be as nearly as possible the date of the deposit of ratifications of the last Treaty of Peace. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not going to be some limit to this matter? Surely it was never contemplated that the Turkish Treaty of Peace would be so long delayed? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to put an end to this?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his answer to me during the Debate on the Address, when he said he hoped that the declaration of peace would be made within about a fortnight of that time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, no.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to enter into an argument about that. We can always refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can hardly believe that I made so definite a statement. I did not anticipate that there would be a settlement within a fortnight. I might have expressed some hope that there would be a settlement within a very short time; but, at any rate, it is clear that there must be some settlement at an early date between Turkey and Greece and all the other Powers. We can hardly leave it open indefinitely. Therefore if the House will wait for a short time it will be in a better position to understand what has happened. The Turkish delegates have promised on their return to place the terms offered before their Assembly, and to let us know in five or six weeks. That would be in another three or four weeks.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information as to the alleged defeat of the Greeks at Eskishehr?

    KEY INDUSTRIES BILL.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the passing of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the Anti-Dumping Bill?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does this mean that all goods from Germany may have to pay a duty of 83½ per cent.? Is that the intention of the Government?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of discussing this in a very short time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But cannot we have an answer now?

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with the liquor traffic, which he promised to bring in before Christmas, 1919, will be introduced?
    Sir G. HEWART: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am not aware either of the Bill or of the promise referred to in the question, but I understand that legislation upon this matter is being considered.

    HUNGARY (EX-EMPEROR KARL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the present position of the ex-Emperor Karl of Austria, and what steps are being taken to prevent further intrigues by the ex-Emperor?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The ex-Emperor arrived in Buda Pest without the knowledge of the Hungarian Government, who informed him that his reinstatement in Hungary was out of the question, and urged him to leave the country at once. The ex-Emperor started on his return journey but stopped at Steinmanger, on Hungarian soil, where, according to the latest advices, he still remains. It does not appear that there is any general movement in Hungary in favour of his restoration, and the ostensible reason for his delay in leaving the country is the difficulty of arranging for his safe transit back to Switzerland. His Majesty's Government and the French and Italian Governments have joined in

    27
    requesting the Austrian Government to grant a safe conduct. This the Austrian Government have promised, and the Swiss Government have intimated that they will allow the ex-Emperor to return to Switzerland, subject to certain conditions. It is hoped that he may be induced to start without delay.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Once the ex-Emperor is back in Switzerland cannot more adequate steps be taken to prevent a further disturbance of this sort? Is the Prime Minister aware that the return of a Hapsburg to Austria will mean certain war with at least three of Hungary's neighbours?
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any truth in the rumour that this ex-king intends to stand as a "Wee Free" at the next election?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is no joke in that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Prime Minister issue an emphatic denial of the story in the Press that this ex-Emperor got to Hungary on a British passport?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister to take this matter seriously, as it may mean a renewal of war, with all war's horrors? [Interruption.] Hon. Members joke, because they do not know anything about it.

  WAGES DISPUTE.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to bringing about a solution of the present disastrous deadlock in the mining industry of the country, the Government will consider the question of summoning to the Bar of the House representatives to be nominated by the mineowners and miners, respectively, in order that, after hearing the case of each side, the House may at once pass such special legislation as may be necessary to enforce what it may consider an equitable adjustment of the dispute, fortified by the opinion of the chosen representatives of the people?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are anxious to probe every sugges-
  28
  tion which might lead to an amicable solution of this unfortunate dispute, but I am afraid it would not be practicable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that, in replying to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) a few minutes ago, he said that one of the functions of the House was to instruct the Government as to its functions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and I certainly trust that within the next twenty-four hours the House will have a full opportunity of discussing the whole of this very difficult situation, because I fully realise the importance of getting every assistance in this crisis.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to make a statement to the House to-day or to-morrow on the coal strike?
  Mr. J. JONES: It is not a strike; it is a lock-out. [Hon. MEMBEBS: "A strike!"]
  The PRIME MINISTER: I shall shortly make an announcement to the House. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put his question to me afterwards?
  Mr. S. HOLMES(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines what steps were taken by the Board of Trade after the rising of Parliament on 24th March to end the deadlock which had arisen in the negotiations between the coalowners and the miners, and what steps the Department was now taking to bring an end to the present position at the earliest possible moment?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would postpone that question until the whole matter can be discussed.
  At the end of Questions—
  The PRIME MINISTER(standing at the Bar of the House): A Message from the King, signed by his own hand.
  Mr. SPEAKER read the Royal Message (all the Members of the House being uncovered) and it was as followeth:
  "The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, having enacted that if it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken

  29
  or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive, the community or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists; and the immediate threat of cessation of work in coal mines having, in His Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act:
  His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act and dated the 31st day of March, 1921, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message be taken into consideration to morrow."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether to-morrow will be the occasion for him to make a statement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There will be a Resolution under the Emergency Powers Act in this House and in another place. I have no doubt that a full statement will be made, probably by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir R. Home) to-morrow, and then there will be full opportunity for discussion. I think that would be the best occasion for clearing up all the questions.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  The Right Honourable JOSEPH AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, for the Borough of Birmingham (West Birmingham Division), after appointment as Lord Privy Seal.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  On Wednesday, 27th April, to call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. F. Hall]
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  On Wednesday, 27th April, to call attention to the fact that the continued existence of the war time Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) is contrary to the undertaking given by the Government at the institution of the said Board, is considered by the people to be a breach of faith, and is a fruitful cause of unrest; that the Board should be dissolved forthwith and its Regulations annulled, and the services of its staff dispensed with; and that these transactions be finally completed by Whitsunday, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Raper.]
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  On Wednesday, 27th April, to call attention to the administration of Old Age Pensions, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Barnes.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POLICE PENSIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a Bill, which I venture to hope will not be contentious in principle, although, if it pass its Second Reading, and reach the Committee stage, there may be Amendments moved. It has been before all the local police authorities, through the County Councils' Associations and the Municipal Associations, and they have approved of it not only in principle, but also in detail. May I remind the House of the principles upon which the Desborough Committee dealt with this matter. We have in this country a very large, number of police forces under the control of local police authorities, and, before the sitting of this Committee, their circumstances in general were very different, one from the other. Each local authority had its own idea of pay and pension, and within certain statutory limits of maxima and minima they could do what they liked. That was found in some cases to work very harshly. There were two things which the Desborough Committee had to take in hand. First of all, they had to preserve for the local police authorities their control of their own forces; and in the second place, while preserving the control, they had to endeavour to introduce into the whole of the forces more standardisation and more equality of treatment for various men in the service. Of course, the principle of some central control was granted at once when the system of inspection was instituted and when it was arranged that the Treasury should pay half the expenses. They are in receipt of public money, and therefore there must be some measure of public control. They are also subject to inspection in order to secure their efficiency. The Desborough Committee kept in view the desirability that the force should, as far as possible, be standardised. That has been done with regard to the pay, which is now standardised right throughout the country. The Desborough Committee, after going into the matter very
  42
  carefully, came to the conclusion that there was no such variation of work, duties, and responsibilities as to justify variation in pay, and therefore it has been standardised.
  With regard to pensions, the position is this: You have certain variations in England. Under the Act of 1890 local authorities are able, within certain maxima and minima, to fix their own pension arrangement, and they vary very considerably in different forces. In Scotland, on the contrary, they have a more fixed scale, but it is not the same as either the maxima or minima of the English and Welsh scale. The Desborough Committee came to the conclusion that, if possible, they ought to recommend a standardised scale as between England, Wales, and Scotland, and that is what the Bill proposes to do. In some respects the English scale will not be so beneficial to the individual force as formerly, but in, other respects it will be more beneficial. It is a matter of give and take in order to get standardisation. The same applies to Scotland. To-day it takes 34 years' service for a Scottish policeman to acquire his maximum pension of two-thirds pay. The Bill proposes that he may obtain his maximum pension at the end of 30 years instead of 34 years, and to that extent he benefits. In England, on the contrary, a man gets his pension of two-thirds pay at the end of 26 years, and that is changed to 30 year's. That, of course, is not so beneficial to him, but there are other points in respect of which he does benefit. Take the case of a pension which a man earns because he is medically unfit and has to leave the force. To-day a man can only leave the force on a medical certificate and be entitled to a pension after he has served 15 years. The Bill proposes that he should be able to retire on a medical certificate and be entitled to a pension after ten years. Equally the Bill proposes certain advantages for widows and for children and orphans of invalided or dead policemen. There are, on the one hand, adjustments which are not beneficial, and there are, on the other hand, adjustments which are beneficial, but the Bill will give greater equality and more standardisation. Where you have no standardisation, and adjoining forces have different rates, you always get discontent in the force which is not so well treated as the other, but if you get

  43
  standardisation it leads to greater contentment and is much more convenient to work.
  There is also another question which has been found of some considerable difficulty which is standardised by this Bill, and that is the question of special pensions, which are pensions granted in respect of injuries received by a man in the execution of his duties, and there are four categories. There are, first of all, total disablement and partial disablement, and the total disablement is divided into two, namely, total disablement arising from accidental injuries received in the course of duty, and total disablement arising from non-accidental injuries received in the course of duty; partial disablement is divided in the same way. A better scale has been introduced into the schedule in this Bill for the total disablement, and with regard to the partial disablement, instead of leaving it to the discretion practically of the local authority, the Bill provides that when it is ascertained by the medical advisers what the proportion of partial disablement is to total disablement—a half, three-quarters, and so on—the pension for partial disablement will be based automatically on the total disablement scale, so that a man now, if he is only partially disabled, will, if the Bill passes, be fully entitled to a pension, and will know exactly the amount he is entitled to receive.
  I need not take up the time of the House with greater detail. The Bill appears to be of considerable length, but it is really not very long. You cannot have a pension scheme without some intricacies, but the Bill itself is based on the simple principles that you get standardisation, equality of treatment, and a really equitable and generous system of pensions, not only for the policemen themselves but for their widows and their orphans. I have no doubt hon. Members will appreciate that I am only dealing with the principles of the Bill today. The main principle of the Bill, I have said, has been before the central representatives of the local police authorities, and they have approved it, and I ask the House, having regard to the fact that it is based on the recommendations of a Committee of great ability and industry, recommendations which have been largely followed already in other respects, to give it a Second Reading.
  Sir J. REMNANT: We are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the introduction of this Bill and for the statement which he has just made. The few remarks which I wish to make will not be made in the spirit of hoping to embarrass the Government, but, on the contrary, of trying to help them by making suggestions which I hope they will agree to accept in the same spirit as that in which they are made. The Home Secretary has alluded to the Desborough Committee, and he made one remark in connection with it which, so far as I heard it, was to the effect that the Committee were in favour of local forces being controlled locally. I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that, but I do know that in the Committee it was felt that there were far too large a number of very minute forces in this country, in regard to which a considerable economy might be effected. There were as few as nine members in one force, which boasted of a chief constable of its own, and several forces of eleven and twelve men boasted also of chief constables, and in the same counties you often find two or three forces each rejoicing in the advantage of a chief constable to itself, with the additional staff. Although the Committee did not go so far as to wish the counties to control all the police forces in their respective areas, they were very much in favour of considerably reducing the number of police authorities, as in their view likely to lead to economy in administration and to greater efficiency of the forces. The Bill undoubtedly confers great advantages on the members of the police forces, and I believe that by a very small compromise, if I may use that term in connection with the Home Office, or arrangement between the Home Office and the authorities great advantages might be given which will lead to a greater feeling of contentment in the forces.
  4.0 P.M.
  May I refer to one of the points in the Bill which certainly demands some explanation from the Government, and that is in Clause 3, by which widows of pre-1st September, 1918, pensioners are left out of consideration altogether. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall), when the subject was previously before the Committee upstairs, called attention to this, and I have no doubt he will have more to say on it than I am able to say at

  45
  the present moment, but it will certainly be raised again in Committee, and I think that the House should have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to why these widows are excluded from any consideration under the Bill. Their number is not considerable; on the contrary, it is small. The widows of pre-War pensioners receive no pensions, and these pensioners received such small pensions that the Government of necessity had to increase them in order to meet in some way the increased cost of living, so that these poor widows are in a peculiarly sad condition, and I know there are a great number of cases which are literally distressing to a degree. In connection with this there is another point for consideration. When the War broke out a great number of police pensioners rejoined the Forces, and a good many of them broke down just previous to the 1st September, 1918. We all know that the unfortunate strike took place at the end of August, 1918. We know that the conditions which were made at that time in order to settle the dispute provided for the pensions of police pensioners' widows, and I believe the true reason for excluding these pre-1st September, 1918, widows is that in the stress of that particular time, when you were settling with the strikers, you forgot the widows of the men who had retired previous to that date. I believe if the matter is pressed and pushed properly the Government will see the reasonableness of meeting the case. At all events, it cannot be right that preference should be shown to men who struck, over those who held out to the end, and the only reasons for whose retirement from the Force were ill-health and a breakdown in their physical system brought on by the stress of the War. The right hon. Gentleman in the Memorandum to the Bill says that it amends the law so as to give effect in all essentials to the recommendations of the Committee on Police Service presided over by Lord Desborough. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that this is the case, he surely cannot have seen or read paragraph 184 of the Report (Part II), page 21:
  "We recognise that this question is part of a much wider one which has been ruled as beyond our Terms of Reference, and we must content ourselves with stating our very
  46
  strong opinion that the revision of the pensions of constables who have rendered the community good service in the past should be taken in hand without delay as a measure of equity and justice, and that the widows of constables who retired before 1st September, 1918, should also be considered in this-connection."
  If the right hon. Gentleman really means what he has just said, and I am quite sure we all believe he genuinely does mean it, all I can say is that if he is going to carry out the essentials of the Desborough Report he will see that proper provision is made for these poor widows of pensioners pre-1st September, 1918. The answer may be that the Government is only able to allot for this purpose a certain sum of money. If the rationing of Departments is to start, I shall not be sorry if it is applied as a general rule, but if in this case the Government cannot afford more than a certain sum of money, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not consider the matter in conjunction with the police council and let them settle how it should be divided to the best purpose in dealing with the pensions of these old people. Another point to which I should like to call attention relates to rateable deduction from the pay of the constables. It is a very difficult and a very complicated question which I approach with some diffidence. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we are all anxious so far as possible to standardise the conditions of the different forces of police throughout the country. That is perfectly true, but we should consider in dealing with the rateable deductions the present conditions of the forces. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, some of the police—I will go further and say the great majority—are serving under a 26 years' service contract. I should think in the Metropolitan Police three-quarters, if not more, of the men, are serving under a 26 years' contract. Under this Bill the men of the future will have to contract themselves to serve 30 years before getting maximum pensions. You now offer under this Bill certain advantages to those who are under the 26 years' contract if they will exchange that for a 30 years' contract. I give my opinion, for what it is worth, that very few of the men will exchange from 26 to 30 years' service despite certain advantages which they get under the Bill.
  I have learned from inquiries I have made that it is the ordinary decision

  47
  amongst the men that they are quite prepared to stick to what they have already got under the 26 years' service and will not exchange to the 30. Twenty-six years' service is admitted by those who have had great experience of the police to be the length of service that the average policeman can efficiently perform his duties in, and at the end of 26 years he is not, on the average, equal to an extension of his period of service. Therefore, what you will have in every police force in this country for many years to come will be two grades of men working side by side, and, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, if you do not have an equal standard of working you will have discontent among the men, and if you have that discontent you will not have as efficient a body of men as we would all like to see. If you are going to continue two grades of police constables, it is bound to lead to irritation and unrest unless we find means to stop it. The men's Federation—I expect the matter has been put before the right hon. Gentleman—say: "We admit the disadvantages of having two grades of services and will the Government allow the men who signed on for 30 years to come into the 26 years' grade, if they themselves will agree to an additional rateable deduction from their wages which will compensate the Government for any loss in respect of the greater cost incurred by giving up the extra four years, and so put all the men throughout the length and breadth of the country on one grade?" I believe the thirty year men would be prepared to allow an addition to the 2½ per cent, rateable deduction, making it 3 per cent., if the Government would allow them all to be put on exactly the same conditions. I put it to the Government, will they consider this and, if they consider it, will they do so with the police councils and the men themselves? I am satisfied that the country is not going to Suffer a loss or any considerable loss by the change.
  Another point I must refer to is the system of new pensions to the widows of serving men. Under the Bill they range from £30 to £50. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the £30 is sufficient to provide for the widow who might be left with no other means of subsistence? The men again say in this case, We want to make better provisions for our widows. We
  48
  want the £30 raised to £45, and we are prepared from our weekly wages to agree to a quarter per cent, additional rateable deduction, which is, according to the estimate of those capable of making one, sufficient to practically cover the increased cost of the increased pensions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points. Will he see whether they are likely to throw on the Exchequer of the country an increased burden over and above what the men themselves are prepared to find towards the cost? If after full consideration he is satisfied that it is a reasonable request, will he take steps in that event before the Bill is finally passed towards making provision for dealing with the matters I have raised? There is only one other point which I wish to mention on the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman has said the time for detailed Amendments will be in Committee, but I do hope this time he will not oppose the word "shall" being substituted for "may." We brought it forward several times in Committee on the Pensions Increase Act, and we were assured by the Solicitor-General and by the present Secretary of State for War, who was then in charge of the Bill, and, I think, by my right hon. Friend himself, that it really means the same, always had meant the same, and could never mean anything else, and we were asked not to press for the substitution. When the Home Office called upon the counties to carry out the Act we found that one or two counties absolutely refused to touch it, some other counties dwindled it down to a mere fraction of what they were authorised to do, and others delayed it so long that it amounted to a refusal, while some to-day have postponed consideration of it, and all on the ground that after all it was a permissive Act and there was no compulsion upon them. Those poor fellows have had to suffer much in these times because the Government assured us in Committee that "may" meant "shall," and "shall" meant "may," and refused to allow any alteration to be made in the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now see that all these "mays" are made "shalls" so that there can be no further difficulty in connection with the carrying out of the Bill and everybody can know exactly what the House of Commons means. My whole anxiety is to help the Government to improve the Bill and not

  49
  to embarrass them, in their endeavour to help this great force, which is the pride of this country, and as a matter of fact of the whole world, and to maintain its high state of efficiency. In order to maintain that, we must see that there is no discontent, but contentment, and that the men may feel they can safely trust the administration of the force in the hands of the State.
  Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, which, indeed, I welcome, as being based on the recommendations of the Committee on the Police Service, and as performing, I think, a very useful and much needed service in consolidating the existing law upon the subject of police pensions. With reference to what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, I also hope that where the word "may" in the Bill is intended to have the effect of "shall," the word "shall" will be substituted for it. But I would also point out that there are a number of instances throughout the Bill where the word "may" is intended to mean "may," and is even accompanied by the words "at their discretion,' and of course, in such cases, it would not be proper to put in the word " shall."
  There are one or two points of detail in the Bill which are not altogether satisfactory to the constables, and I shall propose to raise some of those points in Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to indicate to the House the general lines upon which these objections are taken. First of all, I would like to say that, when you are desirous of altering the conditions in any service, it is, of course, perfectly legitimate to alter those conditions as regards all men who may come into that service after the alterations, but I think you must be very careful that, in carrying out your alterations, you do not prejudice men who have entered a service before those alterations were contemplated, and who might, therefore, have a very justifiable grievance against the Government if their conditions were in any way made worse by alterations which the Government might think it in the general interest of the force to make. If you take the question of compulsory retirement, that principle was recognised in the Superannuation Act of 1906, and in Section 6 of the Act, which dealt with the compulsory retirement of constables
  50
  above the rank of inspector, there was a proviso put in which made the new Act not applicable to any constables holding rank above that of inspector before the passing of that Act. The Act of 1906 is repealed by the present Bill, and the provisions about compulsory retirement are repeated in the first Clause of the Bill, but that proviso, which I have mentioned, is not in the Bill, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not, in Committee, consent to the reintroduction of those words safeguarding the position of constables above the rank of inspector, as they were safeguarded in the old Act of 1906.
  Then, again, the first Section of the Act of 1906 is, of course, repealed with the remainder of the Act. That provided that, where a constable was entitled to retire on a pension, but chose to go on serving in the Force, he might have the same pension when he did retire as he would have been entitled to if he had retired as soon as his time was up, and nothing that he did, except committing a felony, would forfeit the pension which he had really earned by serving the full time. That Section has gone, and there is nothing in the present Bill which gives the same privileges to constables who may re-enlist in the Force after they have been entitled to retire on a pension. I submit, again, in that case, you are prejudicing the position of existing members in the Force, unless Section 1 of the Act of 1906 is repeated, or some similar provision is made.
  The next point to which I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is that of dependants of members of the police force. In Clause 19, Sub-section (3), there is a reference to the case of a member of a police force who has neither wife nor children, but has people who are dependent upon him, and their rights are to some extent recognised. I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend, not that he should give dependants statutory right to allowances, but that he should give some discretion to the police authorities to recognise what might be extremely hard cases, such as that of a constable, a single man, supporting an aged mother or a sister, or some other relative who is dependent upon him, and should recognise the moral right of those people to some sort of gratuity or allowance, and he should give permission to police authorities, where they think it

  51
  right, to extend those gratuities and allowances. Then, with regard to widows, in the First Schedule of the Bill we find that the amount of gratuity which is granted to the widow of a police officer is at the discretion of the police authority. It is true there is a maximum—it is not to exceed one-twelfth of her husband's annual pay for each completed year of approved service—but it is to be of such amount as the police authority shall determine. I cannot quite understand why there should be this discretion. In the case of a member of the police force the gratuity must be one-twelfth of his annual pay for every year of service. Why should not the widow have her gratuity stated in so many words, and why should that discretion be made?
  The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Beading of this Bill, pointed out how very desirable it was to have standardisation throughout the country. He said that if you had a better practice in some authorities than in others, there was bound to be discontent in those places where the authorities were not so generous. This is exactly a case in point because, in the more progressive localities, it is customary to give the full amount of the possible gratuity to a widow, but in other cases it is not so, and I therefore venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might well take away that discretionary power, and put the widows of these men in exactly the same position as the men themselves. Then, with regard to the provision in Sub-section (3) of Clause 3, which allows a police authority to give a widow who is entitled to a pension a gratuity instead of a pension, with her consent, at their discretion. Constables are not well satisfied with that Sub-section. What they want is that when a widow is entitled to a pension, she shall have a right to demand a gratuity in lieu of the pension. There must be many cases when this gratuity would be very much more valuable to a widow than the pension. She may want a little capital to set up a business, or something of that kind, and a lump sum would be very much more valuable to her than a pension, even although the pension were a comparable amount to the gratuity to which she would be entitled. But there are cases, of course, where, if the gratuity were to be the same as it is in the case of a member of the police force, it would
  52
  amount to a very much larger sum than the pension would be worth, because if hon. Members will look at the amounts which are stated in the Schedule they will see they are comparatively of a modest extent, and, in the case of an officer high in rank, in receipt of a considerable salary, the gratuity on the scale of one-twelfth for each year of service would amount, in some cases, to a very considerable sum. If my right hon. Friend would be good enough to give his attention to those four points which I have mentioned, and to accept, or to introduce, Amendments in Committee dealing with them, then I think the Bill may be infinitely more acceptable to constables and the police force generally.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I quite agree that this Bill is a great improvement on the Bill which was introduced at the end of last Session dealing with this subject, and it has given a considerable amount of satisfaction. Again, there are one or two points to which I should like to refer on Second Reading. In several cases in the Bill the word "may" is inserted where the word "shall" ought to be introduced, because there is no doubt, if you are to have smooth working of a scheme of this kind, it is essential that all the police authorities in the country should be in line. The chief cause of dissatisfaction in the police force among the widows and dependants is undoubtedly that in some counties they get one thing, and in other counties another. Therefore, it should not be within the power of any one police authority, as it were, to contract-out, and not to give what is given by the majority. The first case to which I refer is in Sub-section (3) of Clause 3:
  "Where a widow is entitled to a pension under this Act, the police authority may, at their discretion and with her consent, grant her a gratuity in lieu thereof."
  That, of course, leaves the thing at the discretion of the local police authority, and it does seem to me that it is most desirable that it should not be left with that discretion, but that if a gratuity is to be granted at all, and if the widow requires it, it should be compulsory on the police authority to give it. The same thing occurs in various other Clauses of the Bill.
  I would like to refer to the case of children under 16 years of age. It is far better that the assistance should be an allowance rather than an ad hoc gratuity.

  53
  To my mind, an allowance is a much more satisfactory way of making provision for children. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 "the police authority may, if they think fit"—again it should be "shall" — "grant gratuities to his children under 16 years of age or any of them." There, I suggest, it would be much more desirable that the police authority should be required to make allowances for the children, and not give gratuities in that case. Then there is another difficulty in the Bill with regard to the women police. The women police are not sworn as constables, and I think it is right that in a Bill of this kind the women police should be included, whether sworn as constables or not. They have to perform the duties, and they are in every way now a part of the police, although they are not always sworn as constables. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary in Committee will reconsider the position of the women police, and bring them fully within the scope of the Bill. There is another rather curious point. Clause 27, Sub-section (2) says:
  "No allowance or gratuity shall be payable in respect of any child of a deceased police woman during the lifetime of the father, except where the police authority is satisfied that he cannot support or neglects to support the child."
  These words do seem to me to be very extraordinary words. They seem to set a premium on encouraging the father of the child to neglect his children. I do, therefore, hope that the Home Secretary in Committee will delete these words "neglects to support the child." If these were deleted I am quite sure it would be a strong improvement to the measure. There is no doubt, as I say, that the important thing in legislation of this kind is to prevent anomalies—things being done in one county and not in another, and I hope the Home Secretary, when the Bill is in Committee, will keep a very careful eye on that essential point and will take every opportunity, where Amendment is necessary, to give effect to the principle involved. I hope the House will unanimously give this Bill a Second Reading, because I know, ever since the Desborough Report, there has been anxiety to know what is to be done in the final settlement of this matter. This Bill is certainly on the right lines.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I should like to say at once that I was very pleased
  54
  to hear the Home Secretary announce that in the Committee stage recommendations of amendment would be listened to relating to this Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Remnant) referred particularly to the question of pensions being granted to the widows of those who had left the service on or before 31st August, 1918. May I draw the attention of the-Home Secretary to the case of a man, say, who has served as a constable for 27 or 28 years and retired on 31st August, 1918, through no fault of his own. He has, had exemplary conduct and has carried out his duties to the entire satisfaction af the police authorities. Under the Act of Parliament we know what treatment the widow receives. Contrast that with what happens in the case of a man who has done six or seven years and retires after 1st September, 1918—that is to say, the next day. In November, 1918, I drew attention to this matter. The Attorney-General, who replied, seemed to give the matter some sympathetic consideration. His reply was to the effect that if they went into an alteration of the pensions of these people and made them retrospective it would, in many cases, be necessary to consider the demand of other people. I do not think that is a position that ought to be taken at all. If it is right, and if it has been acknowledged by the Government that they should give pensions to the widows of these men who have served loyally for very many years, it is not going to cost very much, and it is not for the Government to turn round and say—because it is going to cost something extra— "We admit"—I will not use the word "right," but "we admit it is 'advisable' that pensions should be granted to the widows, but because their husbands happened to leave the force, unfortunately, on the day previous to the Act coming into operation, and the alteration of the law, we are debarred from giving them any pensions." I asked the Government whether they could give me any information as to the number of widows that would probably come under that alteration. I was informed they could not give me the number, but I do not think any Member of this House, or the Government, would consider that it can be a very large number that will come under it, and, naturally, it is reducing year by year. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will give this matter his careful consideration, and subsequently

  55
  give favourable consideration to Amendments that may be moved in Committee.
  With regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (3), I am not at all sure that I am in favour of the suggestion made by the two hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. I can quite see that in certain cases it might be advisable for the police authorities to have the right to say whether they would give a pension or a gratuity. No doubt the Home Secretary will very carefully consider any suggestion of amendment. I can conceive some cases in which the gratuity might before long be squandered—not in the majority of cases—and I do think, before the Government make the suggested alteration, it should be carefully considered as to whether or not it is advisable to leave the matter as it has been placed in this Sub-section. After all, it is the desire of the country to provide for these widows in a proper way in order that they may be able to have some permanent amount coming in for their own benefit. They ought not to be given the opportunity of squandering money and then unfortunately arriving at a dire and necessitous condition.
  There is another body of men for whom I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that is the officers themselves who retired previous to the alteration of these pensions. Take the case of a police officer who served for 27 years and 11 months—I am quoting a special case brought to my notice—and retired on a pension of 19s. 6d. per week. That amount in pre-War days provided very little; but it provided a tremendous amount more than 19s. 6d. does at the present time. The constable retiring under the new condition of things, after serving the full term will get £3 5s. per week. These pensioners who retired, as I say, are not going to get anything extra, and no consideration is given to the fact that many of these, retired police-officers, rejoined the Service and carried out police duties during the very hard and trying times of the War. I certainly think that the time that these ex-officers of police served during the War should be taken into consideration. If my right hon. Friend says, "I cannot put them on the same basis as the others," well, I appreciate that point; but I do think that the time served on rejoining and after retirement should have some weight with
  56
  the authorities in the direction of a somewhat increased pension. Then take a police sergeant who has spent 32 or 33 years in the Force and retired before 1st September, 1918. He retired on a pension of 28s. per week. These pensions were calculated on the then purchasing value of the sovereign. I am not asking my right hon. Friend that he should bring the whole of these cases up to the present standard. I can quite understand his difficulty here; but I do think he should add the additional time of those who were called up and served during the War to the pensionable years, as I have suggested in the case of the ordinary officer, and so make the calculation more in view of the purchasing value of the sovereign to-day. These men served 32 or 33 years, and are getting old men, and they are not going to be on the pension list for very many years. If at a slight increase you can make the lives of these ex-officers who served steadfastly and well better and more comfortable, I hope it may be done.
  I recognise the generous manner in which the Government has met the general questions in regard to the members of the present Force, but, as was referred to by my right hon. Friend, I think that you want to keep some of these constables in the service a longer period. They may finish, say, after the 26 years at about 46 or 47. Many of these men have thorough good experience, know the ropes well, and their knowledge and experience should be of assistance to the State. Owing, however, to the regulations, the slightest mishap that may occur frightens these men; they have the thought of losing their pension. Some more or less trivial matter may put the pension they have worked hard for years to obtain in jeopardy. Something should be done. It is not, I am sure, the desire of anyone, or the Home Secretary, that these people should be harshly dealt with, and I hope it will be possible to insert words that will limit the irregularities that will make these men's pensions forfeit. I finish by repeating I am delighted to hear that in the Committee stage my right hon. Friend will give due consideration to Amendments; that, therefore, the Bill is not going to be put forward with a "You may take it or leave it." With slight alterations and Amendments, I venture to think that the police of this country should be satisfied

  57
  with the Bill and with the generous manner in which the Government has tried to deal with this subject.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I desire to add a few words in welcoming this Bill. No doubt the police forces, on whom human society has to depend, have had many anomalies to complain of in regard to their pensions in the past. Unintentional injustice has been done, to some members of course, in this matter, but I think the Home Secretary is fully aware of these facts. I am sure, therefore, that he will welcome, not destructive criticism, but such criticism as is likely to be put forward by hon. Members who have spoken, and intend it for the purpose of helping the Government to make this Bill a complete issue out of all the difficulties under which the police labour at the present time in regard to their pensions. There is one point which I think my right hon. Friend might take very carefully into consideration. So far as I have been able to study the Bill I do not think there is any provision to meet the case of a constable after retirement on a pension who has come back to the force and given three or four years' good service in times of emergency, by which that service should count for his pension. There is undoubtedly a gross injustice in recalling a constable to active service, and then refusing to add those years to his qualification for a pension. I believe in the case of civil servants there were many instances of pensionable officers being brought back to take the place of men at the front, and in their case an addition was made to the active service time as qualifying for a pension. In the case of the police officer the case is even stronger for doing something of this kind, and I hope that in Committee, if it is not already dealt with in the Bill, my right hon. Friend will be inclined to listen to arguments which I am sure will be addressed to the Committee.
  My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir F. Hall) has referred to the case of constables who have retired before a certain date, and he has pointed out the great contrast existing between the pensions paid to them. These men would have received much better pensions if they had remained, as they might have done, a little longer in active service.
  58
  There are cases where men have retired only a few days before the appointed day in ignorance, and consequently they have got less than half of what other constables have received who retired only a few days later. I hope that point will be brought out before the Committee and I trust my right hon. Friend, in the meantime, will be good enough to inform himself of the facts and be prepared to deal with it.
  There is the question of suspension of pension while serving in another force, as set forth in Clause 17 of the Bill. That is to say, if a constable has earned a pension in one police force and then he takes active service in another his pension may be suspended. There is the celebrated case of the chief constable in a large provincial city in Lancashire who qualified for a full pension for several hundreds of pounds, and, having received it, he became chief constable of another and even more important district. I do not want to criticise that case, and all I wish to say is that whatever principle is right for the chief constable is equally right for the man in the rank and file. Therefore, when you have cases of that kind amounting to many hundreds of pounds a year, you certainly ought to mete out the same measure for justice to the ordinary constable as you do to the chief constable. I hope it will be found on closer examination of the Bill that it does not permit any difference of treatment of this character.
  In these matters we are accustomed to making provision for widows without what is called the power of anticipation. I think it would be a great pity if widows of police constables were able to demand, as a matter of right, from any watch committee that their pension should be commuted because that exposes the widows to a danger they should be saved from. I think power should be given to make that commutation, but I think it would be a mistake to lay down that the authorities should be compelled to do it. With regard to the question of an appeal at the present moment, a police constable has no right of appeal whatever from the chief constable in the county or district in which he is serving, and surely that is not justice. I do not care how small a suit at law may be, there is always a right of appeal in the majority of instances. Even in a criminal case you have recently established a Court of

  59
  Criminal Appeal. In the case of a police constable suffering under what he considers an unfair decision of the chief constable there is no right of appeal, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot make such an Amendment in this Bill as will enable a constable to appeal to the Standing Joint Committee of the county or the Watch Committee of the borough in such cases. I know the argument against my suggestion is that it might interfere with discipline.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Baronet now referring to appeals in regard to questions of pensions? If he limits his remarks to that, he is in order; but the question of appeals in regard to matters of discipline will not be in order.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: I intended to say that I was dealing with appeals in regard to pensions which are decided by the chief constable. I wish to argue that there should be an Amendment to enable such appeals to be possible, and I think that a provision of that kind would be very popular, and is very much desired by the police force generally. I know the argument against my suggestion is that if a chief constable is absolute in his decisions it has a tendency to improve discipline, but I do not believe that is the case; on the contrary, it is when there is a remedy against a sense of injustice that discipline is improved. These points, I know, are all matters of detail, but they are important, and I feel sure that they will receive the consideration of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: With regard to what has been said on the subject of appeal, I wish to point out that we have in Scotland a court from which there is no appeal, which deals with small sums of money, and on those matters the decision of the judge is supreme. There is one point made by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down which I think should be insisted upon, and that is in relation to the unfortunate members of the force who retire before the stated dates. It is a fact that a constable who has served all the years of pensionable life is now drawing less than the unemployed benefit, and an anomaly so grave should not be allowed to exist. I have had many instances of hardship of this kind brought to my notice of men with blameless records who
  60
  are not able to buy the barest necessities of life with the pension they are receiving after serving a long and an honourable career. I think the Home Secretary's attention should be directed to those cases and some Amendment in the Bill should be made to meet them.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I trust that when the Bill goes into Committee the Government will look with sympathy upon the amendments which will be proposed in order to make the measure more satisfactory from the point of view of members of the force who have been waiting for this measure for such a long time. There is no doubt that with very little, if any, extra expense this Bill could be made much more satisfactory. With regard to the suggestion that the pensioners under the new scale should contribute to assist those who have retired in the past on small pensions, it is well known to many of us that in the police force as well as in many other ranks, pensioners whose pensions are insufficient to live upon are being assisted by their more fortunate fellow workers. If these old pensioners cannot be substantially helped at the expense of the State, then they should receive some assistance from their more fortunate brethren, and certainly the force as a whole would welcome some improvement in the lot of the earlier pensioners even at the expense of those who are more fortunate under this Bill.
  5.0 P.M.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) was, I think, under some misapprehension in regard to his point about the widow being able to demand a gratuity instead of a pension. That is one of the things upon which I believe the members of the force are more determined than they are on almost any other point of the Bill. The reason is this, that in the past there has been power to grant a gratuity to the widow, and that power has been exercised by joint- committees of the counties in almost every case. Indeed it has been exercised so regularly that it has come to be looked upon by the police as something in the nature of a right. That gratuity in almost all cases is of much greater value than the value of the pension, and therefore, if the police authority is going to give the pension and refuse the gratuity the widow will be worse off than she would have been without this Bill passing into law. The objec-

  61
  tion of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Hall), that the widow might squander or lose it, does not, I think, really hold water. I believe I am right in saying there is provision in the Bill under which, if a gratuity is given in that way, the police authorities can protect it in the same way as compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act is protected, and the widow can thus be prevented being left in a state of impecuniosity.
  Sir F. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any such provision in the Bill?
  Mr. HERBERT: I have not the Bill in my hand. Even if I am wrong in that I would respectfully submit to my hon. and gallant Friend that the point I have mentioned with regard to the value of the gratuity is so important that it would be better to concede the request of the constables that the widow should have a right to this gratuity and if there is no provision for protection in the Bill itself to put it in in Committee. The point is also important in this way. I do not wish to differentiate between county joint committees and borough watch committees, but I would point out that some bodies may have more pressure brought to bear upon them to be, I will not say more niggardly, but more economical, in dealing with the funds at their disposal; and it would be a very unfortunate anomaly for the police in one district to know that in all cases a discretion of this sort, which is of very considerable pecuniary value, will be exercised in favour of their widows, while the police in neighbouring districts may know practically for certain that it will not be exercised in the case of their widows.
  I wish finally to call attention to the cases of the men who were retired on pensions before the War, and who reengaged during the War. There are, I believe, a very considerable number of these cases, and many of the retired constables, on re-engagement rose to considerably higher rank. It does seem to me only fair and reasonable that they should receive some consideration in their pension for their service in a rank superior to that of constable during the War. I am sure the Government or no one would wish to be in a position of making a profit out of the police who re-engaged during the War, but the fact that they did re-engage
  62
  for a period of four or five years during the War probably had the effect of shortening the lives of many of them. The War caused a great strain on everyone, and not least on the police, and especially those who served in the superior ranks during the War. They are therefore deserving of special consideration at the hands of this House, and should come second only to those whose demands are admitted to be overwhelming, namely, the men who fought for us on land and sea. I hope the Government will do its best to make the Bill, as I believe it can be made, at practically little, if any, extra expense, one which will render the force contented. Much as they welcome it at the present moment, they realise there are in it a number of points on which they feel very strongly indeed, and if they can be met on these points it will do a great deal to create that feeling of contentment and good will which is so particularly necessary in a great force like this.
  Captain O'GRADY: Although most of the points which have been raised in this Debate have really been Committee points, I hope the Home Secretary will give them favourable consideration. I was a member of the Desborough Committee which supported my hon. and gallant Friend opposite in connection with the case of the men who retired before 1914. That Committee was approached on many occasions by these men, who look on this as a very vital question and one much more important than other points which have been raised. Large numbers of the police re-engaged for service during the War and took the place of the men who went out to fight. Many of these men, although they looked well physically, were really not capable of undertaking the work, yet they did very splendid service during the period of war, and they naturally expected, when their colleagues came back, that some regard would be paid, in the matter of their pension, to the work which they had done. I hope the Government will endeavour to meet the cases of these men, and give them a higher pension than they now receive. I remember speaking to a constable on duty in this House who reengaged during the War, and who seemed to think it a very great hardship that men who had completed their service before 1914 should only get a pension of 27s. a week, while those who retired

  63
  soon after the Desborough Committee Report became operative got a pension of something over 60s. a week. I have had a good many communications on this subject, but I will read one which I think puts the point very clearly. A constable writes to me:
  "Is it fair that a constable who retired before 1914, after 34 years' service, should only receive a pension of 30s. 8d. per week, including the increase under the recent Act, and that his widow should be left entirely unprovided for, while a constable who retired after that date, with only 30 years, receives 63s. 4d. per week and his widow a pension of £30 per year for life?"
  There you have the two pensions contrasted, and I do not see how the Government can stand in the way of accepting the appeal made to it. These are very glaring cases, but I am afraid they are also very common, and something should be done to meet the injustice even under the terms of this Bill. Moreover, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, the Committee felt the injustice of the situation when we were discussing the position of the force, and we inserted outside the terms of our reference an appeal to the Government and to the police authorities generally to take the cases of these men into consideration. That appeal should be responded to by the Government. I think my right hon. Friend will see that he will not get standardisation under the present Bill. There will still be inequalities and anomalies remaining so long as you have a Bill of a permissive character. You cannot always construe the word "may" into "shall." There are some authorities in the country which have taken the course of absolutely refusing to put into operation the recommendations of the last Bill, even though directly invited to do so by the Home Secretary, and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own desire for standardisation, that the permissive words in the Bill should be substituted by imperative words. I hope I shall be able to support my hon. Friend in the few Amendments he proposes to bring forward on the Committee stage with regard to the retrospective working of the Bill so as to make the measure a practical one, not only in the interests of sections of the police, but in the interests of the force throughout the country.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I also desire to thank the Home Secretary for having
  64
  brought in this Bill and I doubt not that with a few necessary Amendments it will be made a very useful measure. My hon. Friend who spoke last referred to the extraordinary differences between the pensions of men who retired before and after 1914, and to the serious anomalies which exist, anomalies which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to correct in this Bill, as there does not seem to be any justification for them. While I thank my right hon. Friend for this Bill, I should like to be allowed to enter a protest of complaint that it contains no provision whatever for dealing with the grievances of existing Irish police pensioners. I do not propose to go into that matter in any detail; it might not be in order to do so, but inasmuch as the Bill does contain a Clause, I think it is the 32nd, which says it shall not apply to Ireland except so far as is expressly stated, that indicates at any rate that it would be in order to introduce into the Bill some provision with regard to Ireland. With regard to my protest, let me say that there are grievances of the Irish police pensioners which are of the most grave and serious nature, and practically many of them have arisen from the fact that the men were so badly treated under the Increase of Pensions Act, 1920. That is universally admitted, even by the Chief Secretary in this House recently, and also to a deputation of Irish police pensioners which waited on him in July last. The reason why these police pensioners suffered so much under the Act of 1920 is that their case is entirely different from that of the English police pensioners, and the Chief Secretary stated that they had satisfied him that they deserved special treatment. The existing pensions are exceedingly small, about £50 or £60 a year, a sum upon which it is hardly possible for a man to live, let alone his wife and family. Many of these men are, consequently, in a position of the greatest want, and that position is made more difficult because it is notorious that in Ireland, and in the South especially, Irish police pensioners find it exceedingly hard to get work of any sort, for the simple reason that they have done their duty as policemen. We, who know Ireland, know that many of these poor men are in a state bordering on starvation, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to introduce, if possible, something into this Bill which

  65
  will remove that cause of hardship. The financial provision required to remedy this grievance would be relatively small, and it would meet a really unanswerable case. Therefore I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that before the Bill leaves this House it will be amended in some such direction as I have indicated; or, if that be not possible owing to the character of the Bill, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that either he or some other Member of the Government will bring in a Bill dealing with these undoubted and really intolerable grievances of the Irish police pensioners. That would be doing, what I think the House would desire to do, namely, fair justice to these men who have honourably served their country, often in times of great difficulty and danger, and who are deserving of fair and honourable treatment.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to join in the appeals which have been made from various quarters of the House asking the Home Secretary to consider the case of those police pensioners who were compelled to retire just before the 1st April, 1919. The date was an unfortunate one. I admit that no one could tell that the Report of the Desborough Committee in July would give a date so far back as the 1st April, but the fact remains that that was done, and it has placed a great number of men in a very difficult position. Not only were pensioners kept on during the War who should have retired many years earlier, but men who served their time during the War retired just before that particular date. I know of one instance in which a man who occupied a very high position in the police force was approached and asked if he would retire, merely in order to give an opportunity for someone else to come on and take the position which he held, so as to increase promotion. He very patriotically gave up his position; and what was the result? The pension which he is now receiving is, I believe I am right in saying, less than the pensions which is now awarded to an ordinary constable, and yet this man served for a very long time—I think for 30 years—in the police force, and rose by his own ability to a high position. This is not an isolated case; there are many cases of a similar kind; and I would earnestly entreat the
  66
  Home Secretary to see if he cannot make some provision for these particular cases. They are cases of special hardship, although they are not very numerous, and it would not be necessary to provide a very large sum of money or to go back very far. It is not only an anomaly, but it amounts almost to unfairness, and I am sure the Home Secretary himself would be the last man who would wish to do anything that was unfair. This is unjust and unfair, and I beg the Home Secretary to consider the plea which has been put forward by so many hon. Members to-day, that he should give consideration to the point.
  I should like also to support the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) in the few words that he spoke on behalf of the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. These men are placed in a very difficult position. As the House knows, they are absolutely barred from any kind of private employment just because they were policemen, and the result is that they are in a peculiar position, in which the police of this country can never be placed. I have a letter before me which states that the small pension which they are receiving is only sufficient to prevent absolute starvation. The age clause is a hardship, and the £150 income provision is little short of cruelty. This is a letter which I have received from one who is well versed in the subject in Ireland. I would earnestly join with the hon. and learned Member for York in asking the Home Secretary to give further consideration to the hard cases of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Colonel NEWMAN: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here I think he would be able to make a point against those hon. Members who are pressing for more funds for certain deserving police officers, while the need for economy in the country is so pressing. I myself have felt that on more than one occasion, when I have been approached by very deserving ex-members of the police force who have asked that their pensions might be increased. Indeed, I wrote to that effect in one case, and my correspondent sent me a rather good reply. He said, "You are voting away millions of money for the Civil Service; you are voting away millions of money for stationery alone; and yet you write and tell me that you cannot see your way to press the Home Secretary, or the Prime Minister, or Who-

  67
  ever the Minister may be, for a small increase in my pension," his pension being among those cases which hon. Members have brought to the notice of the Home Secretary to-day. If we cast our eyes about this House at the present moment, we see paper scattered here and scattered there. That paper has been manufactured and printed upon; labour has been spent upon it; and it is littered now about the House. That goes on every day that we sit here. In this House alone, how many hundreds of pounds a year are wasted simply upon paper? If we were to economise in stationery, and to apply the money saved to raising the pensions of deserving men, we should be able to do it without incurring the reproach that outside we preach economy and here we press for the Treasury Estimates to be increased. Therefore, I join with those hon. Members who have already spoken in asking the Home Secretary to try and increase the pensions of these men who retired before the date when the latest increases came into force. I myself, and I daresay other hon. Members also, have had many letters from them, and their cases, I imagine, are well known to the Home Secretary himself.
  I would particularly reinforce the claims which have been made that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be included in this Bill. Their case is an extraordinarily hard one, and if the House could be given a free vote on the question, "Shall these pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary be left to starve or not?" I am certain that their case would be carried by an overwhelming majority. I have asked the Home Secretary—who himself is an ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland—many questions on this subject, and he knows these cases perfectly well. I do not wish to go into them now, and, indeed, I should probably be out of order if I did so, but I should like to tell the House in a few words about one case, that of a constable who was wounded at the time of the rebellion in 1916. He was shot through the groin, and in consequence one of his legs is shorter than the other. He was incapacitated for further service, and after a few months was invalided out of the Force. What was his pension? He was invalided out of the Force in October, 1916, and his pension was £26 8s. per annum. His case was taken up in another place, and it was increased to £50, and he was told the minute he got fit to do
  68
  any work at all—the minute he got off crutches—employment would be given to him in some Government position. The local police made inquiries to see if they could get a job for him, and that continued for nearly a year, while he was still crippling along on crutches. When he became able to walk with a stick, he applied for a Treasury sortership, or some similar employment, but was told by the inspector-general's private secretary that no job could be found for him, and he therefore had to live or die on his £50 a year. He then applied to headquarters for some assistance, but, owing to the state of the country, no one would give him employment. That is one concrete case of a kind that comes to me and other hon. Members day after day. We do ask that something should now be done. It is only a small thing that we ask, namely, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should back this Bill with the Home Secretary, and that this particular Clause should be eliminated which says that the Bill shall not apply to Ireland except so far as is otherwise stated. That, surely, is the simplest way of dealing with the matter. Otherwise, these men will again be left out in the cold. We shall be told by every Chief Secretary and by every Member of the Government individually that they think the case ought to be met, but that they cannot get the money from the Treasury. I suggest that the money can be found if savings are made in other directions, and therefore I ask the Home Secretary, as an ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, and as one who knows these cases as well as or better than I do, to do his level best to get these men included.
  Mr. LINDSAY: As I happen to be the only Member from Ireland in the House at the moment, I may be allowed to endorse what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and from the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) with regard to the Irish police pensioners. It has been pointed out that the Home Secretary has been at the Irish Office and knows the position of these men; and, if he wishes for further endorsement, he can ask the Minister of Pensions, whom I see also on the Front Bench, and who also has been at the Irish Office. I had no idea that any discussion on the subject of Irish police pensions would be permitted on this Bill, or I could have

  69
  given the House a great many cases showing the hardships which these men are suffering. As everyone who is acquainted with Ireland knows, the idea of a pensioner getting employment in many parts of Ireland is ridiculous. They are dependent on their utterly inadequate pensions as their sole means of livelihood. If this Bill should pass in its present form, without any provision for the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary, grievance will be piled upon grievance, and those hon. Members who take an interest in the force will be inundated with complaints. I appeal to the Home Secretary to do his best to have this matter considered as favourably as he possibly can.
  Mr. JESSON: I desire to thank the Home Secretary for introducing this Bill, and to endorse heartily everything that has been said with regard to police pensioners. There is one aspect of the case which has not been touched upon, at any rate in my hearing. I have come across a large number of police pensioners who were invited to join up again in the Military Forces when the War broke out, while at the same time many of them were offered positions in munition works, where they could have earned from £5 to £8 per week. They regarded it as a matter of duty to join up with the Forces, and to sacrifice those offers in munition departments. As a, result of that, some of those men suffered a monetary loss of from £600 to £800 during the War, and they say that the sacrifice which they made at that time for the country, in joining up again and giving up the opportunity of earning good wages in munition factories, ought to be taken into consideration now. I think the Home Secretary will agree that a sacrifice of £600 during four years entitles those men to some further consideration. £600 would go a long way towards providing all the wives with the £30 which is given to some and withheld from others. In addition, it would help towards providing them with the modest increase in their pension that they are asking for. On these grounds alone I suggest that the Home Secretary ought to give the most favourable consideration possible to these men who made such an important sacrifice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think I need detain the House more than a very few minutes in explaining the purport of this measure, which was presented shortly before the Recess by my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Craig), who has now gone to Ireland to take up a very difficult and responsible task, in which I know he will have the sympathy and good wishes of all hon. Members. By the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1872, Section 4, the Admiralty was empowered to provide the cost of the education and maintenance of daughters of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Navy and Marines, but the section added a restrictive condition to that authority namely, that the amount to be expended in the course of any one year should not exceed £20. That sum may have been adequate, though I think not more than adequate, in the conditions of 1872, but it is quite obviously inadequate in view of the immense increase in the cost of living since the War. I do not think I need labour that point. It has been raised often in this House, and it has underlain the discussion we have just been listening to on which the House has given a non-dissentient Vote. The authorities of the, different schools to which these girls have been sent have represented that they cannot possibly educate and keep a girl on that amount.
Sir F. BANBURY: Will my hon. and gallant Friend state where the money is coming from?
Mr. AMERY: The Greenwich Hospital authorities are quite willing to find the small extra sum required from their general funds, which are derived from their properties and their invested capital, and there is no question of coming to the taxpayer for any increase in the small fixed grant of £4,000 a year for Greenwich Hospital which has been made since 1814, and which replaced an earlier compulsory levy of 6d. a month from seamen's pay towards pensions for wounded and disabled seamen. Therefore there is no question of anything except the removal

71
of the statutory restriction. The restriction being in a Statute, it is impossible for the Greenwich Hospital authorities to use their own money to supplement the £20 hitherto fixed as the maximum without Parliamentary authority, and the only object of this measure is to give the authority of Parliament to the removal of the limit of £20 originally imposed 50 years ago.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry in a way that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement has rather spiked the guns of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and I take it his whole objection is removed. But I am afraid he will object to a proposal that I should like to make in Committee. Section 4 of the Act of 1872 deals with the education and maintenance of daughters of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, and therefore the officer class is introduced. Section 5 of that Act deals with the education and maintenance of sons and daughters of deceased officers, and the Admiralty make a grant not exceeding £20 to assist necessitous cases of this sort. It says:
"The Admiralty may, under Regulations to be from time to time made by them, provide solely or in part for the education and maintenance of sons and daughters of deceased or distressed commissioned officers of the Royal Navy or Marines, subject to the following restrictions."
It then restricts the number of boys and girls to be educated and maintained to not more than 50, and the amount of maintenance for each boy or girl at £20 a year. We are here dealing with the case of seamen and marines, though it also deals with the daughters of warrant officers, and we are proposing to remove the restriction on the governors of Greenwich Hospital not to exceed the amount; but I should very much like to know why the sons and daughters of necessitous deceased officers of the Royal Navy and Marines are left out. Is nothing going to be done for them? If £20, as I think everyone will agree, is inadequate to maintain the daughter of a warrant officer, it is equally inadequate to maintain the daughter of a commissioned officer, and the commissioned officers to-day, fortunately, and quite rightly, contain many men promoted from the ranks and from the rank of warrant officer. Therefore, if an officer is killed in action or dies in the
72
service of the Royal Navy of the rank of warrant officer, his daughter can get this much-needed assistance in her education, but if through superior merit or good fortune he has attained the rank of a commissioned warrant officer, the daughter is not eligbile for anything more than £20 a year. I do not think that is altogether fair. It only affects 50 children, and I am sorry the Bill did not include some relaxation of the restriction on the system.
Lloyds Quarterly Navy List contains the only advertisements there permitted, namely, requests to the charitable to support naval charities, and amongst these of course is this Greenwich Hospital, and it includes the question of the educational grants for distressed officers' children, and it says the Admiralty have power to grant sums of £20 per annum from the funds of Greenwich Hospital, and therefore I take it that the sum of £20 exists in the year 1921 as it was passed in 1872. I think there has been some remissness on someone's part in not including the children of deceased commissioned officers. Officers of the Royal Navy are very hard hit by the rise in the cost of living. Their pay has not been raised to anything like the scale of the higher grades of civil servants, for example. The position of a married officer to-day with a family, without private means, is very hard. The position of the widow of an officer with young children to support is very terrible if she has not some private means, and I am certain this House would not have refused if necessary to increase the funds of Greenwich Hospital to supply some extra money for the maintenance of daughters of commissioned officers, and I hope very much that in Committee the Government will accept an Amendment on these lines. I quite agree that we have great necessity to-day to watch the expenditure of all moneys, but simply deleting the words which put a limit on the amount to be expended is not sufficient. The Government ought to have taken advice as to what the amount required was. I should think to-day it would be about three times what it was in 1872. We will say for example that the costs of educating a child have gone up 300 per cent, in the last 50 years. They ought to have put a limit of £60 instead of removing the limit altogether. I say that from no feeling of niggardliness, but in order that the fund should be safeguarded. After

73
all the Greenwich hospital funds have to provide for aged seamen, for the daughters of deceased officers, and one or two other minor matters and it is necessary to safeguard them, and I do not think simply removing the limit is sufficient safeguard. In fact it is no safeguard at all. I hope there will be no feeling of super-economy in this matter and that the Amendment I have mentioned will be accepted.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he says that he hopes there will be no niggardliness in the matter although he is most anxious to put a limit upon the amount to be expended.
Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: There are other charges on the fund as well. It was with a view to safeguarding the fund for aged seamen.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I quite expected that would be the explanation given, but. I thought it my duty to call attention to the matter. The Bill itself seems to me to be very useful and one which everyone interested in the matter will be very satisfied with. We do not think £20 is sufficient for educating a girl in these times, and we are glad that that amount is to be deleted. I am also rather pleased that no other sum has been specified in the Bill, because that gives the Admiralty a wide discretion, and in certain cases where the needs require it a larger amount can be given, and in others where the needs do not require it a lesser amount, but still one far exceeding £20. As the hon. and gallant Member said, there are a great number of other matters which come under the Greenwich Hospital Act. There are a great number of individuals who are in receipt of moneys from that fund, and I feel certain that the Admiralty will in no way allow those particular sections to suffer from any act of theirs in raising the amount from £20. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary will be in a position to tell me, but I should like to know what is the position of a boy. Is the amount limited in the case of a boy, and, if so, perhaps he will consider the advisability of extending to the case of a boy the same privileges that it is proposed by this Bill to extend to the case of a girl. I think the Bill is a very excellent one, and I should like to join with those hon. Members who have
74
spoken on the subject in thanking the Admiralty for bringing forward a measure of this kind.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Opportunity has been taken this year to introduce certain Amendments which are found by experience to be necessary in the Army and Air Force Act. These Amendments are clearly explained in the notes to Clauses on the face of the Bill. It is not customary to have a full discussion on Second Reading, which is really only a formal stage. The detailed discussion, by the general custom of the House, always takes place in Committee.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe it is a fact that the detailed discussion does take place in Committee, but there is a certain statement in the Preamble of the Bill which we cannot very well deal with in Committee once we have passed the Second Reading of the Bill, and that is pledging the Government to the enormous cost of 341,000 men. Everyone knows the financial situation of the country. We are told on all sides that we cannot have extra pensions in this direction and in that direction where they are badly needed. I supposed the reply on the Bill which we have just taken when certain hon. Members referred to the case of the police pensioners would have been that the finances of the country did not allow it. Therefore, I do not think we can allow the Second Reading of this Bill to go through without making a short protest, without going into details, against the enormous number of men we are asked to budget. The number of men in the Army controls the whole expenditure on the armed forces. I cannot see that there is any necessity for the large number that is proposed. I regret very much that the Government have not taken any definite steps to approach the other great Powers with a view to an all-

75
round reduction in armaments. All that they have done so far has been the partial disarmament of their enemies. When that process is finally completed I hope that they will have taken steps to make arrangements for mutual reduction of armaments all round. In any case, perhaps some hon. Members will agree with me that the Navy is much more important than the Army, and that this money may mean the starving of the Fleet in very vital respects. I am afraid I shall be compelled to divide against the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members who are true economists will support me.
Colonel Sir C. YATE: I welcome the Amendment on Clause 4 which gives a right of appeal to officers of the Indian Army. I should like to ask, if an officer is to have the right of appeal direct to the Governor-General, what steps have been taken to inquire into that claim. I have always advocated and still advocate that there should be some sort of tribunal to which officers who consider themselves aggrieved should be able to go and state their case: a tribunal which would be an independent tribunal and could report on the case for the benefit of the higher officers who have to consider it. At the present time, when an officer is aggrieved the only appeal he has is to the general officer or someone above him who, probably, is the very man against whom he is appealing. That is not an independent inquiry in any way, and we can hardly call it an impartial tribunal. The officer who is aggrieved should have an appeal to a tribunal apart from the officer against whose decision he is appealing. At the present time, an officer who is under any injustice must send in his complaint to the very man against whose action he is complaining. I trust that the Undersecretary of State for War will take this question into consideration and see whether some independent tribunal could not be appointed before which the officer could appeal and state his case, and then that tribunal could report on the case for the benefit of the higher authorities. I do not limit this suggestion to the Indian Army; I think there ought to be the same protection for officers of the British Army. I raised this question last year and the year before. There are a very large number of officers, especially in the Indian Army, and also in the British Army, who suffer under a sense of grave injustice,
76
and that sense of injustice can never be removed so long as they are under the idea that they have not had a fair and impartial consideration of their case. I hope the Under-Secretary will consider this matter, and that some separate and independent tribunal will be set up, not in any way to supersede the authority of the Army Council or of the high military authorities in India, but rather to help them to come to an impartial decision in these matters.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I endorse what the hon. and gallant Member has just said. I hope it will be applied to the Home Army, as well as to the Indian Army. My own experience as a commissioned officer and as a private soldier has convinced me that, though the private soldier is fenced round with rights which protect his interests to a remarkable extent, the unfortunate officer is under quite different circumstances, and his whole future may be ruined absolutely by jealousy or possibly by malicious action on the part of a superior officer, and there is at present no means of redress in those cases. The difference between the position of the private soldier and his officer in these matters is very serious. The private soldier has rights, but the officer has no rights, and I think it would be to the greater efficiency of the Army if the commissioned officer was given at least as much protection as the private soldier.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir B. Sanders.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir R. Sanders.]
Lord R. CECIL: I regret that the Government have thought it necessary at five minutes to six to adjourn the House. Even if they are not prepared to proceed with their own Bills, there are other important Bills, private Bills, on the Paper. I take an interest in the first of these Bills, the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, towards

77
which, I understand, the Minister who was responsible for that Department, but who has ceased to be responsible for it, was favourable. I should have been glad if the Government had seen their way to allow the House to sit, at any rate, until the dinner hour, while we discussed the merits of the Second Beading of that Bill. There are some Notices down on the Paper for its rejection, which, I agree raise important questions, but no question which would be likely to take a long time to discuss. There are also other Bills of an interesting character on the Paper. It is rather regrettable that having brought us back to London in weather which does not invite the attendance in London of a large number of Members of the House, the Government should so arrange their business that the House is to adjourn at five minutes to six, while on the Paper there is business which might well occupy the attention of the House. I trust that the Government will be able to give us some reason why it is necessary to adjourn the House at this early hour.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to make a protest against this invasion of the rights of the private Member. I have had only one private Bill this Session, and I am glad to say it has passed its Second Reading. May
I call attention to Bill No. 10 on the Order Paper, Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) (No. 3) Bill? Surely there could be no objection to giving that; Bill a Second Reading. Why do the Whips come down on us like a steam roller and adjourn the House because they have arranged their business so badly that we have finished at five minutes to six? Presently they will be moving the closure and gagging discussion on most important business.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: There is the question of the national crisis.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, there is the great national crisis. We ought to have been discussing that, and I regret very much that we burked questions on that subject at Question time. It is up to hon. Members who have some regard for the rights of the private Member to support us on this matter. We are not putting forward these Bills from a party point of view; they are not party Bills at all, and it is scandalous that the Government should adjourn the House in this manner and not give private Members a chance. I shall certainly vote against the Adjournment.
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 60.

Division No. 59.]

AYES.

[6.0 p.m.

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

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Balrd, Sir John Lawrence

Evans, Ernest

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

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

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

Barlow, Sir Montague

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Lindsay, William Arthur

Barnett, Major R. W.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Barrie, Charles Coupar

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

Lloyd, George Butler

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

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

Lorden, John William

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

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

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Gilbert, James Daniel

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Gould, James C.

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

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Greer, Harry

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Greig, Colonel James William

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Gretton, Colonel John

Maddocks, Henry

Broad, Thomas Tucker

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

Mallalieu, F. W.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

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

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Martin, Captain A. E.

Butcher, Sir John George

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

Casey, T. W.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Middlebrook, Sir William

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

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Mitchell, William Lane

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Clough, Robert

Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant

Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

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

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Hood, Joseph

Neal, Arthur

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

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

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

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

Parker, James

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

Jameson, J. Gordon

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Doyle, N. Grattan

Jesson, C.

Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emll W.

Edgar, Clifford B.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor(Barnstaple)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

Reid, D. D.

Sutherland, Sir William

Wise, Frederick

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

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Woolcock, William James U.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

Wallace, J.

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

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

Waring, Major Walter

Simm, M. T.

Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley

Ward.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Sexton, James

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, G. H.

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Bottomley, Horatio W.

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hogge, James Myles

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Briant, Frank

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moss'ey)

Spencer, George A.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Irving, Dan

Swan, J. E.

Cairns, John

John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

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

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Lawson, John J.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lunn, William

Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

Entwistle, Major C. F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mills, John Edmund

Wignall, James

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Wintringham, T.

Grundy, T. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.

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

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

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Robertson, John

Hallas, Eldred

Rose, Frank H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hartshorn, Vernon

Royce, William Stapleton

Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and

Mr. A. Davies.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes after Six o'clock.

IRELAND.
  BANK DEPOSITS AND BALANCES.
  BANK DEPOSITS AND BALANCES.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  GEAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
  GEAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ALLOWANCES FOE CHILDREN.
  ALLOWANCES FOE CHILDREN.
  OFFICERS' MEDALS AND STARS, EAST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT.
  OFFICERS' MEDALS AND STARS, EAST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT.
  HAMPSHIKE REGIMENT (GRAVES, GALLIPOLI).
  HAMPSHIKE REGIMENT (GRAVES, GALLIPOLI).
  RUSSIA (MRS. STAN HARDING).
  RUSSIA (MRS. STAN HARDING).
  BRIXHAM TRAWLERS (DAMAGE).
  BRIXHAM TRAWLERS (DAMAGE).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  RE-SETTLEMENT GRANTS.
  RE-SETTLEMENT GRANTS.
  MIDLAND ADELPHI HOTEL, LIVERPOOL.
  MIDLAND ADELPHI HOTEL, LIVERPOOL.
  APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT (APPLICATIONS).
  APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT (APPLICATIONS).
EDUCATION.
  CENSUS (CIRCULARS AND PAMPHLET).
  CENSUS (CIRCULARS AND PAMPHLET).
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BACON AND HAMS.
  BACON AND HAMS.
HOUSING.
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES, WORTLEY.
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES, WORTLEY.
  REPARATION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  REPARATION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.