Sitting of 20 April 1921

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
St. Helens Corporation Bill (by Order), Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Standing Orders,
Ordered, That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended.
Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. J. W. Wilson.]

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Hastings, in the room of LAUKANCK LYON, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for "Return showing (a) Particulars of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued, and whose Oaths of Allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1920, been registered at the Home Office; (b) Information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and (c) Particulars of cases to which Certificates of Naturalisation have been revoked within the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 95, of Session 1920)."— [Sir John Baird.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has communicated already with the French Government, intimating to them his intention immediately to reduce the price for a British visa to 8s; whether he has requested the French Government simultaneously to revert to the charge of 10 gold francs (8s.), which was their price before they were driven to raise the sum against British subjects to 20s.; and, if so, whether such reduction can take place not later than the end of the present month?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative. The reduction in the British visa fees will be made at the earliest possible moment. The French Government were represented at the Passport Conference in October, 1920, at Paris, and will presumably adopt the scale of fees then agreed upon.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: May we take it from the announcements in the papers that the "earliest possible moment" means the immediate future?
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the ill effects or otherwise experienced by Belgium in the abolition of the visa; and whether it has been found that, in the absence of this formality, undesirable visitors have made their way into that country
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Should the results of this measure prove to be advantageous to Belgium, would the hon. Gentleman do all in his power to emulate this example?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should hope so.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that we are watching the

  1845
  effects in Belgium of the abolition of the visa with a view to adopting the same process here?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I will see that inquiries are made.

  TURKISH NATIONALIST GOVERNMENT (AGREEMENTS).
  Mr. KENYONasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in possession of the terms of the agreement between the Turkish Nationalist Government and France and Italy, respectively; and, if so, whether he will publish these agreements?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government are aware of the terms of these agreements and are in communication with the French and Italian Governments on the subject. The question of their publication is one for the French and Italian Governments to decide.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were we informed by the French and Italian Governments of these agreements before they were come to or after?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would rather not answer any question on the subject without notice.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we entitled in this country also to come to an arrangement with the Turkish Nationalists without consulting our Allies?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me not to pursue the topic at the present moment.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has yet received the terms of the agreement between France and the Kemalist Turks with regard to Cilicia and Northern Syria; and if he can say what those terms are, particularly with regard to the protection of the subject races?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government are aware of the terms of this agreement and are in communication with the French Government on the subject. I would prefer, therefore, not to make any further statement on the subject at this stage.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman treat this subject on the basis that the French are less likely to protect subject races than ourselves?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I certainly do not.

  ALBANIA.
  Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are still Serbian troops within the 1913 frontiers of Albania; whether he is aware that a number of Albanian villages outside the 1913 frontiers have been burned by the Serbian troops, and that there are a large number of Albanian refugees in a condition of destitution in and around Tirana and Scutari; and if His Majesty's Government has made representations to the Serbian Government with regard to the withdrawal of Serbian troops and the indemnification of the Albanians whose property has been destroyed?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have no further information beyond that which I gave to the hon. Member in reply to his questions on the 9th December and the 21st March last. As to the third, part, His Majesty's Government made representations to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government in the autumn of 1920, which resulted in their troops with drawing from certain advanced positions which they had previously occupied. No separate representations have been made by His Majesty's Government as regards compensation for any property which may have been destroyed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ALIENS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether aliens who are not naturalised in this country, or who remain subject to foreign countries, receive unemployment pay; if so, can he state the number; and if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation confining the payments to British subjects only?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The Unemployment Insurance Acts make no distinction between British subjects and unnaturalised aliens as regards the liability to pay contributions and to receive benefit. All aliens in insured employment have to pay contributions and are entitled when unemployed to receive benefit subject to their satisfying the usual conditions. I have no information as to the number of aliens drawing benefit. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think it would be advisable to restrict the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts to British subjects only. It is desirable that, if aliens are engaged in insurable employment in this country, they should not be excused from contributing to the compulsory scheme of insurance against unemployment contained in the Acts, and if they pay contribution they must be eligible for unemployment benefit under the usual conditions.

    SHARE FISHERMEN.
    Mr. IRVINGasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of share fishermen who are out of employment; whether he is aware that the majority of these men were mine-sweeping and patrolling during the War and received out-of-work benefit up to the 31st March, but were excluded from benefit under the new Act; and whether, in view of the work these men have done during the War, he will consider the possibility of taking steps to bring this class of men within the scope of the Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that there is a considerable amount of unemployment among share fishermen. Fishermen wholly remunerated by shares in the profits or gross earnings of fishing vessels are, however, expressly excluded from Unemployment Insurance by paragraph (k) of Part 11 of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act,1920, and for this reason are not entitled to unemployment benefit under that Act or the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921. The exclusion of such fishermen from Unemployment Insurance was
    pressed upon me when the Unemployment Insurance Act was before Parliament, and I do not see my way to propose an Amendment of the Act in order to bring them within its scope.

  COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

    MEN AND WOMEN UNEMPLOYED.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Labour if he can give the House any approximate estimate of the number of men and women thrown out of work in other trades through the stoppage in the coal industry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of men, women, boys, and girls on the Live Registers of Employment Exchanges at 15th April was about 1,677,000 compared with 1,506,000 at 1st April, when the coal dispute commenced. In addition, about 964,000 persons were claiming benefit in respect of short time working as compared with 875,000 at 1st April. I could not say that the increases in the numbers of unemployed between the 1st April and the 15th April are entirely due to the coal stoppage, because week by week prior to the 1st April there had been steady increases in the numbers of unemployed. On the other hand, the increases in the number of unemployed between the 1st April and the 15th April are more marked than in any recent corresponding period. Of course, as the stoppage continues, and coal is exhausted, an increasingly large number of working people must be thrown out of employment, and already I observe that the increase in unemployment has been most marked in districts where there are great coal-using industries such as iron and steel and pottery.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on his records on 2nd April and 9th April respectively?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of men, women, boys and girls, registered as unemployed on the live register of Employment Exchanges was approximately 1,506,000 at 1st April and 1,615,000 at 8th April; of the latter figure, 1,092,000 were men and 394,000 were women. In addition, the number of claimants at Employment Exchanges for insurance benefit or out-of-work donation in respect of systematic short time working was approximately 875,000 at 1st April, and 897,000 at 8th April. The short-time figures only apply to those working systematic short time in such manner as to bring them within the scope of the Insurance Act.

    MINERS, EBBW VALE.
    Mr. EVAN DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are 6,000 miners out of employment, since 26th February, in the Ebbw Vale district; that these men were stopped owing to the depression in trade and that they cannot resume work even after a general settlement in the coal trade is arrived at; and will he, under these circumstances, instruct the manager of the local labour exchange to pay these men their unemployment benefit
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question whether the miners to whom my hon. Friend refers are entitled to unemployment benefit is at present before the insurance officer. Efforts are being made to expedite the decision and I will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.

    UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Minister of Labour the amount of unemployment donation paid out in this country in the weeks ending 2nd April and 9th April, respectively?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total amount of out-of-work donation paid out in the United Kingdom in the weeks ending 2nd April and 9th April was about £292,000 and £51,000 respectively. I would point out, however, that from 1st April, the extension schemes of out-of-work donation ceased, the only persons now eligible being ex-service men within one year of their discharge. The amounts of unemployment benefit paid in the two weeks referred to were £948,000 and £1,271,000 respectively.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    REPARATIONS COMMISSION (UNITED STATES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the present intentions of the Government of the United States with regard to representation upon the Reparations Commission?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We have no information on the subject.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister if any of our Allies are imposing a 50 per cent, charge on German goods imported into their countries in order to obtain the payment of amounts due for reparation; if at the present time German goods can be imported into every one of the Allied countries without payment of such charge; and if this condition is likely to divert German trade from this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. Steps are being taken by several of our Allies to enact legislation similar to our Reparation Recovery Act, but such legislation is not yet in operation except in the United Kingdom. So long as the German Government do not compensate their exporters these measures will no doubt restrict German exports, in the first instance to this country, and afterwards to other countries adopting similar legislation.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is not this in effect simply a protective duty?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The question appears to be rather in the nature of an argument for the Second Reading of a Bill.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CAP BADGE (CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the great discontent prevailing amongst chief petty officers of all branches at the pattern of the new cap badge for chief petty officers, the objections to which were pointed out by the welfare representatives to the members of the Board themselves last August, steps will be taken to issue an improved pattern which will be acceptable to this important body of men to whom the Admiralty have promised to do all that lies in their power to increase the status of chief petty officers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The Admiralty are not aware of the existence of the feeling referred to by the hon. Member. Representatives of the men were consulted in the matter, and no reason is seen for altering the pattern of the new cap badge.

    WRITERS.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the accountant branch of the Royal Navy being the only body of men in the Navy, Army, or Air Force in which, during the War, no active service writer ratings could by ability and the recommendations of flag officers rise to commissioned or even warrant rank, the Admiralty will take the necessary steps to afford writers, Royal Navy, equal opportunity with other ratings to reach both these ranks and at an early age: and, when introducing the mate rank into the accountant branch, will the Admiralty take into consideration, when assessing the numbers, the disability of promotion referred to?
    Mr. AMERY: As regards the statement made in the first part of the question, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The pre-War establishment of Warrant Writers was 15. In the course of the War these numbers were increased to 10 Paymaster-Lieutenants and 100 Commissioned and Warrant Writers. Of these a certain number were special promotions to warrant rank for meritorious service. The numbers of promotions to warrant and commission rank in the various branches and the age at which they are made must depend mainly on service requirements. The Admiralty is of opinion that in these respects, the Writer Branch enjoys adequate opportunity and is not at a disadvantage compared with other branches generally. The establishment of a mate rank in the Accountant Branch has been fully considered, and it has been decided not to introduce it.

    CANADIAN AND AMERICAN COAL.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has inquired for quotations for Canadian or American coal; and with what result?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative.

    COMMISSIONED WARRANT OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when those commissioned warrant officers who have passed the necessary examinations will be promoted lieutenants
    Mr. AMERY: A Fleet Order on this subject is being prepared, and will be issued shortly.

    FISH CAUGHT BY HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what sums were realised during the War from the sale of fish caught by His Majesty's ships; and how such moneys have been disposed of?
    Mr. AMERY: The gross sum of approximately £328,800 was realised by the sale of fish caught by His Majesty's vessels during the War. The first charge on this sum was the cost of fishing gear and salesmen's commission, etc., amounting together to about £77,000, which left a balance of approximately £251,800 for disposal. One moiety of the net proceeds at each base, amounting in all to £125,900 approximately, has been credited to Naval Funds as an Appropriation-in-Aid, the Admiralty having borne the ordinary running expenses of the vessels, including hire and the pay of the crews. The other moiety remained until after the Armistice at the disposal of the respective senior naval officers to be administered by them locally at their discretion to the best advantage of the naval personnel under their orders, subject only to a first charge on each local fund for the payment of a local flat rate of bonus to the officers and crews engaged in the fishing. After the Armistice, as from 1st January, 1919, the senior naval officer's local fund was limited to £500 per annum, and any balance remaining after payment of the bonus to crews and the annual grant to the senior naval officer's fund was remitted to the Admiralty, as were also any balances remaining on the closing down of the several bases. Under these arrangements, the sum of £67,400 in round figures was expended locally by the senior naval officers, and the balance of £58,500 was remitted to the Admiralty on the cessation of fishing operations. It will be appreciated that this sum of £58,500 was quite distinct from the sums referred to above as credited to public funds. Out of it grants amounting to £13,000 approximately have since been made to various naval charities and benevolent institutions working for the welfare of men of the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine, and the balance of £45,500 has been invested and placed in the custody

    1853
    of the United Services Trustee pending a final decision as to its ultimate disposal.

    MORAY FIRTH (FISHERIES PROTECTION).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what ships are employed on fishing protection duties in the area around the Moray Firth; what is the speed and armament of these vessels; when they commenced their operations; whether they have been undergoing a refit at any time during this period; whether, when undergoing a refit, they are relieved by other ships; whether they have been able to detect and arrest any vessels for illegal trawling or for infringements of international law upon the subject; if so, how many cases have resulted; and in how many cases are they known to have been unable to take any action owing to having been unable to detect or apprehend the offender?
    Mr. AMERY: One Admiralty trawler is employed on fishery protection duties in the Moray Firth area. Her speed is 11 knots and she is armed with one 12-pdr. and one Lewis gun. The vessel employed is a faster craft than that used before the War. She has been operating since November, 1920, when she replaced a sloop. The latter had been operating since April, 1920, but had to be withdrawn owing to the urgent need for economy in personnel. The trawler underwent her yearly refit during the period 6th January to 11th February, 1921. No relief was detailed as the refit was arranged to coincide with a slack fishing season in Scottish waters. Two arrests have been made for infringement of international law. A third suspected offender, on the same occasion, could not be apprehended.
    Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from that answer that there is only one trawler to protect the whole of this area from foreign poachers?
    Mr. AMERY: There is only one Admiralty trawler, but there are other craft, I believe.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    WATCH AND CLOCK TRADE.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Labour if he will use his good offices with
    1854
    the Watch and Clock Trade Union on behalf of an ex-service man, F. Niblett, of Batheaston, who lost both legs in the War; and whether the difficulty which the union feels in training men unless there are places for them to fill is not nonexistent in the case of Niblett, who only now needs a small amount of training to enable him to keep himself fully employed by extending his present work of doing repairs in the villages near his home?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The local technical advisory committee concerned are being pressed to reconsider their decision in this case at an early date. I will inform my hon. Friend immediately on receipt of a further report.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he is himself doing what he can to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly. I wish to make representations to them.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not monstrous tyranny on the part of the union to keep this man out of employment at all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There may be some misunderstanding, and perhaps that is how the difficulty has arisen.

    APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT.
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Minister of Labour if it is intended to close down the Appointments Department; how it is proposed to continue the training of those ex-service men who are now undergoing a course; and what Department will be responsible for their proper supervision and administration?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say more at the present time than that I am giving close attention to the question of the future of the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour. Whatever decision is reached, my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that adequate provision will be maintained for safeguarding the interests of those undergoing training.

    BUILDING TRADE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Labour whether the first ex-service man has yet commenced work under the Government building scheme
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The scheme, as I have already stated, came into operation on Monday, and applications from ex-service men-have already been, and are being, received. I imagine some men are at work already. If my noble Friend will put a question this day week I will endeavour to give him more precise information on the matter.
    Mr. PAPER: Are there still the same openings for these men as there were when the question was first raised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know why not.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Labour whether in connection with the League of Nations there has been established any labour section which takes cognisance from an international standpoint of wages, cost of living, and industrial conditions generally; if so, will he say if in the United States of America there has during the past six months been any reduction in the wages paid to those engaged in leading industries, including mining and transport; and what has been the fall in the cost of living in the United States during the past six months?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. The functions referred to have been assigned to the International Labour Office set up at Geneva under Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles. As regards the second part of the question, the statistical materials needed for a precise answer covering the last six months have not yet been published either by the International Labour Office or the United States Department of Labour. It is possible, however, from information in the possession of the Ministry of Labour to state that in the second half of 1920 the cost of living fell by percentages ranging from 4½ to 9 in the large industrial centres, and that during the same period wages were reduced in a number of the leading manufacturing industries by percentages ranging from 10 to 35. Neither mining nor transport would appear to have been affected by wage reductions during 1920. Since the beginning of the present year, however, the principal railway companies
    1856
    in the United States have submitted proposals for reductions in wages, which are at present the subject of discussion. Except as regards metalliferous mines in one or two districts, no reductions have been announced for the mining industry.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman have information like this published every month in the "Labour Gazette"
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not got the information from the International Labour Office. I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman such information as I have in my possession.
    Sir J. D. REES: What is the connection between the industrial and economic situation in the United States and the League of Nations, which it utterly repudiates?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman had better look at the Convention setting up the International Labour Office.
    Sir J. D. REES: How can the right hon. Gentleman correlate this office they are going to set up with a great nation that entirely repudiates it?

    BRITISH REFUGEES, RUSSIA (RELIEF).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health the amount, if any, still available for the relief of British refugees from Russia; and how many are still being assisted?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): A sum of £3,000 has been placed at the disposal of the voluntary committee which is undertaking the care of these refugees, and I am informed that a balance of £2,800 is still available. The number of persons now being assisted by the committee is 54.
    Mr. BRIANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the other 350 British refugees who are not receiving any relief? Are they employed, or what becomes of them?
    Sir A. MOND: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

  HOUSING.

    FOUR-ROOMED COTTAGES.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Minister of Health the proportion of four-roomed cottages suitable for young married couples and couples without children that he considers should be built under present circumstances out of the total number to be erected; and what is the average saving in cost of construction that can be obtained by erecting four-roomed instead of six-roomed cottages?
    Sir A. MOND: The need for small houses of the type indicated varies in different localities according to the accommodation provided in the existing houses, and accordingly it is not practicable to fix any definite proportion for the country as a whole. Examination has shown that there is already in existence a large number of two-bed-roomed houses in most parts of the country, and that the most urgent need is for the provision of houses with three bedrooms. The average saving per house in constructing a four-roomed as compared with a six-roomed cottage is approximately £120.

    BUILDING REQUIREMENTS.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health whether he can state to what extent the alteration of the economic and financial conditions of the country has led his Department to modify the estimate of the number of new houses required?
    Sir A. MOND: As I have previously stated, the general housing demand is undergoing review, but I am not yet in a position to state what modifications will be required.

    HOUSES COMPLETED, COUNTY OF LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health the number of new houses built and ready for occupation since the War in the County of London up till 31st March last; and what number have been built by the county council, borough councils, utility societies, and private builders?
    Sir A. MOND: One thousand six hundred and ninety-nine dwellings had been completed in the County of London area up to the 21st March, in some cases with the exception of painting. Of these,
    1858
    361 were built by the London County Council, 1,132 by the Metropolitan borough councils, 84 by public utility societies, and 122 by private builders under the subsidy scheme. I have no information as to the number of other houses built by private enterprise. As my hon. Friend is aware, many of the houses required for London needs have to be provided outside the London area; the number of dwellings completed in the Metropolitan Police area is over 7,000.

    PURCHASE OF DWELLINGS.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the head of the Russian Communist Government that this country, owing to her not possessing a numerous property-owning bourgeoisie and to the fact that the majority of the working classes are congregated in large industrial concerns, offers a most promising field for the setting up of a Communist form of government; and will he promote legislation to give as many people as possible in this country the opportunity of owning the houses they dwell in, or in which they carry on their business or something in the nature of fixity of tenure on fair terms?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I have not been able to trace the statement referred to in the question, but there are many enactments in force in this country for assisting people to purchase dwelling-houses, and no further legislation appears to be required.

    LEEDS AND BRADFORD, EXTENSION SCHEMES.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Health whether he has received the Report of the inspector who recently inquired into the Leeds and Bradford extension schemes; and whether he will call into consultation the Members of Parliament for the areas concerned before deciding on the merits arising out of these inquiries?
    Sir A. MOND: I have not yet received the Report referred to in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, a public inquiry has been held as provided by the Act,

    1859
    at which all parties were present, and I could not now properly discuss the merits of the proposals separately with those who may support either one side or the other.
    Mr. LUNN: If before deciding in favour of any extension of borough boundaries will the right hon. Gentleman set up a Committee to deal with the whole question?
    Sir A. MOND: Following the statute a public inquiry has been held, and everyone who has been desirous of giving evidence has been able to do so. Obviously, I must be guided by the Report of the inspector who held the inquiry, and I cannot start de novo outside the statutory powers another inquiry of an entirely informal character.
    Mr. BARRAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one result of these inquiries has already been to intensify greatly the opposition to these schemes on the part of those concerned and to convince them that there is no sort of justification for these attempts to deprive them of their independent existence?
    Sir A. MOND: I have no doubt that the inspector holding the inquiry has taken that into account in preparing his Report.

    DENTISTS BILL.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Minister of Health if the Dentists Bill will be introduced in the House of Lords?
    Sir A. MOND: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Leigh on the 13th April.

    BRENTFORD BOAED OF GUARDIANS (STAFF DISMISSALS).
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Brentford Board of Guardians in discharging a number of their staff with only a few hours' notice; whether he is aware that several nurses, whose homes are in the North of Scotland and Ireland and who are without friends in London, were dismissed at short notice without giving them time to make arrangements for their return home; that these nurses have
    1860
    been discharged for reasons of a frivolous character; and that discontent has been created amongst the remainder of the staff; and whether he will have full inquiry made into all the circumstances and advise the reinstatement of these nurses whose careers will otherwise be ruined?
    Sir A. MOND: I am already in communication with the guardians on this subject, and will communicate further with the hon. Member on receipt of their reply, which I expect to have this week.

    ANATOMICAL STUDY.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is the greatest difficulty with regard to the proper prosecution of anatomical study in this country, and that, in consequence, a large number of British medical students are forced to prosecute or complete their studies in foreign hospitals or universities; whether this difficulty is mainly due to the inadequate supply of dead bodies for anatomical purposes; and whether he will consider appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the matter?
    Sir A. MOND: Although it is the case that, owing to the difficulty in obtaining subjects, British students have occasionally gone abroad to seek facilities for the study of anatomy in foreign schools, this state of affairs has now been remedied by the action taken by my predecessor. There is still a shortage in the case of certain provincial medical schools, but this is being remedied.

  IRELAND.

    "ENNISCORTHY ECHO."
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he is aware that the "Enniscorthy Echo" newspaper was ordered by the officer in command of the military in Enniscorthy to publish two-and-a-quarter columns of extracts from the "Irish Times" newspaper in the issue of the "Echo" of 2nd April; that on 26th March the same paper was compelled to publish two columns of extracts from the "Irish Times" and the "Weekly Summary"; whether he is aware that the latter contained violent attacks and abuse of the

    1861
    Sinn Fein movement; whether these extracts from other publications are paid for as advertisements by His Majesty's Government; whether the whole of this paper is censored; what is the object of this censorship and forced printing of opinions; and whether Enniscorthy is in a martial law area.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I am still awaiting a report from the Commander-in-Chief with reference to this matter, which is alleged to have occurred in the martial law area.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this paper is still being forced to publish long extracts from other newspapers, and will he have inquiries made with a view to having it stopped until the matter is cleared up?
    Mr. HENRY: I will inquire into that.

    BURSTINGS.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary if he has any information as to the burning down by Crown forces of two labourers' cottages, occupied by Patrick Cronin and Elizabeth Twomey, the property of the Macroom Rural Council, situated at Coolnacahera, Macroom, on the 25th February, 1921; whether notice was given and an order made out by the military governor; and who ordered these burnings?
    Mr. HENRY: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that nothing is known of the origin of the burning of these cottages. It is possible that they took fire during the extensive fighting which occurred in the surrounding district on the 25th February, when a mixed force of Auxiliary police and permanent constabulary were attacked by a strong body of rebels who were entrenched in the hills between Ballyvourney and Macroom.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chief Secretary whether, following an attack on certain police constables in Limerick on 8th April last, Crown forces on the 9th April blew up the house of the late P. M'Jueray, publican, at Loch Quay, burned the house of Patrick Burke, Denmark Street, burned the house of Mrs. Mary Kielan, in John Street, and removed the furniture
    1862
    of Miss Madge Daly from her house in North Circular Road and burned it; whether these were official or non-official reprisals; and on what principle this property was selected for damage?
    Mr. HENRY: On the night of the 8th and 9th instants a patrol of the Royal Irish Constabulary was fired on and bombed in Limerick, resulting in the wounding of two head constables, one sergeant, and one constable. At the same time one civilian was killed and three wounded, including a woman and a boy. Following this outrage, the houses of three prominent Sinn Feiners close to the scene, who must have known of the preparation for the ambush, were destroyed by order of the Military Governor, and the furniture of Miss Daly burnt. The house of the latter is a well-known haunt of the Irish Republican Army.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether most of the houses in Limerick are not occupied by hardened Sinn Feiners, and why, if it was just to pick out these people's houses for destruction, they did not burn down the whole city while they were at it?
    Mr. STANTON: Who primed you with the information. Where did you get it?
    Mr. HENRY: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the house of Mrs. Nealon, a widow, of John Street, Limerick, was destroyed as a military operation in view of an attack on a party of police; whether this woman or her household were in any way connected with the crime; and whether this house was selected because her cousin, who used to live there and is now in prison, was believed to be a Sinn Feiner?
    Mr. HENRY: This place is in the martial law area and I have therefore asked the Commander-in Chief to furnish me with a Report. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat the question, of which I only received notice yesterday, one day next week.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not possible in the Martial Law areas to have only the houses of men destroyed and not those of widows? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one

    1863
    of several cases of widows' houses being burned?
    Mr. HENRY: A great many men may be concealed in a widow's house.

    "IRISH BULLETIN."
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is satisfied that the forgeries which purport to be copies of the "Irish Bulletin" are not being compiled by any member of the Crown forces or Government agents in Ireland?
    Mr. HENRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by me to questions on this subject by the hon. Member for the Morpeth Division and the hon. and gallant Member for the East Newcastle Division on the 7th instant.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chief Secretary whether any firearms have been carried by the men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police while on duty between 1st January, 1920, and the present date; how many men of this force have been killed or wounded during the period while they have been disarmed; and whether, in sorder to ensure their safety, all their arms and ammunition have now been withdrawn?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject on the 16th ultimo.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it not perfectly well known that the reason why the Dublin Metropolitan Police are not armed is because it is impossible to protect them in their own homes in Dublin, and that they do not function, except in the way of controlling traffic and things of that kind?

    UNOFFICIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. HOLMESasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the effective action taken by the unofficial Members of the House in averting the national crisis last week, the Government will give a safe conduct to London to an accredited Sinn Fein representative so that, after a statement of his views, he may be questioned by the unofficial Members in an endeavour to find a solution of the Irish problem?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would point out to my hon. Friend that there are many representatives of Sinn Fein duly elected to this House who are free to come to Westminster for any purpose at any time. The question of safe conduct does not therefore appear to arise.
    Mr. STANTON: They are here—Ken-worthy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. HOLMES: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he realises that it was not the miners' Representatives in Parliament, but an invitation to an outside representative of the miners which brought about the success of last week? In view of his answer to-day does the Government disapprove of the meeting called last week? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am asking the Government.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question. That is a matter of opinion.

    COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Chief Secretary the total amount of compensation awarded by the Irish Courts in respect of claims in which the judicial authority has stated that the damage was done by members of the Crown forces; and what method will in future be adopted to investigate similar claims in the martial law area?
    Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Chief Secretary whether there is any discrimination, from the point of view of political opinion, with regard to the indemnification of owners of property destroyed by the forces of the Crown; and what means the owners of such property have at the present moment of obtaining compensation?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chief Secretary whether the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, at Tralee Assizes on 9th March, stated his intention of investigating fully all claims to compensation in which allegations were made against the forces of the Crown; whether County Court Judges Bodkin and Fleming have on several occasions stated that in their opinion similar allegations had been well founded; whether the Government has now decided to suppress all judicial' inquiries into cases of this kind; and whether, considering the effect upon home and foreign public opinion which will be

    1865
    caused by allowing charges of such gravity to rest upon the Crown forces, he will take steps to bring them before an impartial tribunal?
    Mr. HENRY: I have no means of ascertaining the total amount of damage involved in cases in which allegations of unjustifiable action by the Crown forces have been made; but any such charge which is brought to notice is at once investigated and a court of inquiry is held if the facts appear to be sufficient to warrant that course. I am satisfied that such inquiries are conducted with complete impartiality and with the single object of ascertaining the facts and bringing any offence home to the guilty parties. I have no information beyond newspaper reports with regard to the statements attributed to the Lord Chief Justice and Judge Fleming in the first and second parts of the question by the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham South. The report of Judge Bodkin was fully dealt with in Debate in this House on the 21st February. There is no discrimination as regards the right of owners of property destroyed maliciously, irrespective of their political opinions, to recover compensation from the local authority. As I explained on the 18th instant, the sole object of the proclamation recently issued by the Commander-in-Chief in the martial-law area was to prevent claims for compensation being made in the case of property justifiably destroyed by direction of the military governor.
    Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question what amount after judicial inquiry has been awarded against the Crown forces for damage done?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is not the result of these claims and the garnisheeing of rates which is arising therefrom that the Irish dispensary doctors are without their salaries, and is the Government going to take steps to make up the money of these most necessary officials out of some other source?
    Mr. HENRY: Not a single shilling has been awarded against the Crown forces for the damage done. The other question is in the hands of the representatives of the ratepayers on the county councils, and is not a matter for the Government.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that no county court judge after judicial investigation has awarded damages to persons for damage suffered at the hands of the Crown forces?
    Mr. HENRY: That is not the question that was asked. The question was as regards the amount awarded against the Crown forces. I am not in a position to give the figures in the cases referred to by my hon. Friend in the question, and I have already said so in the answer.
    Captain BENN: Why is the right hon. Gentleman not in a position to give the figures if the judgments have been already made by the county courts?
    Mr. HENRY: Because we are not parties to these cases. The judgments do not show against whom the charges are made.
    Colonel ASHLEY: If a county court judge has found that these burnings have taken place by the forces of the Crown, will he recommend that the compensation should be paid by the Crown and not levied on the district?
    Mr. HENRY: I must ask for notice of that question.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
    Sir M. DOCKRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that ex-Sergeant John Webb, Royal Irish Constabulary, was retired in January, 1921, from the Royal Irish Constabulary Force, needing only 3½ months to complete the period of 30 years entitling him to a pension of two-thirds of his pay; is he aware that any physical failure to complete this short further period of service was not owing to anything done or left undone by Webb, but was solely due to his long and arduous service; and will he arrange that his pension shall be computed upon 30 years' service?
    Mr. HENRY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 21st March last to which I can add nothing. I regret that I have no power to make the arrangement suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the present time is quite inopportune for any case of hardship like this to be inflicted on the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    MR. HENRY: It is not within the power of the constabulary to alter the arrangement.

    PROSECUTION, ATHLONE.
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Chief Secretary whether two men named Frank Shouldice and John O'Grady were sentenced at Athlone to imprisonment with hard labour for two years and one year, respectively; whether their offence was the printing of a poster in connection with the refusal of Irish railwaymen last summer to carry munitions of war and asking for funds to help to support the dismissed men; and whether similar posters and advertisements were at the time displayed openly throughout Ireland and the fund openly collected without interference by the police?
    Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, Shouldice and O'Grady were also charged with printing forms of summonses for use in connection with the so-called Republican Courts. In the circumstances the remainder of the question does not arise.

    AUXILIARY CADETS (LOOTING CHARGES).
    Mr. GALBRAITHasked the Chief Secretary whether the five cadets arrested under the orders of General Crozier to stand trial on the charge of looting at Trim are still awaiting trial; whether, in addition to these, seven of the cadets discharged by General Crozier and brought back are also awaiting trial and if so, on what charges; whether the evidence of General Crozier and Captain Macfie has been taken by the Court of Inquiry; and, as regards the remaining 19, whether their refusal to give evidence before General Crozier as to a crime of which they were witnesses has been taken into consideration by the Court?
    Mr. HENRY: The official investigation into this matter has now been concluded, and it has been decided to bring 18 of the cadets to trial by court-martial on charges of robbery, larceny and receiving. Pending the results of the trials which will be held shortly I am not prepared to make any further statement bearing on the case.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman extend protection to the witnesses for the prosecu-
    1868
    tion, especially from intimidation by Members of this House on the opposite side?

    LlEUT.-COMMANDER FRY.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Chief Secretary what is the position in the Irish Government occupied by Lieut.-Commander Fry; how long he has been employed by the Government in question; and on whose recommendation he was appointed?
    Mr. HENRY: Lieut.-Commander Fry was engaged on the 10th January, 1921, as a temporary clerk in the office of the Chief of Police, and is still employed in that capacity. He applied for employment in the ordinary way and was accepted after the usual investigations as to character had been made. It is contrary to practice to disclose the names of persons to whom reference is made as to the character of applicants for employment in the public service.
    Earl WINTERTON: Were any inquiries made as to this officer's eligibility from those who served with him in the Navy; and were on terms of close friendship with him, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Central Hull has never served with this officer, and has no knowledge whatsoever of him, and had nothing whatever to do with his appointment? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not refute these statements?
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In view of the statement so frequently made as to the danger to life in the publication of the names of witnesses and of the knowledge many of us have that comrades of men of the Auxiliary Force have issued threats against those who give evidence against them, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to discourage the organised attack on this officer by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that this officer is believed by the majority of those who know the case in Dublin to have been involved in a deliberate attempt to obtain the judicial murder of three gallant officers?
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it not the universal opinion in Ireland that this man was endeavouring to defeat the attempt of the Government to get off scot-free men charged with a brutal and cowardly murder?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the court-martial, after having heard the complete breakdown of the prosecution, did not even call upon counsel to make their concluding addresses?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We shall have another opportunity to continue the debate.

    COAL SUPPLY, SLIGO.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Customs authorities in Glasgow are holding up a vessel laden with coal for the Sligo Gas Company; that, as all the principal industries in Sligo are dependent upon gas power and the gas company have now only three days' supply, any further delay in releasing this vessel will have a serious effect; and whether he will have immediate inquiries made into the matter.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Upon the advice of the Government Departments charged with regulating the supply and distribution of coal in the present emergency clearance has been refused to the collier s.s. "Girasol" at Glasgow, loaded with coal for the Sligo Gas Company, in view of the probability of more urgent needs arising elsewhere in the immediate future. The information in the hands of the Mines Department shows that at the commencement of the present emergency the Sligo Gas Company had sufficient coal in stock to last until about the beginning of this week. Through the intervention of the Mines Department the company has since had a further supply of 100 tons which, if consumption be restricted as in Great Britain, should last another week and a half or two weeks. It is further understood that in the Sligo district the stocks of the coal merchants average about three weeks' supply at the normal rate of consumption and it should be possible for arrangements to be made locally for some of this coal to be used by the gas company. The matter will be kept under consideration.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be better to come to an understanding with the Miners' Federation and have this question settled?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It would be very satisfactory if we could do so.
    Mr. THORNE: Why do you not do it?

    ARRESTS (CROWN FORCES).
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Chief Secretary the proportion in which the 221 members of the forces of the Crown in Ireland, who have been arrested for offences against the Criminal Law since 1st January last, are distributed between the Regular Army, Auxiliary Division, men specially enlisted in England for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the last 18 months, and original members of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. HENRY: The distribution is as follows:

    Military

    121

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    69

    Ulster Special Constabulary

    20

    Auxiliary Division

    11

    I am unable at such short notice to furnish information as to how many of the 69 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been arrested were recruited in Great Britain.

    SHOOTINGS, CASTLECONNELL.
    Mr. O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland if he has any further particulars with reference to the affray at Castleconnell, where Auxiliaries attacked and killed some of the constabulary forces, and also killed Mr. O'Donovan; and whether he has received any protest from the widow of Mr. O'Donovan against the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he was killed rushing from the bar, instead of which he was taken out into the yard, put up against the wall, and killed?
    Mr. HENRY: I gave my hon. Friend all the information in my possession in answer to a question yesterday. I have received no further information, and, speaking for myself, whatever may have reached Dublin Casle, I have received no protest from the widow of the deceased.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

    PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Leader of the House if, in face of the important manifesto issued by the Prime Minister with regard to Ireland, he will give the House a day for the discussion of that letter and the policy of the Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not think that, in the state of public business, I can promise any early date.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: May I then ask my right hon. Friend if, in view of the strong feeling which has been excited by this letter, he will give the House an opportunity, by accelerating the Irish Estimates, of immediately replying to that letter and discussing the policy in it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman was a little premature in talking of the strong feeling aroused by this letter, which was only published this morning; but if hon. Members desire to have the Irish Estimates put down, of course we will try to meet their wishes.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: May I say that when I expressed the view that there was a strong feeling, I was referring to the comments in all the independent journals in the country?
    Mr. HAILWOOD: In view of the very satisfactory feeling engendered in the House by the Prime Minister's letter, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is circulated to all the Members?

    BUSINESS PREMISES.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of alarm and distress prevailing among large numbers of business tenants in consequence of the impending expiration of their statutory protection against dispossession; whether he is aware of the strong recommendations of the Select Committee on Business Premises that such protection should be extended on certain terms; and whether, in view of the urgency of the need, he will now take steps to give legislative effect to some or all of the Select Committee's recommendations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no practical reason has been given for refusing to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Business Premises, and is it not a very unusual thing for a Committee's recommendations to be turned down without some reason being given?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that no reason has been given. I thought I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister giving a series of reasons to the House, among others that the circumstances have changed very materially since the Committee reported.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the resolution passed by a mass meeting at Australia House on this subject?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Major WATTS MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent and imperative necessity of some immediate measure of relief being afforded to many tenants of business premises throughout the country because of the abnormal and excessive rents now demanded, and that they are crying out for relief?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the necessity for such legislation. I admit that the case is not a perfectly simple one, and I cannot deal with it finally by question and answer across the Floor of the House. In the opinion of the Government, the objections to continued interference in these matters outweigh any advantage that would be gained by continued interference.

    RETAIL PRICES.
    Major KELLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the miners and other workers in the country have been asked to live on wages which in most cases are greatly reduced, he will consider the issue of a national appeal to those who sell the daily necessities of life to our workers to make also a sacrifice by selling those necessary goods at as small a profit as possible, compatible with a fair and reasonable return, thus lessening the hardships caused to our workers by any wage reduction?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to think that undue profits are being made, and I am afraid that no

    1873
    result of practical value would be obtained by such an appeal as my hon. Friend suggests.

    RESERVE (EXEMPTIONS).
    Major KELLEYasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the possibility of giving exemption for reservists engaged in wholesale and retail distribution of foodstuffs, and allowing those already called up to return at once?
    Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the relief in the tension in the industrial world, he will consider now the possibility of liberating the employé reservists in the retail grocery and food trades?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on 14th April to a question on this subject asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay, and to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War made in the House on Monday last on the Army Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. LYLE: Have not circumstances changed since that time?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I do not think that they have changed since two days ago.

    CARRIERS' RISKS (SHIPOWNEBS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister if the Government has considered the proposals of the Imperial Maritime Conference respecting the limitation by clauses in bills of lading of shipowners' liability for carriers' risks; and whether, in view of the serious losses from theft and pilferage, legislation will be proposed in the present Session?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. The Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee on the limitation of shipowners' liability is being considered, but in the present state of public business
    1874
    there is little prospect of legislation on the subject being introduced this Session.

    RAILWAYS (DECONTEOL).
    Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he will, in view of the decontrol of the railways in August, take the fullest possible steps to ensure that this is carried out with the absolute minimum of friction among the interests affected, with the maximum of consideration for the difficult position of the wage-earner and with the utmost effort to avert any further trouble both to the State and to the community?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The conditions under which decontrol of the railways will take place in August next will be determined by the Bill which is shortly to be introduced, and I cannot anticipate its provisions.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will it apply to Ireland?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say what the Bill will be until it is introduced.

    KEY INDUSTRIES BILL.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Financial Resolution for the Anti-Dumping Bill will be put down?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to name a date.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: In view of the fact that this legislation relates to key industries, how many more years will elapse before the Government take steps to protect those industries which in itself has taken the responsibility of describing as key industries?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the country that the Government is anxious to deal with this question at the earliest possible moment, and but for the changes in the Government necessitated by the unfortunate illness of my predecessor and the industrial dispute this measure would have been introduced already.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has now joined the Unionist party, does not that facilitate matters?

    KING'S BENCH DIVISION (NEW JUDGE).
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Address for the appointment of a new judge in the King's Bench Division will be put down for discussion?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will no doubt have noticed that a Motion dealing with this question is on the Paper to-day.

    MIDDLE EAST (ME. CHURCHILL'S VISIT).
    Major KELLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of the staff he took out to the Near East; the cost of the same; if the amount will appear as a special Estimate; and will the House have the opportunity of discussing it?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The staff who accompanied me from the Middle Eastern Department of the Colonial Office numbered four. The cost attributable to myself and them cannot be precisely stated until accounts have been passed. In addition, the Air Ministry and the War Office sent certain representatives. The expenditure up to 31st March was borne by the Vote for Colonial Services. Expenditure since that date falls on the Vote for Middle Eastern Services, an estimate of which has been presented to the House, and can be discussed when that Vote is taken.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, in the Air Estimates Debate to-morrow, to make a statment as to the result of his inspection of the air position in Egypt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air asked me to be on this Bench in case questions are raised in connection with the Colonial Office and the Air Ministry. There are several questions connected with that, and I shall be in my place.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I give notice that I shall ask a question, and I hope he will be prepared to discuss it?
    Major KELLEY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say what it cost?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I really do not know. It was 'done in the most economical and correct manner, and the whole expense will be accessible to the House when the Estimates are presented.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentlemen satisfied that his visit took place at the psychological time?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no money will be grudged on this side of the House for such an expedition or any more such expeditions?
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be in a position to make a statement with regard to the results of his mission to the Middle East?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are considerable financial readjustments to be made between Departments in preparing the new Vote for which I am to take responsibility, but I hope to be able to make a statement and introduce the Vote early next month.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Shall we have an Estimate of the expenditure to be incurred in Mesopotamia and Palestine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. More than that, I hope to present a definite Vote to the House for the cost this year, which will be less than the cost that has been put before the House. I hope, in addition, to give some indication of how the cost in future years will be regulated.

    HONG KONG (TREATMENT OF CHILDREN).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he recommended last year the formation in Hong Kong of a local committee of Chinese to supervise the conditions under which children and girls who were bought were employed; whether such a committee has been formed; and whether he will see that there are at least two British members on the committee?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): The formation of such a Committee was recommended by Lord Milner, and there is now such a committee

    1877
    actively at work, composed of Chinese of high standing whose services are of the greatest value in advising the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. The latest information is that a committee of Chinese ladies has been formed to assist the above-mentioned committee. I doubt if the usefulness of this committee would be increased by the presence of British members, but I will consult the Governor.

    CONSTANTINOPLE (BILLETING).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether houses in Constantinople are requisitioned for billets for English officers, the families inhabiting those houses being turned out for the purpose; whether he is aware that considerable hardship and indignation have been caused in this way; and whether there is any court of appeal in such cases?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am obtaining a report regarding this question from the General Officer Commander-in-Chief, British Army in Constantinople, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is received.

    REMOUNT DEPARTMENT (NORTHERN COMMAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel PICKERINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Remount Department of the Northern Command have failed to supply suitable horses for defence units; and will he see that officers of the Remount Department are given instructions as to the type of horse required for the Royal Artillery?
    Sir R. SANDERS: So far as I am aware, no complaint has been made of any failure in this respect. The officer of the Remount Department on the Headquarters Staff of the Northern Command is a retired Artillery Officer and well aware of the type of horse required for the artillery, as also are the other remount officers in the Command. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case he has in mind, I will have the matter inquired into.
    Lieut.-Colonel PICKERING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if the Army retains for a fortnight or three weeks some of the horses it has already got at 10s. a day it will have paid more in hire than the value of the horses?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall have the matter inquired into, and I shall mention his proposition to those concerned.

    BASIC SLAG.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government have owned, or now own, any quantities of basic slag?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The Government do not own, and, so far as I am aware, have not at any time owned, any quantities of basic slag other than the small quantities required from time to time for use in the Ministry's own farm settlements or experiments.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any licence is necessary for the importation of ground basic slag; and, if so, what is the quantity imported into this country during the six months ending March last and the declared value per ton to the Customs authorities?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No licence is necessary for the importation of ground basic slag. The quantity of basic slag imported during the six months ending the 31st March, 1921, was 15,769 tons of a declared value of £125,832. Ground and unground slag are not separately distinguished in the Customs Returns and it is probable that the bulk of the slag imported was in an unground state.

    ALLOTMENTS, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that certain allotment holders at Enfield Lane, Sheffield, have received notices to quit; whether those holders, through great industry, have brought this hitherto derelict land into a good state of cultivation; whether they were per-

    1879
    mitted by the municipal authorities to keep pigs on the land in the interests of food production and that the owner raised no objection, but that it is assumed the reason for the notices to quit is that the holders have taken advantage of the municipal authorities' permission; whether he is aware that in consequence of the actions of the person who holds the lease of this land the holders have suffered great annoyance and there is considerable unrest in the district, and whether he will take immediate steps to have these notices to quit withdrawn and to protect these allotment holders in this working-class district?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Ministry has ascertained that the allotments in question are let direct by a private individual and consequently the Ministry has no power to interfere with regard to any notices to quit which have been given. Any difficulties appear to have arisen as a result of differences between two local allotment societies, and the Ministry will arrange for one of its inspectors to visit Sheffield to see if it is possible for some arrangement to be arrived at agreeable to all the parties concerned.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PRE-WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the delay in dealing with the cases of pre-War disability naval pensioners who served during the War and were again invalided and are eligible for the post-War scale of disability pension; and whether he can expedite the payment of the increases due?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The question of specially increasing pre-War life disability pensions in the case of men who served again in the Great War is under consideration, and it is hoped that it may be possible to make an announcement at an early date.

    SHELL SHOCK CASES.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Minister of Pensions whether many ex-officers and men who went out to the tropical parts of the British Empire to
    1880
    seek their livelihood are being sent home or are returning home suffering from the effects of shell-shock which apparently manifests itself seriously in hot climates; whether many of these men are now seriously embarrassed financially; and whether he will give instructions that all such cases are to be dealt with as expeditiously and sympathetically as possible?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question, but special consideration is given to all cases in which there is urgency in order that there may be no delay in providing whatever benefits are admissible under the Royal Warrant. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I shall be glad to investigate it.

    TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS (TRAINING BONUS).
    Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Pensions whether local War pensions committees have, for many months past, been asking for a ruling with regard to the payment of bonus to ex-service men suffering from tuberculosis admitted as attributable to or aggravated by service who have completed a course of training arranged by local insurance committees; and whether he will state the reason why these men are deprived of benefits enjoyed by all other ex-service trainees?
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe)asked the Minister of Health whether ex-service men suffering from tuberculosis accepted as attributable to, or aggravated by, service, who undergo a recognised course of training arranged by the local insurance committees, are unable to obtain payment of the bonus paid on termination of courses of training arranged by the Ministry of Labour or, in the case of concurrent training and treatment, by the Ministry of Pensions; whether he can explain why these men should be thus penalised; and whether he will take steps to ensure that these trainees shall enjoy the same benefits as other disabled ex-service men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The training bonus is payable in cases where a disabled man, who is obliged in consequence of his disability to change his pre-War occupation, has satisfactorily completed a course of training which is certified by representatives of the trade as adequate to equip him for his new occupation. It

    1881
    is the practice of my Department, and of the Ministry of Labour, to secure trade approval, both of the course of training, and of the individual trainee, in order to provide the man with the best chance of securing regular and permanent employment in the new trade he has selected. So far as men suffering from tuberculosis have received training of this character in any class of institution, the bonus has been paid. Difficulty has, I understand, been experienced by the Ministry of Health with regard to the provision of courses of instruction in technical trades, and in such trades the training at present given is, for the most part, of an elementary kind, and cannot be regarded as regular vocational training. I am, however, in communication with the Ministry of Health on the matter.

  POST OFFICE.

    DUTCH TRADE CIRCULARS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Post master-General whether Dutch trade circulars are being posted to this country from Germany with German postage stamps, presumably because of the difference of exchange: and whether his Department is compelled to deliver such circulars or if any protest can be made to the German authorities on the matter?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am aware that trade circulars issued by Dutch firms are being posted in Germany for delivery in this country prepaid with German stamps. I have no power to refuse to deliver postal packets received in the mails from Germany properly prepaid at the international rates of postage, nor is there any ground upon which I could protest to the German authorities against the practice.

    REGISTERED LETTERS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Post master-General what is the legal liability recognised by his Department on the loss of a registered letter; and whether this liability is held to apply to letters posted in Post Office registered envelopes only, or whether it also applies to letters posted in ordinary envelopes, but registered?
    Mr. PEASE: The Postmaster-General is not under any legal liability in respect of the loss of any postal packet; but, subject to certain conditions published in the Post Office Guide, he pays compensation voluntarily and as an act of grace in respect of the total loss in the Post of a registered letter, whether or not a Post Office registered envelope has been used. No compensation is paid for the loss out of a registered letter of money of any kind (including paper money) unless a Post Office registered envelope has been used.

    MOTOR VEHICLES DUTY.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the yield of the Motor Tax will be allotted to Ireland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The Government propose that the net proceeds of the new licensing and registration duties levied in Ireland, though at present paid into the Road Fund, should-be set aside for eventual transfer to the Governments of North and South Ireland respectively.

    COMMUNIST AND BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has been able to ascertain whether any considerable number of people whose works have closed down, or whose meana of livelihood have been taken away from them through bad trade, are receiving weekly grants from Communist organisations on condition, that they join such organisations and actively advocate the. Communist policy?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Baird): I cannot say that the number of persons receiving money from Communist sources is considerable; but it is undoubtedly the case that during the winter the Communist parties have attempted to exploit the unemployed. The "unofficial" unemployed committees organised in many industrial centres are

    1883
    chiefly carried on by Communists, who in some cases are paid.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the considerable sums of money now being spent in Bolshevist propaganda in the United Kingdom; how much this totals per month, as well as the number of paid Bolshevist agents, and how much they average in amount; where the money comes from; and how much is contributed by the Russian Government?
    Sir J. BAIRD: My attention is constantly directed to the Bolshevist propaganda in this country. It falls under three heads: the payment of salaries to Communist officials, ranging from £5 to £10 a week, subsidies to the extremist Press, and the free distribution of revolutionary literature. An accurate estimate of the amount spent cannot be given, but in December last a Bolshevist agent stated that it exceeded £23,000 a month. The number of paid agents varies according to the amount of money available. There is evidence that some, at any rate, of the money came direct from the Moscow Government, but that was before the signing of the Trade Agreement.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: In view of the fact that the majority of these agitators are of foreign origin, is it the intention of the Government to expel them from this country?
    Sir J. BAIRD: The matter has been dealt with in the question already answered. My hon. Friend knows the ordinary Parliamentary procedure.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Have the revolutionary activities of these men, and the fact that money is coming from abroad, been brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor, with a view to action being taken by him?
    Sir J. BAIRD: Undoubtedly the Public Prosecutor is the man on whose advice we have to act.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Have you brought it under his notice?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of "Bolshevist"?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I should like to have time for that.
    Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what Vote it would be possible for the House to have a full discussion of this very important question?
    Sir J. BAIRD: On the Home Office Vote.
    Captain O'GRADY: Does the right hon. Gentleman read these extremist papers, and can he say what they are? Are they the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily News"?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I do not think those are the papers referred to.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman s Office to take action without waiting for any Vote? Is this propaganda any good to the country, or is it utterly detrimental? If the latter, why cannot action be taken?
    Sir J. BAIRD: That point will be dealt with in the answer to a subsequent question.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Home Secretary if he has any knowledge of the existence of a flying column of revolutionaries in this country who are despatched to centres where industrial or other trouble is threatened, in order to foment disaffection and stimulate the committal of outrages; and, if so, what steps he has taken to counteract such a policy?
    Sir J. BAIRD: It has always been the policy of revolutionary organisations to concentrate on centres of industrial unrest. The police have dealt with cases of speeches which openly advocate violence or sedition, but there has been a great deal of mischievous propaganda by persons who contrive to keep just within the law.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I ask the Leader of the House if there is any intention on the part of the Government to try to stop the evil influences of these foreigners, or are they to be left alone?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not followed closely the questions which were put, and I should not like to answer without notice a question referring to what has been passing. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I not put a question to the Leader of the House, in view of the statements which we have just heard?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; but what I asked was that notice should be given.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister invited Lenin over to this country to address Labour, and was that for Bolshevist propaganda?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is M. Lenin the flying column?
    Mr. STANTON: He is relying upon the ton. Member for Central Hull here.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He would not listen to you.

    NAVAL FORCE, GLASGOW.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the number of bluejackets who marched through Glasgow with fixed bayonets and accompanied by two bands; on whose instructions was it done; and with what object?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to answer this question. As the House has already been informed, the Admiralty have placed a certain number of naval ratings at the disposal of the military forces to assist the civil authorities if required. One battalion of naval ratings, strength 600, proceeded from Portsmouth to Glasgow on 14th April, arriving on 16th April. I have no information as to the bands, but it is customary, if bands are available, to "play in" naval and military forces arriving at a station.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that bluejackets will not be employed on these duties except where absolutely necessary? It has not previously been the custom.
    Sir R. SANDERS: No troops are employed on any occasion whatever unless it is absolutely necessary.

    LATE GENERAL SIR J. COWANS (FUNERAL).
    Major GLYN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to grant a military
    1886
    funeral at public expense to the late General Sir John Cowans, formerly Quarter-Master General of the Army, and if so, what arrangements have been made?
    Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir. Arrangements will be made for a service in London, probably early next week in Westminster Cathedral, but I am not yet in a position to give details. I will have an announcement made in the Press at the earliest possible moment.

    FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (IRISH CATTLE).
    Captain REDMOND(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the official announcement of the Irish Department of Agriculture that after close investigation they have been unable to discover any evidence of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, he will take immediate steps to remove the restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle into Great Britain?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In view of the fact that three separate cases of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Irish cattle which had passed through Dublin, in two of which cases the disease manifested itself within six days of their departure from Ireland, I am bound to conclude that a source of infection exists in Ireland. The inability of the Irish Department to discover that source only increases my difficulty, and for the present I cannot take the risk of allowing store cattle, which may be potential carriers of disease, to be distributed throughout Great Britain. Arrangements have been made whereby store cattle will be accepted at a number of British ports for 14 days' quarantine at the ports, to be followed by licences to specific premises. This procedure was adopted after the last Irish outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Wicklow, and it was in the course of the detention at the lairage that the third case of disease was detected. The potential accommodation at the ports is upwards of 7,000 stores per fortnight.
    Captain REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what proof he has got that these animals came from Ireland, and in the second place whether he is aware that the Irish Department of Agri-

    1887
    culture have made an exceedingly close and careful investigation into no less than 33,623 animals, over 1,393 different farms, and when the Irish Department of Agriculture say they can find no trace of foot-and-mouth disease in the country, is not that sufficient guarantee to the right hon. Member that no such disease exists?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: All these cases were cases of animals which had just been brought from Ireland. In one case an animal was actually in isolation in quarantine in the lairage at Birkenhead. There can be no doubt they were all cases of animals brought from Ireland, and with reference to the further point that the Irish Department failed to detect the source of the disease, that, of course, makes the position more difficult. If the Irish Department could locate it we could draw a ring round the infected area and admit store cattle from the rest of Ireland, but the very fact that the Irish Department cannot locate it compels me to take these precautions, and I may point out that it is exceedingly inconvenient for British farmers who want stores, just as it is inconvenient for Irish farmers, and if I could avoid taking these precautions I certainly would, but my first duty is to protect the health of the flocks and herds of this country.
    Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last three weeks, namely, the period since when these cases were discovered, the price of meat has risen considerably in this country, and that therefore he should take into consideration the investigations that the Irish Department have made?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that the price of meat has risen, but I may point out that if we were to have a wholesale epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease, it certainly would rise.
    Captain REDMOND: On the question of the detention of these store cattle at the lairages, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Department of Agriculture in Ireland protested against these conditions being made, as being exceedingly harmful to the store cattle, and, in view of their not having discovered any disease in Ireland, will he not remove this restriction?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir, I cannot remove it.
    Colonel GREIG: Having regard to the interests in stores here, would it not be advisable to take steps at once to get stores from Canada?

    IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
    Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the arrest and internment of a Member:
    The Right Honourable the Speaker,
    House of Commons,
    London, S.W.1.
    Curragh Camp,
    Co. Kildare, Ireland,
    18th April, 1921.
    SIR,
    I have the honour to report the arrest, on 21st November, 1920, of Joseph McBride, M.P. for the Parliamentary Division of West Mayo.
    Mr. McBride is now interned in the Curragh Internment Camp, under Regulation 14/B of The Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920.
    I regret that the Parliamentary procedure to be followed in such cases was not brought to my notice, and that therefore considerable delay has occurred in reporting the case of Mr. McBride's arrest. I have, however, issued instructions to prevent the recurrence of such delay should any further cases of this nature arise within the area under my command.
    I have the honour to be,
    Sir,
    Your obedient servant,
    H. S. JEUDWINE,
    Major-General,
    Commanding 5th Division.

    LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Coventry Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the Lymington Rural District Council [Lords], Petition

1889
for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FEOM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords.]
Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D: Mr. Murchison.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE UNION ACT (1913) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 29th April, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  NUNEATION CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In moving the Second Beading of this Bill, I shall endeavour to be as brief as I possibly can, and, what is even more important, to exercise the best discretion I can in the choice of the words I use. We are to-day dealing with the affairs of other people, and I always feel for myself in the capacity I occupy in relation to their affairs, that I cannot be too careful in the language I use in dealing with those matters.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This affects us, too, very closely.
  4.0. P.M.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It affects us very closely; it affects a number of other nations much more closely. I have observed, in connection with my present office, that what we say in this House about other people excites their interest in an almost pathetic degree, for however lightly we are sometimes disposed to assume our responsibility, and to regard our membership of this House, it is still regarded abroad as the greatest of all Parliaments, and there are scholiasts and commentators in foreign countries who examine what we. say here with all the care that a scholar bestows on a. classical text. The House will observe that the Hungary Treaty follows in its main features other Treaties that have been presented to Parliament. We have in the forefront of it the Covenant of the League of Nations. We have military, naval and air Clauses very similar to those which are found in the other Treaties. There is the usual Chapter on reparations and the Chapter on labour, and so forth. But I think it will be generally recognised that the work of the Peace Conference in Paris in regard to this Treaty was easier than in the case of any of the other Treaties that were there framed, because, in point of fact, the Kingdom of Hungary had fallen, to a
  1908
  large extent, into its component parts before the Peace Conference took in hand the work of constructing a Treaty. The Slav, Czech, Slovakian, and Rumanian populations had already separated themselves from Hungary. The Czecho-Slo-vaks, indeed, were out of the War before the War generally terminated, and they came to Paris, not as enemies, but as. a friendly and an allied people. I think it is universally known that many of the peoples composing the late Austro-Hun-garian Empire had for many years—in some cases, for many generations—do-sired to separate themselves from that Empire, and to achieve their independence. As a result of the labours of this Conference in Paris, a new Hungary, if I may so term it, was created, a compact entity with a population of some 6,500,000 or 7,000,000 Magyars. I should like to observe, when there is discussion and controversy as to the establishment of frontiers here and there and the allocation of a population, that the Peace Conference used throughout its deliberations Hungarian statistics, the results of the Census of 1910. They were the only figures, as I understand it, that were available, and there was this advantage from the point of view of a defence of the Peace Treaty, that at all events those figures did not err in unfairness of any kind to the Magyar people. It will be most convenient if I describe very briefly what in point of fact has taken place on the several frontiers of the present Hungary. I will take first what I may call roughly the Western or Austrian side. Here, as the House is probably aware, is a population of some 200,000 Germans, and the frontier has been so drawn as to include that population within the State of Austria. The House will be aware that this arrangement has given rise to some considerable controversy, and the parties concerned have been informed by the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris that if they can come to an agreement as between themselves that is more in conformity with their wishes the Conference of Ambassadors will not press for the exact alignment of the boundary as laid down in the Treaty. On the Northern or Czechoslovak frontier we have a position in which there is a large admixture of Magyar and Slovak population, but, according to the statistics, the Magyar

  1909
  element is in a minority of something like two to one, and the populations are so largely interwoven that it was found impossible by the Peace Conference to make any other arrangement than the assignment of that part of the old Kingdom of Hungary to the new Czecho-Slovak State.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What area is that?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: What I call the northern or Czecho-Slovak side. Of course, I use the terms "north, south, east and west" in a very rough and approximate way. On the eastern or Rumanian side of the new State the areas taken from Hungary comprise an estimated population of 2,800,000 Rumanians, 1,600,000 Magyars, and 500,000 Germans, the Germans having shown them selves very willing to be incorporated in the Rumanian State. I do not think it will be suggested that this large body of 3,000,000 Rumanians and Germans should have been retained definitely in the Hungarian State against their own wishes, and in favour of a Magyar population not quite half the combined populations of Rumanians and Germans. In one notable respect—I daresay this is one of the considerations in the minds of the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have an Amendment down for the rejection of the Bill—considerations not strictly those of race weighed with the Supreme Council and decided them to fix the Rumanian border so as to include the three towns of Szatmar, Grozswardein, and Arad. The contention was that, although the urban population of the district leaves the Magyars in a majority, the rural population is Rumanian, and that in any case it was necessary to advance the Rumanian frontier so as to include these three towns, because the line of railway which connects North and South Transylvania runs through them, and geographically and from an engineering point of view it would not be possible to reconstruct the railway through an area exclusively inhabited by Rumanians. There are two other groups of populations on this side of Hungary to which I must briefly refer. There is the case of the Ruthenes. I do not understand it to be argued that the Peace Conference should have included the Ruthene population in the Kingdom of Hungary. As far as I am aware, this population has
  1910
  no special sympathy with Hungary, and is well content with the arrangement which has been made on their behalf, to be attached to the Czecho-Slovak: State in the possession of local autonomy.
  Then we had a very difficult problem, one that the House may be quite sure engaged the very anxious consideration of the Peace Conference. That was the group of Hungarians occupying what are called the Szekler counties. If the House had an opportunity of examining and dealing with this part of Central Europe, they would find within and far within the confines of Transylvania compact groups of Hungarians, islands as it were, in the midst of a foreign population. The number of Szeklers concerned, I am informed, is about 500,000. I do not myself see what the Peace Conference could have done other than include those islands within Transylvania and so within the new Roumania frontier. On the Southern or Jugo-Slav frontier, the Conference decided that where the population was predominantly Slav those areas should come within the Slav Kingdom. They did not give the Jugo-Slavs everything for which the Jugo-Slavs asked, but made what they considered the fairest arrangement in the circumstances. The House will observe that of course the very important district of Pecs will revert to Hungary on the ratification of this Treaty.
  I may be permitted to make one or two general observations on this part of my subject. First, I would venture to claim that whatever may be advanced in criticism of this Treaty the great Powers who framed it are under no suspicion of having had ulterior objects in view. None of them, so far as I am aware, wanted for themselves any part of the Hungarian territory. They had no purpose to serve other than the best interests of the emancipated peoples and of European peace. I can well imagine that when the delegates, gathered in Paris, came to the consideration of this problem among the many great problems that they had to consider they would have been only too pleased if they had found that they had to deal with a perfectly compact Magyar population and with other populations, that could with the greatest ease, and without any suspicion of partiality or unfairness, be assigned to the States which they desired to join. What else could the; Peace Conference do but so arrange

  1911
  boundaries as to include as far as possible the majorities that desired to be included in the new States? I have referred to the one case in which strictly ethnic considerations were departed from, but even there I do not see myself what other arrangements could have been made. I confess that for myself I am all for self-determination, but if that principle be interpreted too narrowly on all occasions it may result in far greater injustice than by the adoption of a plan that has been well and anxiously considered. My hon. and gallant Friends suggest a plebiscite. This matter was most carefully considered by the Peace Conference, and in the letter of M. Millerand, written on 6th May, 1920, to the Hungarian Delegation, it was specially referred to. M. Millerand, speaking for the Powers assembled in Paris, said that they had given this question very careful consideration and had come to the conclusion that if plebiscites were held, in all probability the results arirved at would not be substantially different from those that had been arrived at by the Peace Conference itself. In the same letter—this is an important consideration—the Hungarian Delegation were informed that if, when the Boundary Commissioners began their work they reported cases which in their estimation were cases of positive injustice, they should be entitled to make a. report to the Council of the League of Nations, and the Council of the League, if desired to do so by one of the parties, would be in a position to offer its services in making a new arrangement to the satisfaction of both parties.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that if the Hungarians think that they are ill-treated in Transylvania, Hungary will be able to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations to have the complaint investigated and remedied?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I do not think it is a question of being ill-treated, because those cases are covered by the Minority Treaties which protect foreign populations in the different territories. I understand that this point is met by the proviso that where there is a dispute between the Magyars or other groups, or populations, it will be competent for the Boundary Commissioners to call the attention of the Council of the League
  1912
  of Nations to the dispute, and if the Boundary Commissioners think there is injustice on one side or the other it will be open to the Council of the League of Nations to offer their services in making an adjustment of the difficulty.
  Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Boundary Commissioners in such a case will act by a majority, or how?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would ask my Noble Friend to allow me to reserve my answer on that subject till either later in the day or till a later stage of the Bill. I cannot answer it at the moment. M. Millerand concluded this part of his message to the Hungarian deputation by saying:
  "The Allied and Associated Powers are confident that this procedure provides a method suitable for the correction, in tracing the frontiers, of every injustice against which reasonable objection could be urged."
  I pass to the question of Reparations. The reparations under the Treaty of the Trianon do not differ materially in character from the reparations proposed to be exacted by the Treaty of Versailles. As the House knows, this matter has been the subject of consideration at several recent Conferences of the highest importance. Another is shortly to be held. Perhaps I may be permitted to say this: It was surely a right principle that the aggressor States should be required to pay for the damage done up to the limit of their capacity to pay. If we fail to establish this principle we fail to remove one of the principle incentives to War. In the case of Hungary, the amount of compensation is to be fixed by the Reparation Commission, which is to draw up the schedule of payments, prescribing the time and manner of securing and discharging by Hungary, within 30 years, dating from 1st May, 1921, of the debt assessed by the Commission. It will be observed the Commission is to give the Hungarian Government the opportunity to be heard when the claims are assessed. Certainly, in the discharge of her obligations, Hungary will enjoy advantages not possessed, let me say, by Austria. Hungary, in the matter of foodstuffs, is a self-supporting country, and it may well be hoped, when her agriculture has been restored, that she may again become an exporter of cereals. In any case,

  1913
  there is no reason to apprehend that Hungary will receive in the matter of reparation anything but justice at the hand of the Allies.
  The Amendment for the rejection of this Bill refers to the Treaty of Peace as destroying
  "the economic unity of a once prosperous community."
  I shall be much interested to hear how my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) develops that part of his argument. As we have seen, Hungary was nothing but an artificial and enforced aggregation of dissimilar and, in some cases, hostile races, and they have broken to pieces, not by reason of the Peace Conference, but by the shock of war. It is not the Allies who have separated the Slavs, the Czechs, the Slovaks, and the Rumanians from the Hungarian State at all. They had done this for themselves before the Supreme Council took in hand the task of drawing up the boundaries of new Hungary. I should be surprised if my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) suggests that by an attempt at fiscal unity, or any other such interest, the Supreme Council should have denied liberty to the seceding peoples. Of course, he would advance no such argument, nor will the hon. Gentleman contend, I think, that the Supreme Council should have imposed on Hungary and the seceded States a policy of fiscal unity. I can imagine no more grave interference with the independence of sovereign States than the prescription by the Supreme Council of what particular form of fiscal policy they shall adopt. On the other hand, it cannot, of course, be denied that serious economic evil has resulted in the disruption of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Such result was certain to occur, and was clearly foreseen by the Supreme Council. If the House will refer to the economic clauses of the Treaty they will find that the Supreme Council did in fact go, in my judgment as far as they could, in interfering with discretion and independence, and that they did in fact lay down certain conditions to govern the economic relations of Hungary and the emancipated peoples. Under Article 205 it is provided:
  That for a period of five years Hungary may establish a special Customs regime with Austria and Czecho-Slovakia, and, by a self-denying ordinance the Allies and the Associated Powers agree that they themselves
  1914
  are not to share in the advantages accruing, from these specially favourable conditions.
  Again, in Article 207 it is ordained that
  "During a period of five years a special agreement shall be made between Poland and the Czecho-Slovak State and Hungary as, to the supply of coal, lignite, foodstuffs, and jaw materials reciprocally."
  I would ask the very careful consideration of the House to that particular part of the Treaty. However, it is admitted that grave economic evils have followed from the disruption of the Austro1 Hungarian Empire, and, moreover, the resentment, suspicion, and enmity unhappily entertained by some of these people for Hungary have led to the setting up of economic barriers and export and import prohibitions and restrictions on communities as between one and the other. Everybody knows that this has happened, how grave have been the results on all these peoples of Central Europe, and how greatly this policy of dissension has tended to delay their economic recovery. In the matter of these difficulties a conference of the States in question is shortly to be held at Porto Rosa to explore the whole of these problems. Our own Government and the Governments of France and Italy will be represented. The intention, as I say, is to review all questions regarding Central Europe. I understand that this Conference will meet towards the end of this month, or perhaps the beginning of next.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Who are the other parties represented?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think I can answer that. They are Hungary, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Rumania, the Jugoslav State, and Italy.
  Mr. ASQUITH: What about Poland?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not quite sure. As I say, France and Belgium will also be represented. In conclusion, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it is no part of my duty to contend that the text of the Peace Treaty which it embodies is in every Article and every line verbally inspired, I am sure that none of the eminent statesmen who framed the Treaty would make any such claim for it. But it represents the best results of much labour and anxious care. I assert without fear of challenge that it was conceived in no spirit of anger,

  1915
  vengeance, or caprice. I hope, and Relieve, that new Hungary has every prospect before her of a splendid and a prosperous future. Only recently the Hungarian Government and the Hungarian people have given proof of an admirable steadiness in circumstances of exceptional strain. We need not doubt that the admiration excited in this country by the wisdom and staunchness exhibited on this occasion by Hungary is shared by her neighbours in Central Europe. We may look forward with great confidence to the negotiations at Porto Rosa for a solution of the problems that for the moment delay the revival, not only of Hungary herself, but of the border States in whose fortunes her own are so intimately involved.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  The hon. Gentleman in so ably moving the Second Reading of this Bill, if I understood him aright, said that there was no special sympathy with Hungary in this House. I think there he was wrong. I think of all the nations against whom we were fighting in the late War. we had less bitterness—
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend says that we had no special sympathy.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am quoting you.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, no! I must not be represented as having said that. I did not say that.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry if I have made a mistake, but I have stated the words as I took them down. There was no special sympathy with Hungary in this House I understood the hon. Gentleman to say. I think that is wrong. But I am very glad of my hon. Friend's correction.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, no! I did not say anything of the kind. I did not express any opinion. What I did say was that there was resentment and enmity and suspicion of Hungary among some of her neighbours.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am very glad to have brought this thing up. I must
  1916
  have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I think there is a very real sympathy in this House for Hungary. Of all those Powers warring against us we had less enmity against Hungary than anybody else. Even at the worst part of the War, English people in Hungary were extremely well treated by the Hungarians, and since the War those of us who have been in Hungary find there is a general admiration for the Englishman there, and I think there is admiration in this country for Hungarian history and for the Hungarian people. We know perfectly well, we who have been acquainted with that part of Europe in past years, that the Hungarians have misruled the subject races in Hungary. We know from the works of Mr. Seton Watson what happened in Slovakia in the old days. The rights of these old subject people to their own Government has been realised in this Treaty, and we do not wish those other matters to be written down against the people of England in the minds of the Hungarians. They have not forfeited our good opinion because at the conclusion of the Great War the races whom they used to control are set free. The Czecho-Slovaks, or rather the Slovaks, because the Czechs were never under the Magyars, are now independent of Hungary, and whatever the future of the Austrian Empire may be at any rate the old days of one race controlling another have come to an end. The settlement with the Jugo-Slavs, although they have in some parts got more than they should take, is a settlement based on racial lines which every party in this House can properly support. So far as the Austrian boundary is concerned the official settlement by the Supreme Council, which is laid down in this Treaty, is on strictly racial lines, and the Hungarians have not much to complain of, viewed solely from the ethnological point of view.
  On the eastern frontier I think the Hungarians have a reasonable ground of complaint, and the Hungarian population in Transylvania are not now obtaining elementary justice from the ruling race in that country. We have complaints from the Bishops of three faiths in Transylvania protesting against the treatment of the population of that country under Roumanian rule. We have heard how the miners have been treated in Transylvania, how they have been made

  1917
  to work in the mines and tortured by the Roumanian officials. If only a tithe of the complaints of the treatment they have had to undergo in Transylvania is true, we have in this Treaty injured many thousands who were living happily under the old Austrian Empire in Transylvania, but if steps were taken even now to enforce the Treaty signed by Roumania, against which Roumania protested at the time, demanding protection for the minorities in Transylvania, if the Government will enforce those provisions, remembering that Roumania, after all, is dependent to a large extent upon British good will, they would do more to restore the good name of England in the East, and good relations between England and the Magyar Kingdom, than any other possible way.
  You have at the present time a state of terror over the whole of the eastern part of the old Austrian Empire. It is not so bad on the Czecho-Slovak border, but in Transylvania and over a large part of Hungary itself justice has ceased to operate, and brute power and brute force is the rule in that country. We on these Benches have to look at this Treaty not only from the ethnological point of view, but also from the point of view of our duty to international labour. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer in his speech to the Clauses protecting minorities or to the Clauses protecting labour. I will refer first of all to the Clause affecting minorities in Hungary. There are Clauses affecting particularly the Jews who are being persecuted as probably no other country in the world persecutes them, except it be the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine. I would call the attention of the House to the Clauses of the Treaty. Article 55 of the Treaty provides that:
  "Hungary undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Hungary without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion. All inhabitants of Hungary shall be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief.
  Article 58.—All Hungarian nationals shall be equal before the law and enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion.…Hungarian nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same security in law and in fact as other Hungarian nationals."
  Are those Clauses meant to be real Clauses or shams? About ten months ago some members of the party to which I
  1918
  have the honour to belong were invited to go to Hungary to see that the workers in that country were well treated and had nothing to complain of. Our visit to Hungary was prefaced by a Report from the British High Commissioner in Hungary to the effect that the statements and rumours in this country as to the white terror in Hungary were false. When we arrived there we found that so far from their being false the actual terror was worse than it had ever been depicted in this country. Shortly after our return the High Commissioner had to admit that he was wrong and that there was indeed a white terror in Hungary. What was going on in Hungary ten months ago is still continuing there. The Jewish minority are being persecuted now as they were then. The officers' detachments are still ruling the country. The missions may be better politically, especially since the last adventure, but so far as justice for the Jews and the working classes is concerned the conditions to-day are as bad as ever they were. Do these Clauses mean any hope for the Jews and for the working classes of Budapest or in the mine areas in Hungary?
  Is our High Commissioner there to use his influence, or such influence as he possesses, to see that this protection of minorities and of labour is indeed carried out? One of the most tragic memories I have of that visit to Hungary was a deputation that came to see me at Vienna. They represented the miners from Pecs, in Baranya. This district is now to be handed back to Hungary by the Jugo-slavs. These miners gave us their names and the names of the president and secretary of their union. They said:
  "We beg you to tell the English people and our comrades in England that we must not be handed back to Hungary. We are all Hungarians, and we love our country, but as long as Hungary is ruled by the White Guards we beg that we shall not be handed over to their tender mercies."
  Already many of their comrades have been decoyed across the frontier and murdered. They told us that the mines belong to an English company, and that if the Jugo-Slav troops left and the Magyar troops came in they would either fight or else they would blow up the mines and retire with the Jugo-Slavs. To see these people who were previously Hungarians begging that they might not be handed back to their country was the most terrible evidence of the terror that

  1919
  has been inspired in the working classes of Hungary. The miners there are not allowed to strike or change their occupation. Their pay is almost ridiculous to mention in comparison with any sort or class of labour in this country. These people are desperate, but under this Treaty they are being handed back to the Magyar Government, which is the same Government they dreaded ten months ago. I do think in making our protest against this Treaty we might get some sort of assurance that the terror which was evidenced in the story of these men to us should be prevented from extending to this district in Baranya. It was never under the Bolsheviks and there is no excuse for saying that they were Bolsheviks. They are outside the Bolshevik area and they are people who are only anxious to get on quietly with their own business, and if when these White troops come in those men are butchered we feel that their blood will, to some extent, be on our heads.
  It could all be avoided if only steps were taken to send an English Commissioner to Baranya who should remain until all danger of terror was over. In this way a great deal of the danger would be overcome. To my mind the whole value of this Treaty depends upon whether or not we do see to the protection of the minorities in Hungary. A more active and energetic supervision by the Hungarian Government is quite possible, because that Government, like so many of the small States in the East, is extremely anxious to stand well with the English people. If you had there a representative of Great Britain who takes the decent English point of view that anti-semitism is bad form, if you had a representative of Great Britain there who would keep in touch with the Minister of Labour here, and be open to hear the complaints and the views of labour in Hungary, things might be different. If you had a High Commissioner who, at some risk of local popularity with the ruling classes, would stand up for the honour of England as we stand up for it in this House, then indeed there would be hope both for the Jewish minority and the down-trodden workers of Budapest. That is what I hope will come out of this Bill, and some steps should be taken to represent to our representative in
  1920
  Budapest that his duties are not merely diplomatic, but that he should also be the watchdog for the Jews, and the working classes in Hungary.
  The other matter to which I want to refer is the Reparation Clauses. We all hope that the Reparation Clauses may bring some money out of Germany possibly. They appear in one treaty after another. They have a common form, but absolutely they have no bearing whatever on the Hungarian Peace Treaty, or the Austrian Peace Treaty, or the Bulgarian Peace Treaty or the Turkish Peace Treaty. We know we shall not get anything out of those countries, yet the Reparation Clauses in those four Treaties. are making it impossible for finance in any of those countries to be restored to a sound footing. The Austrian crown is. now about 2,000 to the pound. I do not know what the Hungarian crown is—I think it was worse than the Austrian—but it is now about 1,000 to the pound, and it is better to that extent because, within the last six months they have had in Hungary a Finance Minister who has really tried to straighten out Hungarian finance. They have levied enormous taxes in Hungary in order to try and stop the perpetual printing of paper money, which is sending down the value of their crown. They are making desperate efforts to right themselves, and as they do effect some improvement, one sees the hungry eyes of the Allied Powers cast upon them, and hears the statement, "Here are the Reparation Clauses: let us squeeze them of all we can." It is a positive incentive to every Finance Minister to leave everything to the printing press and to remit all taxation, and it is one of the most definite obstacles to the reconstruction of civilisation in the West of Europe. I think we are right in protesting against these Clauses which are causing unemployment in this country to-day, and it would be futile for us to let this Bill pass without registering our protest against the suicidal policy of clamouring for what we cannot get, with the result that we get less than we otherwise might manage to secure.
  Personally I have the greatest regard for the Hungarians. I believe that even under this Peace Treaty, if we help them in Budapesth, if we send a Minister to represent this country who will look after these matters, Hungary may again come to the front. They are largely a peasant

  1921
  people. It is almost entirely an agricultural country. They are a freedom-loving people. There is in Parliament an elected majority of the Small Land Holders party, and that is a party which would be opposed to any form of autocracy in the country. If that party is encouraged we shall gradually get rid, I believe, of the "white" robber barons, and Hungary may have an opportunity of returning to a prosperous era and recover some of the glories of the old Imperial Hungary.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment. I welcome particularly the words of the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs in which he suggested we should all exercise care in the choice of our words in referring to these foreign countries. I wish other Members of the Government would remember that when they are making speeches. It is the insults to foreign countries after the War is over which are remembered. People in this Chamber may be tempted to forget it, but what we remember about the Germans more than anything else are really the insults they threw at us at the beginning of the War in reference to our "contemptible little Army." We also remember years previously the Kruger telegram of the Kaiser. Therefore I welcome this spirit as represented by the head of the Foreign Office in this House in pleading for temperate language in regard to foreign countries. If the framers of this Peace Treaty are so satisfied with its boundaries, it seems to me to be a very great mistake that they did not agree to adopt the plebiscite for its determination. If it is right to hold a plebiscite for Schleswig-Holstein or for the determination of the frontiers of Upper Silesia, it is equally right to hold one for the frontiers of Hungary? I would accept, as my hon. Friend does, the ethnographical map drawn up in Paris, and the data given by the Hungarian censors in 1910. But I wish to point out to the House that this Peace Treaty which we are asked to pass this afternoon creates some half-dozen Alsace-Lorraines on the frontiers of Hungary, if the information we get is correct. If it is incorrect it could have been proved by a plebiscite, and I say one should have been held.
  5.0. P.M.
  I wish particularly to draw the attention of hon. Members to one or two of the areas where real injustice has been done, and may I in doing so say that I share
  1922
  my hon. and gallant Friend's indignation at the action of the present Hungarian Government. All my sympathies are with the subject races emancipated from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. But in drawing the frontiers we must not allow our prejudices and our sentiments, our likes for this people, our sympathy for that people or our dislike of other people to in any way mould our actions in laying down these new frontiers. I will first draw the attention of hon. Members to the case of the district of Pressburg on the Danube and of Ersekhovar. This, as hon. Members may be aware, is territory predominantly inhabited by Magyars. It has been handed over to the new Czechoslovak State in order that it should have a riparian frontier on the Danube. There is a very rich plain south of the Danube also which has been included so that this State may have a footing on both sides of the river. If it was necessary that the Czechs should be assured of freedom of transit to the Danube, why was not some-arrangement made whereby freedom of transit was given them along the railways and roads leading to it? Statesmen attempted to do it with regard to Bulgarian trade going out to Salonika and I hope that the economic corridor will work there. I trust, too, that this historic town of Pressburg, with its normal Magyar population and old associations with Hungary, will not be handed over to alien rule. Unless it is rectified that will be so, and it will be the cause of future warfare. Those of us who have watched events during the last few years realise that war in Europe affects this country even if we are Hot drawn into it. It affects the whole financial situation in Europe, it affects our trade and commerce, and brings distress to our people. There is another very bad irredenta in the Kassa—part of the northern frontier, partly composed of Magyars and partially of Slovaks. There is a solid block of 300,000 or 400,000 Magyars, with a little interspersion of other races, who are mostly German. I think the Slovak frontier has been drawn too much in favour of the Czecho-Slov-akian States, and I contend that a plebiscite should have been taken there. With regard to Ruthenia, we do not know yet to which country that will go. There is going to be a plebiscite in Eastern Galicia in 15 years' time, and in the meantime the Poles are to have con-

  1923
  trol of that territory. Whichever country eventually gains control over that will have a good deal to say as to the future destinies of Ruthenia. It seems quite wrong to hand these people over without any direct popular attempt to ascertain their wishes. I am informed that the real reason is that in order that Czecho-Slovakia should have a boundary marching with that of Rumania. That is the sort of thing that has led to trouble in the past, and will certainly do so in the future. The hon. Gentleman did admit that there seemed to be hardship to the Szeklers in this matter. There you have a racial island with a Magyar population which has been incorporated in Rumania. I admit that the difficulties there are very great. There seem to me, however, to have been two alternatives which might have been followed. One was to run a corridor through the Kolzs-var area and the other was to allow the Szeklers to remain in the Hungarian Kingdom. I admit there would have been great economic difficulties in doing that, but I think it would have been better if these unfortunate Szeklers could have been given autonomy. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, these unfortunate people have been most harshly treated by the Rumanians. The University at Kolozsvar has been closed up, the professors driven away, and the students dispersed, and although the Hungarians admit no Jewish students to enter the University at Budapest, there is no excuse for Rumania doing that sort of thing in Kolozsvar. I agree that both are wrong in that case, but that is no reason why we, in drawing up this Treaty, should pay attention to misdeeds of that sort, and I think that a much larger measure of autonomy might have been given to the Magyar-inhabited regions in Transylvania. The district of Szatmar has been handed over, although I believe it is predominantly Hungarian.
  I do not want to spend any more time on these irredentas, except that I think a real case has been made out for a plébiscite. If a plébiscite is not taken, the Magyar people will always be discontented, and many thousands of people—I have seen the figure put at 3,000,000 Magyars—will be groaning under the sense of injustice of being bartered away like so many cattle to alien rulers. I fear
  1924
  that the real reason has been that, when the Bela Kun-Maximalist Government was formed at Budapest, the statesmen who made this Treaty were so panic-stricken that they offered any sort of bribe to the neighbours of Hungary if only they would advance and upset this terrible Government. Now I suppose they are being, I will not say blackmailed, but importuned to keep their promises. The Under-Secretary of State referred to the letter of M. Millerand in which he stated that these frontiers would be carefully examined on the spot by the Boundary Commission, and that the good offices of the League of Nations would, it was hoped, be sought to rectify any hard cases. I should like to ask if it is a fact that this Boundary Commission is carrying out that programme. From the Continental papers one sees that it is reported freely in various quarters that this programme has been abandoned, in view of the obstruction of the emancipated peoples, the expense, and so on. Could we be informed that it is the intention of the Allies really to carry out that programme honestly and thoroughly? A good deal of apprehension has been caused by these reports of its abandonment. With regard to the whole matter, I think that the fate of these people in Slovakia and Transylvania who are now suffering in their turn from the peoples whom they at one time oppressed is a real warning to all Imperialists of what in time will be their fate if they suppress the nationality of other peoples. The trouble in the whole of this area which is now under discussion is the disease of nationality. Nationality suppressed is seen exhibiting its best and its worst features. There is the heroism and self-sacrifice of the patriot when he is oppressed, and there is his reaction when he in his turn oppresses his former rulers when he gets the opportunity. I beg hon. Members to look at the fate of Hungary and of the unfortunate Hungarians who find themselves as little Ulsters throughout Slovakia and Transylvania, with their churches and schools closed, their professional men driven out, their property taken away, and their people most harshly treated.
  There is one further objection which I must take to the Treaty in justifying my vote against it. To realise these facts fully it is necessary to take a map of

  1925
  Hungary showing the railways, and to put on it a tracing showing the new boundaries; and also to take other maps showing the waterways and the roads and other communications, and put similar tracings on them, and, if possible, on other maps showing the physical features of the country—the mountains and so on. It will then be seen that the neiw frontiers completely cut across the whole economic life of the former Hungary. Whereas you have a superfluity of corn in the great Hungarian plain, you have a shortage of timber; while in Slovakia you have an abundance of timber and a shortage of grain of all sorts. The factories and centres of production are cut off from their raw materials and from their usual, historic and natural markets. At these new frontiers there, is all the paraphernalia of customs, prohibitions, anti-dumping regulations, and fiscal measures of all sorts, and trade is absolutely stopped. I would suggest with great diffidence that the Articles in the Treaty which deal with freedom of transit for Rumanian, Slovakian and Serbian goods over the Hungarian railways, should have been made applicable to the railways of those countries as regards Hungarian produce. Throughout the scales have been weighted, it seems to me, altogether on the side of the seceding States, and the result is that commerce is held up. As in the case of Austria, which is very similar, the Powers responsible for this Treaty should have insisted on freedom of transit on the rivers and railways serving this great commercial and producing country. It was not sufficient to allow these people in their new territories complete fiscal freedom and to give them carte blanche to cut off the trade of their neighbours. They are injuring themselves and each other, but the worst is that they are injuring our commerce. We used to do a great trade up the Danube. We had a great export and import trade with the former Hungary, and it does affect us when these new frontiers cut right across this trade, as they do at present. I feel that those who drew up this Treaty paid too much attention to the political aspect and too little attention to the economic aspect; and this is not the only Treaty in which that difficulty is visible.
  There is, however, a ray of light in the matter. Not only is there going to be the meeting at Porto Rosa, but for
  1926
  some weeks a very important Conference has been sitting at Barcelona. At that Conference the whole of the States affected in this case have delegates, and they are considering some scheme whereby through traffic can be relieved of all these vexatious searchings and delays. The importance of the Conference is that the former enemy States are admitted on equal terms, and I believe that so far the results promise to be good. I should like to ask whether the results and recommendations of this Conference will be considered by the Council of the League of Nations, and whether the Council will lend them its full authority. I am now reminded that it is in direct connection with the League of Nations, and that the League of Nations will then take up the work. The League of Nations should take up the work of the Barcelona Conference, and the very important results which may come from that Conference should be supported and carried forward by the Council of the League. I need not mention the case of reparations, which has been dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment, but I should like to support his plea for the pressure of his Majesty's Government on the Hungarian Government. We have very great influence with them at present—they are practically at our mercy—and I beg the Government to bring every pressure to bear upon them to treat their subject peoples properly. The Jews, for instance, have been very hardly treated in Hungary, and recent information which I have received points to a continuance of that harsh treatment. We have a responsibility with respect to these unfortunate people in Hungary, and in the past we have always been quick as a people to take the part of the oppressed throughout the world. We have more power with the Hungarian Government even than we had with the Sublime Porte when we were attempting to ease the lot of the Armenians. We can, almost by a word, have the persecution of the Jews stopped in Hungary. We have done a great deal to stop the more outrageous treatment of the Jews in Poland, and we are in a much stronger position vis-è-vis Hungary than vis-è-vis Poland, which claims to be an Ally and which is a new State flushed with the feeling of emancipation and regeneration. Hungary is cowed and beaten to-day, and will listen to us as

  1927
  Poland will not. The same applies to the treatment of the working classes in Hungary. We have a chance now to do a little good in that part of Europe by bringing to bear such pressure as I recommend. Bad as this Treaty is for the reasons which I have attempted to sketch, it does contain Clauses for the protection of minorities, which, if faithfully carried out, will produce good results. I beg the Government to use their utmost endeavours, apart from trying to seek illusory reparations from a ruined country, to force the rulers of that country to treat the unfortunate people in their power with humanity and justice.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I shall not follow my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in his criticisms, although they seem to me to be very pertinent and to require some notice, as to the demarcation of the new frontiers of Hungary. In the whole history of political map-making I suppose that no territory has presented greater difficulty, to those who were trying to adjust the claims of the various populations within it on the basis of liberty and self-government, than Hungary. It is true that the Magyars were in a substantial majority of the whole population, but not a very large one—I think something like 54 per cent. There were 16 per cent, of Rumanians, 10 per cent, of Slovaks, 10 per cent, of Germans, and a number of other smaller races, none of them inconsiderable in population or in industrial and economic interests. I am not going to commit myself to anything in the nature of a whole-hearted approval—for I have not the information which would enable me to do so—of the actual boundary which has been drawn, yet I can imagine few more difficult and complicated problems. On the whole we may rejoice, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend rejoices, that large populations which have suffered in the past from an artificial, and in many ways unsympathetic, union, are now in a position to work out their own future on the lines of autonomy.
  It is not, however, for the purpose of dealing with the frontier that I have risen, but to direct attention, mainly for the purpose of eliciting information from the Government, to two or three other matters which seem to me to be of high
  1928
  importance, and some of which affect, not only this particular Treaty, but other Treaties which we have made in relation to this part of Central and Eastern Europe. In the first place I agree with both my hon. Friends who have spoken in the view that to talk in any real of substantial sense of exacting material reparation from these countries is to play with words. Germany is another matter. I will not say anything about Germany at present. But to talk about getting reparation in any solid sense from communities such as Hungary, or Austria, or Bulgaria, or Turkey—I do not care which of them you take—seems to me to be paying mere lip service to a political phrase, and the sooner we wipe off these purely hypothetical and imaginary claims, not only from our own national estimates of possible revenue in the future, but from the whole international slate, the sooner we shall recognise the absolutely clear teachings of common sense.
  I pass from that to two other points. The first is the economic and fiscal relations not only of Hungary but of the adjacent and newly-emancipated communities. I very much regret—I think it has been one of the greatest blots upon the whole of this series of treaties—that the Great Powers did not insist, as a condition of the emancipation and of the grant of autonomous rule to these countries, that they, should remain as they have been—and that was the one virtue of the Austro-Hungarian Empire—members of one economic unit. The Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his very admirable and lucid speech, seemed to think that that would be infringing some abstract principle of sovereignty which it would be sacrilege for diplomacy to attempt. It is no such thing. You claim the right, and you have exercised the right, in a hundred previous articles of these various treaties, very properly, to impose upon them, as a condition of the new freedom which they would enjoy, conditions which make them exercise their powers in conformity with what Western Europe, and indeed the civilised world, agrees to be the maxims of sound statesmanship. You have in fact, as my hon. Friend pointed out, by a number of the articles in this Treaty in regard to Hungary imposed economic limitations upon its full fiscal and financial

  1929
  freedom in the future. I do not say those limitations were not very good. Probably they are all in the right direction, but you ought to have gone a great deal further, and the terrible chaos to which my hon. Friend himself bore testimony, and which he obviously deplored, which has arisen from these new States erecting against one another all kinds of artificial barriers is one of the great causes which has retarded the re-establishment of free and full industrial life in that part of Europe from which, as we now know—and we realise perhaps more than we ever have done the economic inter-dependence of the whole area—we, France and America, and all the victorious nations are suffering only in a less degree than they are. I think it was a great mistake that that was not foreseen and given effect to in the counsels of the diplomatists. I am very glad to hear from what the Under-Secretary told us that a conference between these States is going to take place—a conference to which I hope all these States will be parties—the States, I mean, of Central and Eastern Europe—a conference which is to be held, I understand, very shortly—in Italy?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Near Trieste.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I hope all the proper people are represented, and I earnestly hope the Government and the Allied Governments of France and Italy will exercise an authority which, if they choose to exercise it, cannot fail to have effect, and will insist on the discontinuance of this internecine and suicidal economic warfare which is retarding the development of these communities and inflicting loss on the whole civilised world.
  The only other point to which I will call attention is, I will not say of greater, but certainly of equal importance. I mean what machinery 'is contemplated to give effect to the provisions which occur, not only in this Treaty, but in all the Treaties which relate particularly to the creation and development of these new States for the protection of minorities. We have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) a most moving story, no doubt absolutely accurate in its main features—I have heard the same thing myself—of the open and flagrant manner in which both in the
  1930
  curtailed Hungary provided by this Treaty, and in Rumania, which received such large accessions, such enormous advantages from a Treaty which was made in her favour—of the gross and flagrant violation going on day by day and week by week of the provisions put into these Treaties for the protection of minorities. The Jews, of course—that is an old story—were always maltreated in Rumania, My own recollection of history is that on the whole they were fairly well protected in Hungary. I am very sorry to hear that an anti-Semitic movement of a more or less savage kind is going on now in Hungary against them. It is not a question of the Jews only. Still more these minority provisions should be enforced when you have transferred, as you have had to transfer—it was inevitable—when dealing for instance with a country like Transylvania, large blocks of Hungarians and also of Germans to Rumanian rule, and it is of vital importance that the provisions for the protection of civil and political rights should not be a dead letter, but should be capable, by some really effective machinery, of being brought into operation within the areas of the different Governments concerned. We always believed and hoped that that would be one of the functions and one of the most important functions of the League of Nations and it is provided for in the Covenant and in the Treaty. When we hear, on evidence which unfortunately we cannot controvert, that these minority provisions in the various treaties are-being daily disregarded, I think we may ask from the Government what steps they are taking to make the nominal authority of the League of Nations in this matter a really effective force. These are the points which, it seems to me, arise on the consideration of the Treaty and in regard to which the House before it gives the Bill a Second Reading may well ask for further information on the part of the Government.
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): The speeches which have been made by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of the Treaty, as well as that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), I think require some little commentary, although I have nothing very important to tell the House on the subject. It is quite easy and it may be a

  1931
  useful employment of time to ask the House, with regard to frontiers traced after immense labour, after impartial discussion, after the most careful investigation of all the available information, to say, as the hon. and gallant Gentlemen (Colonel Wedgwood and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) I think said, that these boundaries have been ill-drawn, that they might have been so drawn as to safeguard the nationality of the populations concerned or the economic welfare of the populations dwelling in the neighbourhood. They deal with matters of intricate complexity. They require maps; they require special information; and they require re-investigation by the House if this House is really usefully to criticise the labour that has been spent on the consideration of these treaties. I cannot honestly advise the House to undertake that. I cannot believe they think that the work that was done in Paris in 1919 could be better done in a Committee Room in this House, or in this House itself, in the year 1921. It clearly is not so. I do not pretend that mistakes may never have been made The gentlemen who worked at the frontiers of these States are fallible like other human beings. They had to deal with questions on which the conclusions arrived at were doubtful conclusions, on which the arguments on either side were balanced arguments, and it is perfectly easy, and I think perfectly futile, to say in these difficult cases, "A wrong decision has been taken. Do not ratify the Treaty. Reconsider it. Go again over all the work that has already been done and see if you cannot improve upon it." That is not, I think, practical politics. That is not really the way to bring peace in Eastern Europe. It is not a course which I hope the House will on this occasion pursue.
  A good deal has been said by all the speakers upon the damage to the economic position of the world and to the interests of the British working-man of the condition of things that prevails in Eastern Europe, and it is perfectly true that the economic condition of the world causes anxiety to every thinking man, and that among the contributory causes to the present economic condition of the world the position of affairs in Eastern Europe is one. But putting off the ratification of this Treaty and going again over all the work of the Peace Con-
  1932
  ference is the very last method which any sane man would adopt if he wanted to bring to an end the state of unsettlement which so unfortunately prevails in this district at present. I think, as I am on this question of frontiers, the hon. Gentleman did imperfect justice to the letter of M. Millerand which my right hon. Friend quoted in the admirable speech in which he intiated our Debate to-day. Minor rectifications, minor adjustments to deal with economic conditions unforeseen or imperfectly apprehended at the time are possible under the Treaty. More than that I do not believe it is possible to do. To attempt to do more than that would do far more harm than good, and I hope the House will support the Government with a view to as rapid as possible a ratification of the Treaty and the resettlement of Eastern Europe.
  I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said there ought to be a plebiscite, and that no such decision ought to be taken without direct consultation with the populations concerned. The question of a plebiscite, or any plebiscite, is one that constantly came up and inevitably came up before the Paris Conference, and has come up on other occasions since. It is always a doubtful point. There are some places where a plebiscite is clearly desirable, there are others where it is clearly undesirable, and there is a margin where it is very difficult to say with any assurance whether the machinery of a plebiscite, cumbersome, expensive, and throwing a great burden upon Powers other than those immediately concerned, is the proper machinery to use. A plebiscite is not an easy thing to carry out. It is a very necessary and very useful instrument in certain cases, but it involves the use of a policing force, and it involves, as everybody who has followed the events in Silesia and other places knows, great local difficulties. Very often it is far better, far wiser, and far more statesmanlike to do your best with the facts which are adequate for a decision than to go through the elaborate, doubtful, and difficult process of a plebiscite, which, when it is done, when it is carried out, when it is brought to its termination, unless every precaution has been taken, may show not so much the willing wishes of a free population as the unhappy results of pressure, intimidation, and other illegitimate methods of arriving at a decision.

  1933
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the rejection of the Treaty was very insistent that a great deal more could have been done to secure freedom of transit between the various States. That is part of the larger question of the relations among each other of these fragments of the late Austrian Empire. I do not see why I should in the least) conceal from the House the disappointment which I personally feel at the methods which these new States have sometimes adopted in their relations one to another, and sometimes in their relations to the fragments of alien populations left, and necessarily left, within their borders. It is undoubtedly true that if any cynic wishes to survey the history of the last few years, he could easily prove—it is a lamentable thing to think of—that those who have suffered most from intolerance and oppression have hot always shown toleration when they have been given their freedom, and that their new privileges have not prevented them using towards others the unhappy policy under which they themselves have so long suffered. That lesson, which one would have thought the) simplest of all lessons, apparently is not one quickly or easily learned, but that) it is being learned, and that there will be a steady amelioration of the international relations of these people, and of their internal government, I feel on the whole convinced.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: How are you going to help it?
  Mr. BALFOUR: We help it in every possible way. We always do help it in, every possible way.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: In Rumania?
  Mr. BALFOUR: We always help it in every possible way. My hon. and gallant Friend appears to suppose that by a perpetual system of lecturing you get the system you want at once and easily. That is not so. The relations between States are often more difficult than the relations between individuals, and require tact, judgment, and choosing the right moment for intervention. If the hon. and gallant Member really supposes that we are indifferent to the ways in which these new States are carrying out the duties which we have enabled them to perform, if they only will perform them, he profoundly mistakes both the
  1934
  temper of the Government and the views of the country, which I believe the Government represents in this respect. One of the ways in which this international jealousy shows itself unquestionably is by transit. A great deal has been done with regard to transit. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment who ended his attack upon the transit policy of the Government by referring to what has been recently done in Barcelona. What has been done there was the calling together under the auspices, and through the efforts and organisation of the League of Nations, of an International Transit Conference, at which all nations were represented. The results of that Conference, which has only just terminated, I am not in a position to explain to the House, because I am not as yet acquainted with them, but I do not think that anything could better illustrate the kind of good work which in these economic spheres the League of Nations can perform than the fact that it did call this Conference, that the Conference did assemble, that it did deal with a large number of these most difficult problems, and the result undoubtedly will be, it cannot be questioned that it will be, a great improvement in all these international transit arrangements which both hon. Gentlemen earnestly and properly desire.
  Another question on which both hon. Gentlemen and my right hon. Friend who has just sat down dilated, was the question of reparation. My right hon. Friend said it was perfect folly to expect any reparation from countries like Hungary, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria, that they were not in a position to pay, that everybody knew they were not in a position to pay, and that the sooner we wiped out the question of payment from our minds, the better. Do my hon. and right hon. Friends who speak like that really think it would have been desirable, and if desirable, practicable, at the time the Powers met at the Paris Conference to arrange the Peace Treaty, with any measure of assent from any part of the civilised world, to say that the crimes committed in the late War by our late enemies should go wholly unpunished, and that they should make no effort to do something towards repairing the prodigious wrongs in the committal of which they have been parties? That would have

  1935
  been an impracticable policy. It may be that my right hon. Friends are right; it may be that the amount of money, the amount of reparation to be got out of countries like Austria and Hungary is insignificant, that it is an utterly impracticable policy to try to extract money where money does not exist—it may turn out so—but the facts ought to be examined, and the machinery for examining them is in existence and will be set to work when this Treaty is ratified. The hon. Gentleman who wishes to put off the Treaty is the same hon. Gentleman who thinks that the sooner this thing is dismissed the better. It cannot be dismissed as he wishes to dismiss it. You cannot say that these people are unable to pay, and that therefore, we should not ask them to pay, unless you examine; their economic position. You cannot examine their economic position until the machinery for examining—the Reparations Commission—sets to work, the Reparations Commission cannot set to work until the Treaty is ratified, and the Treaty cannot be ratified until the hon. Gentleman withdraws his Amendment or until he is outvoted. Under these circumstances, I really think the criticism is an unfounded one. It is perfectly true that all these questions of reparation are most difficult. It is perfectly true that the problem of deciding how much or how little a given community can pay is not a problem easy of solution, but it is impossible to carry out the policy which my hon. Friends recommend, and that we should say, "These people cannot pay; we will not ask them to pay anything, and we will dismiss the idea of payment," without examination. The policy that has been adopted is the only one that can be adopted, namely, that you should leave a competent body to decide what they can pay, and what by universal consent they ought to pay, so far as in their power lies, to repair the unutterable wrongs for which they and their leaders were responsible.
  I am not sure that there is any other question to deal with except that of minorities. As regards minorities my right hon. Friend seemed to think that there was some slight slackness on the part either of the Government or of the Supreme Council or of the League of Nations or some other body with regard to setting in force the machinery by which
  1936
  these minorities will be protected. I can assure him that this question is causing great anxiety to all concerned. It was a great step, a bold step to provide in these Treaties that unpopular minorities should be under some protection, or that the States which have been created by the War should be put under some protection from a body which was brought into being by the War. The League of Nations has been required by the Pact to undertake that duty, and I am confident that the League of Nations will do its best to perform it. Let nobody suppose that the duty is an easy one. It is not an easy one it is one which will demand all the anxious attention of the Council of the League, all the support which the Council can derive from the Assembly of the League, and, what is all important, the support of all the members of the League, the various nations which compose the League. The duty thrown upon it by the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties will be discharged by the League of Nations to the best of its ability and that it will be successful I have every hope.
  Do not let us for a moment suppose that merely by uttering a formula or quoting an article of a Treaty this very difficult task can be carried out. I believe that the pressure of the public opinion of the world brought to bear upon any community which violates its duty with regard to minorities will be enough. On that I rest my main hope and faith. If that fails, either through the want of skill or dramatic attack or from any other cause, other steps no doubt might have to be taken. But it is on the organised public opinion of the world you must rest the matter. If the League of Nations is to carry out any part of the great work which many of us hope it may be able to accomplish, it would be largely by focussing and concentrating the public opinion of nations upon the duties of the various members in the work which they have to carry out in common. But observe when you talk of the League of Nations organising the best public opinion of the world, and using that for the amelioration of social conditions in this or that country, you imply that that public opinion really exists, and can be concentrated upon some particular object.
  That public opinion the League of Nations cannot after all produce. The countries themselves must have these views. It must be not merely in this

  1937
  House or in this country, where my hon. Friends truly say the lot of oppressed minorities has always found sympathy. It must be in the general community of nations also that those sentiments exist. If you cannot induce the world at large to feel that the oppression of a minority on account of its opinions or its race, or indeed for any reason is a matter which outrages the general conscience of mankind, if there is not that feeling diffused over the world, how can the League of Nations or any other machinery apply to a particular object that which does not truly exist. We must—I say we as a member of the Council for the moment—have behind us in such tasks the combined and harmonious effort of all the world if we are to do anything, and I hope earnestly that we shall be able to command that assistance. Such appeals as that which my right hon. Friend has made will help. I am sure that what he said in this matter found a sympathetic echo in every heart. So far as I am concerned, while I do not underrate the prodigious difficulties of dealing with these questions. I do think the more you can bring nations together, the more you can make each sensitive to the best form of public opinion of the other, by so much the more you will facilitate the tremendous task which the Covenant of the League of Nations has thrown on that body. I do not know that I can add anything on that point. I think that I have dealt with the main contentions.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was not here when I asked that some sort of assurance should be given that the miners of the Baranya should be protected.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did hear my hon. and gallant Friend give a story of a deputation which waited upon him in Vienna, and if I understand him aright a certain number of Hungarian miners said that they would rather cease to be Hungarians than to continue under the existing system of Hungarian government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Baranya was in Jugo-Slavian territory at the time. It has now been handed back to Hungary. They said that rather than do that they would blow up the mines and retire with the Jugo-Slavian troops to Serbian territory, and they asked that we should not
  1938
  decide to hand them over to the white terror.
  Mr. BALFOUR: These workmen say they do not want to go back to Hungary. That is what I thought my hon. and gallant Friend said.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: You said that they were under them.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to deal with that point. I am informed that my hon. Friend gets his information from the deputation which waited upon him in Vienna. I am told that there is a very different side to the story.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The side of the white guards.
  Mr. BALFOUR: As I understand my hon. and gallant Friend, he wishes that the ethnological principle shall not be carried out in this district because there is bad government in Hungary.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I asked that if the district is taken over British officers should be sent to see that these people are not slaughtered by the White Guard.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think that for my hon. and gallant Friend to ask me to deal with that sort of question—
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I gave notice to the Under-Secretary.
  Mr. BALFOUR:—on this occasion, is really absurd. He wants us to control the Hungarian Government. In another part of his speech he explained that the Hungarian Government was going to be one of the glories of Hungary, and he referred to the small landowners' party and all that it was doing for Hungary. I hope that the small landowners' party will so far control the White Guard that, these Hungarian workers will be able to go back to Hungary again without any of the evil results of which my hon. and gallant Friend has spoken. I do not think that his facts are correct.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: They are more correct than your emissaries.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will come to the conclusion that whatever other remedies there may be there is nothing to justify the drastic course of deferring

  1939
  the signature to this Treaty. In truth the signature of this Treaty and all other treaties is one of the most pressing necessities. I do not think that any calamity has been greater in Europe since the Armistice than the fact that these treaties have been so long held over, and that for one cause or another for which probably circumstances are alone to blame, we have been nominally at peace for so long without the Peace Treaties themselves being brought to a conclusion and all frontiers finally settled. This is a contribution to that great object, and it ought not to be delayed for a moment. I hope therefore that the House will not listen to the view of those who urge the rejection of this Treaty, but that this Treaty with Hungary will be added to those which have been already signed, and that, one more step may be taken towards the long deferred and anxiously desired time when peace may reign not merely nominally, but really, in these disturbed and unhappy districts in Eastern Europe.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman made a very true observation at the end of his speech when he said that one of the evils from which Europe is suffering has been the delay in ratifying this and other peace treaties. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs spoke to-day of this Treaty as the simplest of the various peace treaties. Two-and-a-half years have elapsed since the Armistice and it is only to-day that the House of Commons is asked to ratify this Treaty. The other day I and several other hon. Members heard a panegyric by the Secretary of the War Cabinet upon the subject of diplomacy by conference. If it takes two-and-a-half years to ratify the simplest of these treaties by diplomacy by conferences there is something to be said for the less expansive and less expensive methods of the old diplomacy. The result has been that in one part of the world, where the only thing that counts is the accomplished fact, questions have been left open, racial bitterness has been constantly encouraged, propaganda has sprung up in every one of these new States and there has been no chance whatever of reestablishing peace.
  6.0. P.M.
  The incident of the Emperor Karl seems to illustrate what I mean. I feel confident that if this Treaty had been ratified without delay the Emperor Karl
  1940
  would not have attempted to make his ridiculous incursion into Hungary. I believe that that was the direct result of the delay in the ratification of this Treaty. More serious than that, I believe that these delays have been the direct occasion of a great deal of the bitterness that has unfortunately been produced between the various Succession States. If frontiers could have been delimitated immediately after the Armistice, even though those frontiers might not have been in every respect perfect, half the trouble that has sprung up during the last two years between the new small States of Central Europe would not have happened. Frontier questions have been left open, all kinds of opportunities for racial bitterness have remained, and the result has been that dispute after dispute has taken place in Central Europe between Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, Hungary, and Austria. That being the case, I am indeed glad that at last we have an opportunity of putting an end to the delay. But let me remind the House that in Hungary, particularly, delay has meant all kinds of racial bitterness and difficulty. There is the case, for instance, in the Banat, where you have had four separate races all left at each other's throats during the last two years. There has been the case in Transylvania, with the Roumans. That has been the case in the German districts of Western Hungary. That has also been the case—a case to which the right hon. Gentleman did not give sufficient attention—in the Pecs coalfields. There you have had, as the result of these delays, the principal coalfield of Central Europe left in the hands of Jugo-Slavia, which is now called upon to surrender it.
  Think of all the difficulties that that delay has meant. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) told the House that he had seen these miners in Hungary a short time ago, and that they had implored him not to be handed over to the Magyars. I have received information, which I think is more modern than his. I understand that their case is not so much against being handed over to the Magyars as against being handed over to the Magyars as long as their Government is in the hands of the White terror. That seems to be exactly the kind of case that is contemplated or should be contemplated

  1941
  under the minority Clauses of this Treaty, and I do not think his suggestion is at all fantastic when he says that we have upon our shoulders the direct responsibility of seeing that these miners are not maltreated when they are handed back to the Magyar regime. I should have thought that the least we could have done, whether it be we ourselves separately or the great Allies as a whole, is to have a representative on the spot when the cession of this territory is made to the Magyar Government to ensure that the minority Clauses were properly carried out.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As a matter of fact, the Conference of Ambassadors decided in September last that although on the ratification of the Treaty the Allied Commission of Generals now in Budapest would be dissolved, a sub-committee of that Allied Commission should remain after the evacuation of the country by the Jugo-Slavs.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: How long?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think any definite term has been fixed.
  Sir S. HOARE: That removes to a great extent my fear. If only a delegation remains there sufficiently long, I think we may feel that the Minority Clauses will be carried out effectively. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that answer. I pass from that to another subject to which no attention has yet been paid, and that is the question of disarmament. There, again, I think the delay in the ratification of the Treaty has been extremely harmful. Central Europe is suffering to-day from an excess of armaments. Even after the extensive demobilisation which has been taking place in certain of the countries during the last six months, I calculate, from a return given by the Secretary of State for War yesterday, that there are still no fewer than 1,200,000 men mobilised in those States. That is a most regrettable state of affairs. I cannot help thinking that if the Treaty had been ratified two years ago demobilisation and demilitarisation would have gone far further than they have in Central Europe. What has happened? The Succession States have seen in their midst the Magyars, a very vigorous and warlike race, with a highly efficient army extending under the Treaty 'to 35,000 men, but
  1942
  extending in practice to a considerably-larger number, backed by all kinds of semi-military organisations. What wonder in view of this military threat from, their own enemy, Hungary, that these border States have not been able to cut. their armies down to the point at which we should like to see them? I hope, therefore, that if the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs intends to make any further statement in the Debate he will be able to say a word about disarmament. Is he quite satisfied, for instance that the information he has received from Hungary that the military forces have been reduced to 35,000 men is really correct? I have seen many people: who-have some right to speak of Hungarian affairs, and they tell me that there are-still under arms a much larger number than 35,000. I hope the' hon. Gentleman will assure the House that both in the matter of disarmament and in the matter of the territorial adjustments that are to take place under the Treaty there will be no delay in carrying out the Treaty Clauses.
  It seems to me to be necessary to say that in view of the innumerable delays that have taken place in the matter of the German Treaty. Are those Clauses, Clauses which most of us believe to be on the whole sound Clauses, not only to be ratified by the House of Commons to-day, but really to be carried out by the Allies in the course of the next few weeks? Let me make a single observation with reference to another phase of the Treaty. During the last two years there has been in progress a very active Magyar propaganda. The British and the Magyar races in the past have been good friends. The British have recognised in the Magyars their qualities of vigour and energy. At the same time, I think that under the fire of this Magyar propaganda we have been apt to forget two facts, first that the Magyars in the past for many centuries have tyrannised over the small races that were put under their regime, and, secondly, that the Magyars really lit the first spark in the conflagration of the War. Those two facts have a very direct bearing upon the Treaty. Two hon. Gentlemen opposite pointed with great effect to some of the territorial anomolies that will be left when the Treaty is ratified. Central Europe, unfortunately, is a pell-mell of nationalities, small racial units scattered about,

  1943
  often at some distance from their mother stock, with the result that no treaties that could possibly be made could draw up perfectly ethnographical frontiers for the mixture of races and nationalities.
  Remembering those two facts, first that the Magyars tyrannised over the other small races, and, second, that the Magyars were not a little responsible for the War, I say that it is just that these necessary anomalies should be in favour of our Allies rather than in favour of our enemies. I do not wish to go into details upon that question. It is sufficient to point to the case of Transylvania. There you have the dilemna that you have either to leave a large number of Roumans under Magyar domination or you must have certain Magyar units of population under Rumanian régime. On the whole I think the makers of the Treaty have drawn as good a frontier as they could in the circumstances, with this one proviso—that granting that these minorities must be left under foreign domination it is all-important that the minority Clauses should be carried out effectively. I have some right to say that, because I remember that two years ago I raised the question of the treatment of the Magyars by the Roumans in Transylvania and I drew the attention of the House to what I believed were gross acts of maltreatment inflicted on the Magyars by the Roumans. The two hon. Members opposite raised the question again this afternoon. I have made some inquiries and I believe that upon the whole the Rouman administration has very much improved during the last year, and I hope, therefore, that the atrocities to which I drew attention then have ceased to be perpetrated. None the less I am quite convinced that the great Allies must keep a very close supervision of these mixed territories. Nationality has always been very bitter in those parts of the country and it would be a matter for the most sincere regret to all of us who are prepared to vote for the Treaty to feel that any régime such as the Rouman régime in Transylvania of two years ago would be allowed to continue.
  Upon the whole, I think the Rouman regime has improved, and in that connection I should like to say that, on the whole, the conduct of the various Succession States seems to have taken a marked
  1944
  turn for the better during the last year. Some of the criticisms made against them this afternoon seem to be out of date. It is only necessary to quote such expressions of their feeling as the Little Entente—the alliance between certain of the Succession States. And from what information one receives, one also gathers that they are remedying a great many of the foolish acts in connection with transport and trade that were being committed so constantly by them two years ago. I think that that is very true of a country like Czecho-Slovakia which is genuinely anxious to remove all obstacles and impediments in the way of peace. We should not assume that no improvement in this respect has been made during the last twelve months. As to the Magyars, I personally believe we may look forward to living at peace with them. But I am quite confident that no peace will be possible in Central Europe unless the Magyars realise that the new Hungary is totally different from the old. They cannot hope in the future to dominate the subject races and they cannot hope to exploit the industrial and agricultural resources of Central Europe for the benefit of Budapest and a certain number of great landowners in Hungary. If they realise this, there is no reason why we should not be once more what we were before the War, good friends with the Magyars, and why we shouldnotforgetand forgive their responsibility for the War.
  Captain ELLIOT: Nothing terrifies me more than the mood of the House of Commons this afternoon. We are doing a great injustice, and we are coolly going to shoulder our responsibilities on to the Paris Conference which committed sins in the heat of the War that we now propose to ratify in the cold light of reason. We have no right to set ourselves up and thank God that we are not as these others—these Magyars and other people who have been tyrannising over subject races. When we hear the case for doing nothing but ratifying this Treaty put with the urbanity and ease and in the polished style, which the Lord President of the Council, particularly amongst the statesmen in this House, is able to employ, one still feels in spite of everything that the case for doing nothing cannot possibly be as good as he has made it out to be. The facts in relation to this Treaty are not facts that we can get rid of with a wave of

  1945
  the hand. We cannot dismiss them as the foolish mouthings of sentimentalists.
  The great facts of geography and justice stand out like mountains against the settlement which is proposed by this Treaty. During the heat of the War certain experts sought to sweep away mountains by Act of Parliament and to change the courses of rivers by conferences between neighbouring Powers, but it is not possible to do so. We should realise this time that the arguments against putting these northern provinces under the domination of Prague for instance are not arguments which will disappear in the course of time, but arguments which will get stronger. A province of extremely mountainous country is to be stuck on to the end of a narrow strip also extremely mountainous, which in its turn is supposed to be governed by a country that has never governed it before, namely Bohemia. That is one of the things which this Treaty is supposed to do and we apparently are going to ratify it this afternoon because nothing better can be done. It fills me with fear and trembling to think that some day our destiny may be adjudicated on by such a tribunal as this which is to-day adjudicating on the destinies of Hungary. There is not time now to make any great protest. There is no doubt that a Treaty of some sort has to be ratified and then we shall have to start at the bottom again, but it did not come well from the Government to say that Members of this House were delaying the ratification, when we know they have delayed bringing forward the Treaty month after month and that it has been ratified by every other country and by Hungary which stands to suffer and lose so much by it.
  The short discussion we are having this afternoon will probably end in the ratification of this instrument which is supposed to settle the destinies of Eastern Europe. It was said long ago, and it is as true to-day as ever it was, that nothing is ever settled unless it is settled right. This is one more nail in the coffin of that wicked policy of self-determination which has done so much harm throughout Europe in the past few years. It swept Europe like a blast of pestilence, and the end has not come yet. This idea of self-determination always seems to me to be urging a race which is getting on very
  1946
  well under one set of people to come out and subject itself to the rule of another set of people. Why speak of self-determination to the Serbs, the Rumanians, and the other peoples in Hungary. These people came into-Hungary to avoid the Turkish storm that was sweeping up from the South, breaking every State and enslaving every State. The Serbs came into Hungary after the Serbian power had been broken at the great battle of Kosovo in 1389, and they came in as suppliants, crying, "Let us in or we perish." They were let in-and given their religious freedom and allowed to live in this country, and now we say that because they have been allowed to live in peace they are to be allowed to set up Customs barriers against and seize the land of their benefactors. Could any injustice be more horrible? Could anything be more calculated to disturb the future of Eastern Europe than that we should sanction such a grave injustice as this? A plebiscite leads directly to massacre, because a massacre is the only way of countering a plebiscite.
  In Smyrna we see the result of theories-put forward in conference halls in Paris by some mild-mannered gentleman with pince-nez and an American accent. It leads to murder and death, because-people say: "If this man is going to take-my fatherland by ballot, then as dead men not only tell no tales, but cast no-votes, we shall see that he does not cast any votes, and consequently we shall put him under the ground and we shall continue to live in our fatherland as before." The policy of self-determination is a direct incentive to massacre. It has led to massacre in the past, and will lead to. massacre in the future. Take the case-of the Armenians who lived within the boundaries of Turkey. Suddenly the-Turks realised that some day a plebiscite could be cast against them, and they adopted the very simple method of cutting the throat of every Armenian. It is as old as the hills. When the Israelites came into the fair land of Egypt they settled down and were given autonomy, and their religious customs were protected. The next thing they said was that it was their land, and Pharaoh then adopted the simple process of massacring all the male children. No doubt the same idea will be followed when the subject races which have been living in any

  1947
  country seek by a plebiscite to take the country away from its original owners. Here you have the results of Liberal principles. I leave it to my Liberal friends, and I hope they will like it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
  Captain ELLIOT: You have here a country to which the Serbians came to shelter from their enemies, and it is sugrgested that this country should be voted away from those to whom it originally belonged and given to the Serbians. This is not because the Serbians are in any great majority, as one would expect. In this country that is to to be taken away from the men who have ruled it for one thousand years the figures are: Magyars, 751,000; Germans, 634,000; Serbs, 420,000; Rumanians, 256,000. I admit that these are figures from Magyar sources, and consequently are not to be relied upon, because one of the worst things about modern political discussion is that it has debased not only figures of speech but figures of arithmetic, and nobody can trust to the simple old processes of addition and subtraction. In any case there is not such a clear and over whelming majority as would justify this shocking act of ingratitude. If the Belgians were to insist some day on annexing Bournemouth it would be no greater act of ingratitude than the taking away of these districts from the people who gave the Serbians shelter from their enemy.
  Then it is said that an undue fuss is being made in Hungary about Ruthenia. Does the House realise what is being taken away in this case from an economic whole? Let the Labour party realise that what is being taken away is an economic unity of a thousand years' standing. This is not from suspect-sources, but from the League of Nations Union. A memorandum which only came from that body this morning states:
  "The real reason for the Hungarian desire to include Ruthenia in its boundaries is that in losing that district she has lost nearly all her mining industry, her steel industry, iron ore mines, mineral fuel, a great part of her textile and her cotton industry, a great part of her wool industry, and numbers of cement works, quarries, starch factories and distilleries and also extensive areas of forestry."
  Then the hon. Baronet the Member for "Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) complains that propaganda has been going on against
  1948
  the taking away of this province. If there were any proposal, to remove such areas of our own land from our own Government I think such an extensive propaganda would be set up as the Magyars could not possibly hope to compete with. It is all very well to say that the Ruthenians are not a Magyar tribe, but it is now proposed that a Ruthenian delegate going to the Czecho-Slovak Parliament should leap from precipice to precipice over the crags of the Carpathians until eventually after 300 or 400 miles of mountaineering he arrives at his capital—Prague—a place where they can scarcely understand the language in which he wishes to address them. It may be possible for politicians to undertake these athletic feats, because, no doubt, they will constitute a necessary part of the political propaganda in those parts of the country, but what of the people whose mining industry and other industries are thus being taken from them. It is, also, all very well to say that what Hungary has lost Czecho-Slovakia has gained. You do not gain anything by cutting off the head waters of a river and saying that the people of a particular valley should climb over the hills into the next valley, instead of following immemorial custom and going down the waterway until they come to the capital situated at the foot of it. You cannot make the rivers run sideways across the face of the hills, because that is not the way rivers run, and all the decisions of the Conference at Versailles make no difference. The obstinate rivers are still running down the same as they used to, and the immemorial hills are standing just as they were before, and they will stand when the Versailles Conference has passed into oblivion and the War has been utterly forgotten. Why, then, should we admit these monstrous injustices without a certain amount of protest?
  It terrifies me when I see the Labour party supporting this principle They talk—that bellicose pacifist, the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) talks—of enforcing their decrees by a British resident in Hungary, and no doubt battalions of the Guards being towed up the Danube in barges to see that the Hungarian workmen are kept free. We have discussed it before, the hon. and gallant Member and I, and we agreed that it would be an

  1949
  excellent thing to get the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) to go out there as British Resident and rule the country with a rod of iron. I mentioned it to the hon. Member for Stafford, but he showed no enthusiasm whatever for the project, and he did not seem to think this House would back him up with the necessary force which would be the inevitable consequence of such a policy. When you controvert the facts of justice and of geography you get trouble; you always will get trouble, and it is always right that you should get trouble. By this Treaty we are flying in the face of the manifest facts of nature, which will come back on us in spite of all the Acts of Parliament that ever were passed. It is only a year and a half ago that I was in Hungary, in Budapest, during their General Election there. I was there the day the Peace Treaty terms came back from Paris, and I hope never to see such a sight again. There was every shop window with the Hungarian Colours in it, and a great bow of crape tied across them, every house flying a black flag, every street filled with processions, church bells ringing all day, knelling out what they regarded as the doom of their native country. Later on, in the course of his campaign, the Prime Minister of the day, Monsieur Huszar, addressed a great meeting on the subject of the Peace Treaty, which I attended, and his claims were so moderate, so straightforward, and so eminently reasonable that I despair of ever hearing anything like them at a General Election addressed by a Prime Minister in this country of ours to-day. He said: "If these people are to be taken away from us, what we want are plebiscites. If they vote against us, we should have free trade, and we should have effective protection of minorities, and without these," he said, "we shall never consent to this Treaty—no, no, never!" And it came roaring back to him from 15,000 men in the audience: "No, no, never!"
  This is a fighting race which has been accustomed to rule and to govern. It is one of the greatest achievements of Christendom that we took in this savage race from the Steppes and civilised it, and set it up as a bulwark to defend the countries of Christendom against the Turks and pagans coming in from the great wastes of Asia, but it has been trained and taught and tempered in the
  1950
  ideals of war, and it is all very well to suppose that the subject races, so called, who have looked to the Magyars as their only organisers, officers, and leaders to guard them against the dangers coming out of Barbary, will be able eventually to stand up against a people like that, when it recovers, as it will recover, in a very few years. I see we are committed by the Treaty of Versailles to guarantee the territory of Czecho-Slovakia, etc., and when the day come that the Czechs say, "Send us the Coldstream Guards up the Danube to make sure that Ruthenia is kept under Prague," then we will realise the awful mistake we have made by committing ourselves to a policy of this kind. Article 10 of the Treaty guarantees each of the Powers against aggression. The economic facts of nature, which have been confirmed by a thousand years of occupation, cannot be upset as easily as this, and when next we have a chance of revising this, as we will have a chance of revising it, under the Boundaries Commission, which has been promised us by Monsieur Millerand's letter, I hope it will not be the niggling, petty, temporary revision and minor adjustments which the Lord President of the Council seemed to foreshadow, but an altogether broader and wider adjustment. If it had not been for his statement, that all that could be hoped for under this Boundary Commission was a small minor adjustment of one kind or another, I think I should not have got up to-day.
  Unless we make altogether wider and more sweeping adjustments, we shall not have restored the economic possibilities of Eastern Europe, and until we do that we shall have no peace in that part of the world. The Czechs have bullied these people, the Slovaks have bullied them, the Rumanians have bullied them, the Jugo-Slavs have bullied them, but it is not a mere allowance of a protest to be carried to the League of Nations that will do any good. We ought to send it out as a message to these smaller nations that if they insist on upsetting trade in Eastern Europe, we cannot support them in their policy, and either we cannot continue as guarantors of a settlement under the League of Nations, or, if necessary, that we cannot continue in the League of Nations at all. After that great day of national humiliation for the Hungarians, I went into dinner in the Hotel Hungaria, and there was a big string band playing

  1951
  with all the fervour and verve that only Hungarians can put into their music. They were playing, oddly enough, the old British National Anthem, "It's a long, long way to Tipperary." That may be taken as an evidence of a frivolous set of people whose wishes we need not consult. It is not. It is the sporting spirit in adversity which we admire, which we can recognise in our enemies as we should admire it in this island for ourselves. The Hungarians came into their country over the Pass of Munkacs, the Pass of Hard Work, and by hard work they are recovering themselves, and they will recover themselves, and by the Pass of Munkacs they will go back into their native land of Hungary, one and indivisible, as it has been decreed by geology and as it cannot be altered by any decision come to in this House.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The present discussion has shown the difficulty in which the House of Commons is necessarily placed in discussing any Treaty. The Motion has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that we should reject this Treaty, but the only result of that would be that we should have to have another Peace Conference, which is alone enough to terrify anyone, and an immense delay would be interposed in the settlement of Europe, without the slightest guarantee that the next Treaty would be any better than the one which is now before us. Therefore, I do not myself think it is really practical for this House merely to reject the Treaty, and it is quite impracticable for it to amend it. That is the reason why some of us are so anxious in another connection that we should have an opportunity of considering international documents before they are presented to us in this form, when practically the House has no power to deal with it at all.
  On the merits of this case, I confess I was a good deal impressed by what was said by the Lord President of the Council as to the boundaries. I do not pretend to be an expert, like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, as to the geography of Transylvania and Ruthenia, but I feel rather that these questions of boundaries are exceedingly difficult, that they can be determined only by experts, that they were the sub-
  1952
  ject of prolonged consideration, and although personally I have very little doubt that some mistakes were made, yet I do not feel that there is any possibility of asking for an extensive revision, at this stage, of the boundaries which were then fixed. I confess that I hope, if any Minister says anything further in this Debate, that something will be said to elucidate exactly what was meant by-Monsieur Millerand's letter, because it is, I must say, a very vague document as it stands. All that Monsieur Millerand, or rather the Supreme Council, offers, as I understand it, is this, that if it turns out that there are any objections in the future, and if the objectors can satisfy the Boundary Commissioners that an injustice has been committed, then the-Boundary Commissioners may go to the-Council of the League, who may decide on that to make a recommendation—not more than that—for a rectification of the boundary. We do not know who the Boundary Commissioners are. I do not know whom they are to represent. I do not know even whether they are to be judicial personages or political personages, but I presume they will have to decide everything, as all other international bodies have to decide everything, by unanimity. Unless there is something in Monsieur Millerand's letter to correct that, I cannot find anything in the Treaty itself which throws any light on it. Therefore, there will have to be, first, a unanimous decision of the Boundary Commissioners that an injustice has been committed, and, secondly, a decision of the Council of the League to recommend an alteration. If that is all the letter means, it does not amount to very much. I hope I have misinterpreted it and that a greater measure of freedom is intended to be given to the Council of the League and the Boundary Commissioners than at first sight appears to be the case.
  My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot), who has made such a brilliant and entertaining speech, is very angry indeed with the principle of self-determination. He says that we are throwing the whole, of Europe into confusion by acting on that principle. I am not sure whether he thinks that the condition of the Austrian Empire before the War was altogether satisfactory. His knowledge, I confess, is much greater than mine, but such information as I have leads me to suppose that there was a very great deal

  1953
  of discontent in a number of parts of the Austrian Empire, and what they complained of, unreasonable people as they were, was that various races were being tyrannised over by aliens, and not only did they object to being governed, but they still more objected to being misgoverned, and I think it is perfectly true to say that, though I am not a very great admirer of the proceedings of the Conference of Paris, they did not break up the Austrian Empire. Whatever other crimes they committed, they certainly did not commit that crime, for it had broken up itself into hopeless fragments long before they began to sit, and all that they had to do, as far as the Austrian Empire was concerned, was to try and make the fragments more or less satisfied and coherent. My hon. Friend was also very angry with the idea of plebiscites. He said they led to massacres, and he said the Armenian massacres of 1915 were entirely due to Turkish fears of a plebiscite at the end of the War. That shows a very remarkable amount of prevision in the Turkish statesmen. He even went so far as to suggest that the massacres carried out by the Israelites had something to do with plebiscites.
  Captain ELLIOT: Carried out on the Israelites.
  Lord R. CECIL: Yes, on the Israelites, but that they had something to do with plebiscites, yet at the end of his speech I was amazed to hear him quote, with warm approval, a statement by Monsieur Huszar which demanded plebiscites in all these districts. I do not think that my hon. Friend is really right about plebiscites. I agree with my right hon. Friend that they are not really a panacea for every possible thing, but they are sometimes very useful in ascertaining what are the wishes of the population, and I am not prepared to admit that there is any provable case that they have led to massacres, or anything of the kind. Of course the principle of self-determination may be pressed far beyond what is right and just. It is not the only thing to be considered, but I do myself believe profoundly that, unless you try to settle the may of Europe broadly on the lines of giving to the various populations the governments which they ' themselves desire, you will not get any permanent settlement at all. After all, we tried
  1954
  the other plan with the Treaty of Vienna. They drew a line with very little regard to the wishes of the population, and I do not think the experiment there tried would encourage anyone to repeat it. It is for that reason that I personally do not desire to say very much about the boundaries laid down in this Treaty. I confess—I say it merely in passing—that there is a piece of boundary—what is called the northern inclusion of a large mass of Magyars—which I personally regret. There may be very good reasons of which I am not aware, but it does look on the map as a great blot on the boundary line. Beyond that, I do not desire to press the question of boundaries.
  Something has been said about reparations. I do not think my right hon. Friend the President of the Council quite appreciated what was the real criticism that was made. He said nobody would have been satisfied that these people should go wholly unpunished; they must be made to pay what they could towards the cost of the War. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that proposition. But that is not what the reparation Clauses do at all. They lay down, in the first place, that Hungary is liable in principle to pay the whole cost of the War, and, in the second place, out of the great grace and favour of the Allies and Associated Powers, that liability is cut down to a schedule of losses which are exactly the same as we require from Germany. And then there is instituted this elaborate, expensive, and wholly unworkable system of a Reparations Commission, which is imposed on the top of all that. I am satisfied the whole of that policy is a profound mistake. It is no use putting into a Treaty a provision that a country like Hungary is to pay an indefinite sum, which will probably be valued, if ever valued, at eight or ten thousand millions. It is a silly and an utterly futile thing to do. You do not get more by making extravagant demands of that kind, and you do make it much more difficult to the country on whom you make such demands to recover from the great economic exhaustion with which it is faced by the War. My right hon. Friend said you could not tell how much Hungary was bound to pay until you had had an economic examination into her resources by the Reparations Commission. That is exactly of what I complain. Why was not that economic examination carried out before

  1955
  you signed the Treaty? This Treaty was not signed in the hot blood of the War, as my hon. Friend seems to think. It was not signed until the 4th June last year, and there would have been ample time to have had an inquiry into the capa bilities of Hungary before you put this fantastic farrago of Clauses upon her by this Section of the Treaty. I believe very considerable modifications were made in the case of Bulgaria, and I have never been able to understand why that course was pursued in that case.
  I do not think anything seriously can be said in defence of the Reparations policy in any of the Treaties, and in the case of the Treaties of Austria and Hungary the demands are perfectly fantastic and absurd. Nor am I satisfied an answer has been given about the economic provisions of the Treaty. The criticism is made that you did not put into the Treaty sufficient Clauses to compel the Secession States to behave in a reasonable manner as a result of their independence. That criticism is not answered at all by saying that we are doing our best to persuade them to be reasonable now. I think anyone who listened to the able speech of the Undersecretary must have been struck by the fact that the provisions which he pointed to in the economic Clauses were ludicrously insufficient to secure anything like freedom of trade between the Secession States, and freedom of trade is really essential if you are considering the prosperity of that part of the world. I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the President of the Council said, that a perpetual system of lecturing is no good. The question really is whether the provisions of your Treaty are sufficient. My hon. Friend said he hoped a great deal from the Transit Conference at Barcelona, but it certainly was new to me that the Transit Conference was going to deal with matters like the difficulties of transit in the Austro-Hungarian States. I thought all that the Conference in Barcelona was going to do was to lay down general principles of transit, regulations, management of rivers, and so on, and not deal with local difficulties.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think the question was raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I rather agree with what my Noble Friend has said.
  Lord R. CECIL: In that case, I am afraid the Conference at Barcelona will not really furnish a remedy for this particular difficulty. There are, I see, some provisions with regard to railways in the Treaty itself, and if they are vigorously carried out, I think they may do a great deal to remedy the difficulties so far as Hungary is concerned, but not, I think, so far as the rest of the Secession States are concerned. Just one word about minorities. I agree most fully as to the enormous importance of protecting minorities, or rather giving security to minorities in all these Central and Eastern European States. It is a very old policy so far as this country is concerned. It was initiated in the Treaty of Berlin, or, I daresay, earlier still, but it was' carried to a very much greater extent in the Treaties of Paris, and it is one of the very best things that can be found in those Treaties. On paper, if those Clauses which my hon. Friend read out are carried into effect, adequate protection is given to minorities, and the question we are anxious about is whether they will be carried out or not. My right hon. Friend said there would be no slackness on the part of the Council of the League of Nations, and I hope not. Some of us are a little regretting that the Council of the League of Nations have not met so often this year as they met last year, although there is more to do. He also said, and said with absolute truth, if I may be permitted to say so, that the great work in this respect, as in everything else, is in instructing public opinion. I agree with him. It is quite plain we can do nothing to protect a minority in any of those countries by force. That is out of the question. The picture of sending the Coldstream Guards is a reductio ad absurdum. Nobody thinks of anything of the kind, and it could not possibly be done. Nor does the scheme contemplate anything of the kind. What it contemplates is bringing before public opinion prominently any cases of failure on the part of the people to carry out their duties under the Treaty for the protection of minorities.
  7.0. P.M.
  I do not think the machinery is quite sufficient, but, so far as it goes, I understand it is this: Any member of the League may bring before the Council of the League any defect in the execution of these clauses, and my hon. Friend is perfectly justified, if I may say so, in

  1957
  asking the British Government to take advantage of that provision to bring before the Council of the League any defect in the execution of these clauses. More than that, they can require that the matter shall be submitted, if there is any doubt about the fact, to the permanent Court of International Justice. I attach enormous importance to that, just for the purpose of focussing public opinion. If you could have an open trial before a great Court of that kind, in a case where a really serious act of misgovernment is alleged, you would focus the whole public opinion in the world upon the charge. You would have a weapon of enormous power. I want to ask the Government, in connection with this matter, two things. Are they satisfied that the present machinery for getting the matter before the Council of the League is sufficient? I confess I have grave doubt. You have to rely on the casual charge, as it were, of some member of the League. What some of us wish is that the Powers could see their way to give to the minority itself an appeal. What I understand has been done so far in the Council is that if an appeal is received as to ill-treatment, the appeal is circulated to all the members of the Council, and any member can take it up and bring it before the Council. I hope that machinery will be perfected, and that there will be some organism constituted whose duty it will be to bring these matters to the Council as soon as they occur, and to take care that they really are formally considered by the Council in some shape or form. Secondly, I want to take this opportunity of asking my right hon. Friend when they are going to ratify the Convention of the International Court of Justice. I cannot imagine what is delaying the ratification. This was agreed upon last December at Geneva. My right hon. Friend agreed upon it, and was one of the warmest supporters of the scheme, and it was discussed at great length by a very able legal adviser at the Foreign Office. There was no question about it. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Court cannot come into existence until half the members of the League have ratified the Convention. Certainly 'I hope there will be no further delay in that matter, because for this purpose, as well as for others, the creation of the Court is an essential wheel in the machinery of mak-
  1958
  ing the protection of the minority certain. I am quite sure there will be no opposition really, even in the Central European States, to the working of this machinery once it is in operation. I had the honour of discussing this question with a statesman of one of the Central European States. He was a very enlightened man, and he said, "We are always being charged, generally quite untruly, with oppressing the minority. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to have any charge made definitely to my Government, and then I should myself ask for its investigation by an International Court of Justice." That is an attitude which, I belive, every enlightened statesman in that part of the world will be induced to take. I hope that everything will be done to facilitate the operation of this Clause, and for the early establishment of an International Court of Justice. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) spoke very truly of the anxious military situation in Central Europe. It is perfectly true, he told the. House, that 1,250,000 troops are still mobilised and in being in some of these States. I do not know whether those figures are right, but there are a considerable number of troops mobilised there. There is great anxiety in each of the States lest they may be attacked by another State. That is undoubtedly true, and I hope that everything possible will be done to induce those States to demobilise their army.
  We are constantly being asked about, and are at this minute taking part in a Conference to see what can be done; with regard to, the economic condition of these States, either by the application of the Termeulen scheme or in some other way. I hope the recommendation of the Brussels Conference will not be lost sight of, and that it will be a condition of any assistance given to any of these States that they should cease, to waste their money in useless military preparation. There is no greater criticism of the Supreme Council and of its work at Paris than that they did not realise that the great thing was to restore peace; that they did not insist upon peace being established before they considered the claims of any of these States; that they did not insist upon disarmament, and did not make proper provisions for international trade. It is for us to remedy that mistake, as well as we can, now.

  1959
  I quite sympathise with much that fell from my hon. Friend who spoke last as to the dangers that have been left in Europe. I am sure they are very considerable; I am sure he is right, though I do not myself think it is all the fault of self-determination, that much of the territorial settlement will turn out to be, unworkable or dangerous. I say that without desiring to criticise the negotiators at Paris unduly, because the difficulty of drawing these lines was very great. The only hope is in the League of Nations; that is your only chance. You have, at any rate, created an instrument one of the purposes of which is to correct treaty mistakes of that kind. I am satisfied that those hon. Members in the House who speak slightingly of the League of Nations, and who do not recognise that it is really the only hope left to us for securing and preserving the peace of Europe, are profoundly ill-advised, and are doing the work not of peace but of war; not of friendship but of hostility.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON: The hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) seemed to think that the Serbs living in what was Southern Hungary had no rights at all, because they had only come in there some six centuries ago after a disastrous defeat: and that, having treked into that country and solicited the aid of the Magyars, they were to be without rights. Let me remind the hon. Member that had it not been for the Serbs keeping up their end against the invading hoard of Turks for a long period prior to their final defeat, probably not only the Magyars but the rest of Europe might have succumbed to the Turks. Therefore, those Serbs who sought refuge in the Magyar territory had a good title behind them. What is more, for a very long time in Croatia there had been certain constitutional rights. The Croats had a Diet of their own, and that constitution was summarily brought to an end, I think, in 1912 by the Hungarian Government. That, again, was an invasion of right which seemed intolerable. I agree most profoundly with what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) in regard to Hungary. The Hungarians have been a gallant race. We, in this country, have had much sympathy with them in the past. We had great sympathy with them in 1848. We know them for a virile race,
  1960
  who in their turn played a great part in withstanding the advance of the Turk in those critical centuries when it might easily have happened that all Western civilisation might have gone down before the forces of the Crescent. They have had a glorious past, but we cannot forget that during the last half century they have played a rather sorry part in regard to the non-Magyar races in Hungary. They have not learned by experience, and if today we find in Transylvania certain cases of oppression by Rumanians of Magyars we must not forget that for many a year the Transylvanians suffered under the grossest persecution, both in matters of language and of education. Again the same happened in the Northern parts of Hungary in the Slovak territory, where the Magyar rule was harsh and oppressive in the extreme.
  It cannot be forgotten that that is the record of the Hungarian nation in the last half-century. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea so well pointed out, they are in a very peculiar sense responsible for the War, along with the Germans. Berlin depended very much on the influence of the ruling class at Budapest in keeping alive the spirit of domination in the Austrian Empire, and in preventing the Slav elements in that Empire from getting a fair share of power and government. Therefore, in a peculiar sense, they were responsible, along with the Germans, for the Great War. We must view all these questions which we have to decide to-day remembering these two things; that the Hungarian race and nation, with all its great past, has in the past 50 years grossly misgoverned subject races, and also that the policy of Hungary in recent years led very directly to the breaking out of the War in 1914. As the Noble Lord who spoke last pointed out, all over the non-Magyar parts of the Austrian Empire things were at a breaking point even before the outbreak of the War. The War was probably precipitated very largely on account of these considerations.
  I do not wish to deal in great detail with the frontiers. It is easy, of course, to criticise what has been done, but I think the marvel is that it has been carried out so well. It is not the fault of the Allies or negotiators in Paris that the people in South-Eastern Europe live, as it were, in packets, one packet here

  1961
  and another packet there, scattered up and down the different countries. That makes the task of the Treaty-maker an almost impossible one. Criticism has been made this afternoon of the settlement in Transylvania, but it would have been a thing impossible to have put the Szeklers in Eastern Transylvania into Hungary. It would not have been at all a succesful arrangement to make a corridor from Hungary to Eastern Transylvania so as to include the Szeklers in Hungary. Therefore it was absolutely necessary, and it could not be avoided, that they should be put into the Rumanian State. I think the Powers have done what they could by way of Treaty stipulations, and the Treaty which Rumania made with the Great Powers in December, 1919, was designed to afford local autonomy in regard to scholastic and religious matters of the Szeklers and Saxons in Transylvania. Rumania had a very difficult task, in that she is a country comparatively small, and is receiving great additions of territory without any great trained Civil Service. In this House and in this country we may often criticise our Civil Service, but no Government can be carried on at all well or with reasonable fairness without a highly-trained Civil Service. Rumania's borders have been greatly increased, and she has no Civil Service on this kind. Though her borders in the main accord with the linguistic and ethnographical boundaries, she has in Transylvania and in certain other parts alien elements, and the task that has lain before her in the two years since the War has not been an easy one.
  Therefore, let us be slow to judge, and in judging let us remember that in those parts of Transylvania where this deplorable condition of reprisals seems to have existed, these people lived for many long years under the ruthless repression of the Magyars. Is it any wonder that there is a tendency to hit back? Matters seem to be improving, and I am very glad to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea that from recent information it appears that in that part of Rumania things are in a better state. I want to put this point with regard to all these succession States. They must be judged with great leniency. They have started, some of them, with greatly-extended territories, and some are entirely new States, and they cannot be expected to have traditions of government which belong to
  1962
  nations which have a long history. The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, with all faults, did come down from the earlier times with a trained personnel of administrators who had had a long experience. That is not the case with these new countries.
  One word as to the economic point. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) deplored the fact that at the time the Treaty was made insistence had not been made by the Powers that these States which formerly formed part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire should form an economic whole. It seems to me that that would have been a policy almost impossible to carry out. In the first place, these new States were very jealous of their national position. It would have been a very difficult thing to have got them to agree to a proposition of that sort. Furthermore, there is a second point, that large sections of Austro-Hungarian territory became parts of a country, such as Serbia, which had hitherto been independent and outside the Austro-Hungarian tariff system. That applies also as regards the parts of Transylvania which were joined to Rumania. It would have been impossible at that date to have said to all these countries—and you would have had to include Serbia and Eumania—" You must make one economic whole." I think all is now being done that could be done. One was very glad to hear that a conference is shortly to assemble at Porto Rosa to consider these matters, and also to hear that in the succession States there is a much more reasonable disposition in regard to the light in which economic questions are viewed. It is probable that at that conference those States may see the folly of very much of their actions in the recent past, and may, as indeed must have been forced upon them, realise that it is to their interests to make economic agreements one with another.
  I think I may say, in concluding, that these safeguards to minorities may be difficult to carry out. In the Treaty we are considering this afternoon, as well as the various treaties concluded between Czecho-Slovakia and the Allied Powers, between the Serb State and the Allied Powers, between Rumania and the Allied Powers, we have seen a great advance. There are safeguards there for minorities such as rarely have been seen in the

  1963
  diplomatic instruments of the past. It may be, as the Noble Lord said, that it may be a little difficult to put the machinery in motion. I do not see how that can be. The machinery is there and it only remains to us to hope that that machinery, being there, it will be used if need be. At any rate, it is a great advance on the old days. Such stipulations would never have appeared in the treaties of a hundred years ago, or even of much more recent date. I think, therefore, while it may be possible here and there to criticise the provisions of this Treaty, and to point out that in certain respects boundaries might have been adjusted on a more equitable basis, I myself think they are drawn up with wonderful skill. I think the Treaty forms the basis upon which the Hungarian nation, possessing as it does, a great central plain, fertile beyond words, a great asset, throwing aside the evil dreams of past domination over other races, may become a prosperous State, no longer being a menace to the peace of the Near East and the world, but, on the contrary, working along with other countries now constituting the Little Entente may bring to that part of Europe, which in the past has known, for many centuries, so little peace, a degree of prosperity hitherto undreamt of.
  Mr. A. HERBERT: My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. F: C. Thomson) will forgive me if I do not follow him throughout the course of his speech. There is, however, one doctrine that he applies to which I should like to refer. He went back into history and said that the Hungarian people in the past had had a bad name for tyranny and Imperialism. He hinted, or suggested, that on those grounds they must be prepared to suffer to-day. I entirely repudiate in these days the Old Testament doctrine that the children must suffer for the sins of the fathers. It seems to me that as it would be ridiculous for me to get a pension because my ancestors had been good men, it would be equally hard to be treated badly because they had been iniquitous. We have, I hope, got beyond that. I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council. In dealing with the question of reparations from Hungary I under-
  1964
  stand him to ask, when he was speaking of the decisions of the Paris Conference, how it would have been possible to have let off the people who had behaved as our enemies had behaved. Could you, he suggested, in the frame of mind in which everybody was in those days have said: "They shall suffer nothing at all for the damage they have done." I quite agree. But, after all, that was 2½ years ago, not to-day. Again, I would remind my right hon. Friend of speeches which, I think, he himself made at a period very little anterior to the Paris Conference in which, disclaiming any desire on our part to attach blame to the people, as apart from their governors, he said we were going to apportion the blame and fix the culpability, but that the innocent ought not to be called upon to pay for the guilty.
  Everyone in this House knows that the Hungarian people were always friendly to this country, and we all know that many of them were not very favourable to the War. It has been urged by the Lord President that it is now a long time from the Paris Conference, and that as one of the great evils of these days is that these Treaties have not yet been ratified—we all know the disadvantages—let us ratify this Treaty to-night as speedily as possible. Does not this argument really mean that there is a connection between time and justice? To my mind they are on different planes. Does not that argument really mean that because you have taken the wrong way and you only discover after you have gone two or three miles that you had better continue in the wrong way than got back to the right one? If you make ' a mistake in clay are you to confirm it in marble? It seems to me that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs really admitted, or at all events indicated, that he was of the same opinion. He did it when he said, and said very truly, how careful we ought to be of our words in this House, and that he intended to use no hard words to people who were ex-enemy people. Tonight it seems to me it does not very much matter what we say in this House. What really matters is what is done. The Hungarian people will not care much what words are used to-night. What they will care about and what they will remember is whether or not two-thirds of their land is to be taken away from them,

  1965
  and they will remember that in the past the remainder of their land has been very largely looted, their schools and churches suppressed, and their priests beaten. These are the things about which they care.
  Many actions of the Supreme Council have been criticised. I think it would be unfair to criticise them on one point and to say that their actions have been inconsistent, because, so far as a humble back-bencher like myself can discover, there is nothing that the Supreme Council has touched that it has not broken and trampled upon. The effect of it all is coming home to us at the present time. Let me take for one moment this question of Austria and Hungary. We have seen the work of the Supreme Council in Austria. Since then many people, including Lord Haig, have tried to undo that work. What did they do in Austria? I do not know whether they had greater talent in breaking down bridges or in building up barriers. They have isolated these countries, and Central Europe is now in a state of starvation. Then the Prime Minister comes here and says, " There they are standing in shabby clothes and unable to buy from us," as if there was no relation between cause and effect. The case of Hungary is different from the case of Austria. You will not be able to break up Hungary in the same way that you have broken up Austria because it is a self-supporting, rich country. On the other hand what you can do there is this. You can cut off the people if you cannot cut off the food, and that is what you are doing in the case of Hungary.
  In his coruscating speech my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) said a good deal about the question of self-determination. I will admit-that the question of self-determination is a very uncomfortable doctrine. At the same time I do not see how you can get away from it in these days. In the old days you had your empires, which I am old-fashioned enough to like, because living then was orderly—though there was discontent beneath. They had their emperors, and these had got certain consecrated authority. They could command. But after you have gone and smashed up an empire, like Austria, then there is nothing for it—you have got to have self-determination. There is no one who is more responsible
  1966
  for that than this country, because during the War we can all remember that the Prime Minister made very strong Sinn Fein speeches as to subject-races of Austria. I always thought that was a dangerous policy to advocate. We now find that these eagles are coming home to roost.
  My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord E. Cecil) has really said all that I could have wished to say to-night. I will only put two or three points. First of all, take the question of a plebiscite, which has been mentioned already. It has been asked: Why should you allow a plebiscite? The Greeks, the Germans, and every kind of nationality have had it—all but the Hungarians. On what ground are you refusing it to them? On what kind of principle are you acting to them? I do not wish to animadvert on the Supreme Council. What I will say is this: That when history comes to be written it will be said—I do not suppose we shall be too much reproached—that we, the Allies, had been through one of the most terrible ordeals that humanity can ever face; they withstood that, and went through the fire, and at the end of it they came out, as anybody who is not divine would come out, seeing red and angry, and they made impossible proposals. We all know that. I do not suppose anybody in this House I would deny that there are impossible things in the Treaties that have been made. What is the way out? I see no other way but the League of Nations. That is my only hope, and that is why I shall not support the Government to-night in the Lobby on this question of Hungary.
  There is still one other thing to which I should like to refer. It occurred in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). He said that during the past two years there has been a great deal of Hungarian propaganda in this country. I must tell him if there has been I know nothing about it. What, I think, has happened is this. We have come to remember certain things. During the War, we know perfectly well that our prisoners were vilely treated in the enemy countries. We were not fighting Hungary, but still some of our prisoners were sent there. I do not think there ever has been one word against their treatment by the Hungarians. My recollection is that there was a Commission, a neutral Commission I think, that went into the question of the treatment of our prisoners.

  1967
  They went to Budapest, and found a whole lot of our prisoners had gone to the races. That and much else is evidence that there was no bad treatment there. I feel that we are very close now to the parting of the ways. In the past, after we had fought a war we have always been able to keep our heads. What has happened in connection with the last war is that we have got tied to the tail of continental hatred. If we continue in that, if we absorb the mentality of others, if we lose that calmness which has always distinguished us in the past, then I see very little hope for the future of Europe. It is upon those grounds that I am not able to support the Government to-night. I am asked to support a Treaty that is silly, unworkable; that is vindictive; that holds in it the seeds of future wars. I am asked to do that because there is no alternative. I say there is an alternative. Refer these questions and the other allied questions of frontiers to the League of Nations, and you may be able to get a just and lasting settlement that is going to be better for us all.
  Mr. SPOOR: There is one observation which was made by the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) with which I and many others in this House are in entire agreement, and that was when he said that the real tragedy of the present situation is that we are ratifying in cold blood all that was agreed to in the heat and passion of Versailles. It seems impossible to tolerate a situation like that if it is true, because it is symptomatic of something which will lead this and other European countries into ruin. I do not wish to speak about the ethnological question, which has been discussed at very considerable length, beyond saying that it is quite impossible to imagine that a unity like the Hungarian Kingdom can be broken up in the violent and unnatural manner which is suggested, and at the same time hope that economic unity will remain. I have heard nothing here to-night that has attempted even to justify the economic disintegration of those countries. With regard to the suggestion that a plebiscite of those millions who without consultation have been put under various rules and controls should have been taken, I think it is unfortunate that in this case, as in many others since the signing of the
  1968
  Armistice, our Government and the Allied Governments have failed to live up to the declarations repeatedly made during the progress of the present War.
  I would like to refer to the question of the safeguarding of minorities. After all, it seems to me that this is one of the vital matters with which the Treaty deals. I have heard nothing here to-night either from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs or the Lord President of the Council which would give us a real assurance that the rights of minorities, in the new sense, are going to be adequately safeguarded. When one remembers the record of even recent times one is hardly encouraged to hope for this if we are to have a continuance of this regime. The hon. Member for Newcastle under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred to a visit paid to Hungary by a delegation sent over by the Labour movement in this country last year. That delegation issued a report upon their return, and in it it is clearly indicated that tyranny did exist there despite the statement of the British Commissioner to the contrary. Facts are given in that report of the very regular, persistent persecution of the workers and the repression that was going on. Anyone suspected of holding Communist views was placed under arrest. It is stated that over 27,000 Communists were arrested, and over 6,000 were imprisoned. The estimate of the Labour delegation of the total number in prison at the time they were in that country was 12,000. Repressive measures and policies like that which have been persisted in within the last 12 months and followed up since that report was issued do not encourage one to believe that the signing of the Treaty is going to change the character or policy of the Hungarian Government, or that the rights of minorities are going to be adequately safeguarded.
  I was interested to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark almost claiming that the Hungarian Government were really ideal people in face of the facts I have quoted from this report, and in face of the reputation they bear as being extremely tyrannical to their own people. In face of these facts, the hon. and gallant Member's contention is a very difficult one to support. The real question is, what is this Treaty going to be in its effect upon the political and economic situation in Eastern and Central Europe? I take it that it is the desire of every

  1969
  sincere Member of this House and of all European Parliaments to get back to normal economic conditions at the earliest possible moment. Is this Treaty in any way going to contribute to that end? Unless we can get away from the abnormal conditions now existing it appears to me that ultimately there will be nothing but ruin before Europe, and perhaps the whole world. Is there anything in this Treaty that suggests that in the minds of those who have drawn it up and are responsible for it it will alter this, and what is there in it that suggests that in their minds there is any clear way out of the appalling difficulty in which we find ourselves?
  We all realise that our present unfortunate situation at home is in a very large measure due to the disturbed condition of large tracts of Europe. We are realising that we cannot expect to have an economic balance here when we have economic insecurity and want of balance abroad. More and more men are realising that the principles underlying the whole of the Peace Treaties are fundamentally wrong. I have never heard of a single responsible economist who has approved of the economic or Reparation Clauses in any of these Treaties. On the other hand, I have come across very severe, acute, and unanswered criticisms of both the economic and reparation policy. The question I would like to put is that we are all agreed, or at any rate all thoughtful people agree, that these Reparation Clauses can never in the end of things be of any use. Why not be honest about it? I may be wrong, but I thought I discerned between the lines of the statement made by the Lord President of the Council to-night a desire on his part to repudiate the whole policy of reparations. I may have been wrong, but I hope I was not. I have never yet heard any responsible person argue that there was the slightest chance of getting these particular Clauses in any of the Treaties observed, and if that is so, would it not be wise, even at this late stage, if the Government and the Allies were willing and able, to make some real gesture of magnanimity? As a matter of ordinary commercial sagacity that would lead to the establishment of really normal financial conditions.
  Unfortunately our policy since the Armistice has been in harmony with the
  1970
  Treaties. I agree with what an hon. Member said that we have been dragged at £he tail of Continental hatred. That is a criticism more generally heard now than it was months ago. A feeling of dissatisfaction is spreading throughout this country. This dissatisfaction is not confined to a small group. Those who attend public meetings or who have had any experience of public opinion, realise that there is a growing feeling that we have been proceeding upon wrong lines, and the sooner we get back to the right lines the better it will be. If this Treaty is not likely to restore confidence and there have been speeches from all sides, from men representing widely divergent political views, that suggest it is not going to do that, can the Government not take action in the same way with the Allies to make a frank and public declaration as to a change of policy? If that is done, it will, I believe, have the effect of restoring confidence in Europe and all parts of the world, and I believe it will be acting in much more complete Harmony with the traditions of our own country than we have been acting during the last few years.
  Major C. LOWTHER: We have heard views expressed in this Debate as to what will be the effect of this Treaty on the economic conditions of Europe. I differ from the view which has been put forward upon that point. The question is, Are we to have a Treaty with Hungary or not? I do not profess to have the knowledge which most hon. Members have at first hand of conditions in Hungary. I have listened with great attention to the Debate, and I hope I have learned something. I want to get to an atmosphere of clear thinking on the matter. What is the position? When the War was over and the time came to settle the Treaty of Peace with our adversaries, what steps did we take? We took the very natural and obvious step of appointing delegates, men in whom we had confidence, to attend a conference at Versailles to settle these matters for us. It was necessary to do so, and it must be obvious that a Treaty of Peace could not be discussed line by line in all its great ramifications and difficulties across the floors of the different Chambers concerned. We therefore entrusted to our delegates the duty of making peace with the different enemy countries.

  1971
  I imagine that all the considerations which have been put forward this afternoon, and a great many other considerations very naturally from other countries which took part in those conferences, were threshed out. No doubt the same views were put forward at the time the Treaty was drawn up, and we are now called upon to say whether we will have that Treaty or not which was arrived at as the result of those deliberations. What is our position? If we say, on the evidence we have heard so far, that we are satisfied that this Treaty of Peace should not be ratified by this House we should have to change our delegates, we shall have to start all over again, and we should get right in the midst of all the trouble, with this added disadvantage, that all that was done before will have to be scrapped. That is a position of affairs which I believe very few Members of this House have contemplated. I venture to think the issue is, Are we to have this Treaty of Peace or not? A great deal has been said about it. I think it is being rather prejudged. A good many hon. Members have expressed fear of what it may or will do, but we, as a people, are accustomed to give things a fair trial. This document has not been lightly drawn up. Cannot we give it a fair trial and see whether, in fact, it does what its authors contemplate and hope it will do? The League of Nations has been frequently referred to in this Debate. I am not a believer in the League, but if this Treaty proves a failure, if it breaks down and causes distress and unrest throughout Central and Eastern Europe, and if, after that, the League of Nations can put matters right, then I shall become one of its firmest supporters in this House.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. (J. Harmsworth.]

SUPPLY [14TH APRIL].
  CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

    CLASS II.
    Resolution reported,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £307,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
    1972
    will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [18TH APRIL].
Resolutions reported,
ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.
1. "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 300,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.
2. "That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 10,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.
3. "That an additional number of Officers and Men, not exceeding 25,000, be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
First Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There were one or two questions asked about the internal economy of the Defence Force, which are of great interest to many people in this country, and which were not answered when this Vote was considered in Committee, because, no doubt, of the lack of time, and it seems to me that the Report Stage gives an opportunity for the Ministers responsible for the War Office and Admiralty to answer them now. I am not here attacking in any way the principle of the Defence Force. We had that out the other day in the main Debate. But I did then ask one or two questions about the position of men who joined, and in particular I asked about those who joined and are demobilised short of the 90 days. I wanted to know whether they will get the full bounty of £5, or whether men will be

1973
required to serve the complete 90 days in order to secure it. I have already had inquiries on this particular matter, and the War Office might now take the opportunity of answering my question. I do not propose to express any opinion as to the propriety of giving the money. I have a second question with regard to the Land Defence Force. Now that recruiting is stopped, and there are a great many men still eager to join, would it not be possible to release many of the shopkeepers who have been called up with the Reserves and take on a few extra men for the Defence Force? Many men in the Reserves are engaged in the retail provision trade and have been called up from their business, and not only are they injured financially, but their absence from home is causing inconvenience in the areas which they serve. Some of these men own the only shop in a village, and a good many, I am glad to say, who are in the Reserve have been enabled to take over retail shopkeeping businesses. Would it not be possible, therefore, I ask, to have some system of exempting these men in view of the admittedly altered condition of affairs, and to take on if necessary a few more men for the Defence Force, to join which there are still many thousands willing. Such a course would avoid the dislocation of business and social life caused by calling up the Reserves and it would also reduce the hardship in many individual cases.
I have just one general question to ask in regard to the Reserves themselves. Hon. Members will realise that the whole Army Reserve has been called up. It was promised by the Secretary for War that the Defence Force should be demobilises as soon as practicable, and as soon as the Government were satisfied that it could be dispensed with. Does that promise also apply to the Reserves, or are they to be indefinitely embodied? I ask this question because the European situation is not bright and the nearer we approach the 1st of May the more ominous becomes the international situation. If may be necessary to reinforce our army in Germany. I am not discussing the Government policy in regard to Germany, but if it is intended to keep the Reserves embodied, possibly in order to relieve regular troops and send them on the Rhine, the country ought to be told forthwith. The Reserves have been called
1974
up, as we were informed, in connection with the industrial dispute and if the industrial clouds roll by they will naturally expect to be allowed to return to their homes. If, then, there is any intention of retaining them for other service they have a right to be informed, and we ought to insist on frankness on the part of the Government.
Colonel ASHLEY: May I put a point with reference to Class D of the Navy Reserves which has been called up, very properly, as I believe, on this occasion? It is a naval question, but I do not see a representative of the Admiralty present.
Mr. SPEAKER: We are now discussing the Army Reserves.
Colonel ASHLEY: I apologise for the mistake. I thought we were having a general discussion. I should like to reinsforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) to the effect that great consideration should be given to the small shopkeeper and to the small man who has been called upon in this national crises. Now that the situation has been eased the Government might very well follow the advice given by the hon. and gallant Member and enrol some additional men in the Defence Force to take the place of these reservists. Perhaps that is not possible from a financial point of view, as it would cost more money—
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not necessarily Colonel ASHLEY: At any rate, the Government should announce that these small traders shall be the first people to be released.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. HOGGE: We did not get answers to a great number of questions put on the Committee stage of this Vote, and this seems to be an appropriate opportunity for inviting them now. I would like to put in a case which has even more substance than that of the small trader. In the Reserve forces which have been called up there are obviously a number of men who served in the Great War. I have in front of me a particular case which seems to call for greater consideration even than the withdrawal of men engaged in the retail service of the food industry. It is the case of a university man pursuing his Degree course at a university. He is to complete his degree in this current session, but he has been called up in the

1975
Reserve, and if he is kept there obviously he will lose his opportunity. He is at the university, I believe, under an arrangement of the Government by which men were assisted to continue their graduation course after they had been demobilised.
Obviously, if that man is kept in the Reserve, it will be a great financial and professional loss to him to have to lose the opportunity of completing his session at the university and of passing his examinations. I should be glad, therefore, if the hon. Baronet can tell us what type of exemption is now being made from the Reserve, particularly in view of the altered conditions which now obtain. A week or a fortnight ago the conditions might have appeared to the Government to be much more serious than they obviously are now, and one can, therefore, imagine why they jibbed at making exemptions, because they might be asked to extend them indefinitely. Now that the situation is eased, I should like to know if there are any categories of men who could get exemption from the Reserve if they make immediate appliation, or whether, if the Government are not willing to put them into categories, they will consider individual hard cases of this kind, so that these men can resume their university training.
Another question to which we did not get any answer was a question of policy, and I do not know whether the hon. Baronet can give the House any reply upon it. It is as to whether the Government are going to respond to the appeal which was made in Committee that, in view of the Triple Alliance having called off the strike to enforce the demands of the miners, the Government are now going to call off the Defence Force. One urges that for a very obvious reason. The whole question is held up until the miners' delegates return from their districts and discuss the issue which is in dispute at the moment, and the question of a favourable decision does depend to a large extent upon the atmosphere in which the decision is come to. Many of us feel, and I think the Committee felt, that the atmosphere would be very much better if the Government, following the withdrawal of the Triple Alliance, would themselves immediately disband the Defence Force. We were told that some 78,000 men had been enrolled
1976
in the force. The hon. Baronet may say, for reasons of which the House it not at the present moment aware, that it would be impossible, in view of the circumstances, to demobilise the whole 78,000; but, in order to ease the situation and create, as I say, a better atmosphere, could he not say that a certain number of that 78,000 should be demobilised forthwith? I suppose that a force of that kind must have some sort of skeleton-organisation, and it might be proper to maintain that skeleton organisation in being until after this week, when we shall know what decision has been come to by the miners. But, in the meantime, are there not a large number of men in that 78,000 who must be simply kicking their heels at the present moment? We were told—I think it was by the Prime Minister—that the Government would rather support a scheme of over-insurance than one of under-insurance, and the cases of riot in Fife and South Wales were instanced as two examples of the type of case which the Government had to meet if the dispute went on. Members like myself, of course, get our information from the Press, but I believe that there have been no disputes there since those two rather alarming outbreaks, and, so far as one is made aware by the daily Press, there is no tendency in the other coal areas for any riot to take place. Surely, therefore, it must be within the compass of the existing police forces, with the assistance of the special constabulary, to deal with any cases which might occur. If the hon. Baronet cannot say that the whole force will be disbanded, it would go a long way towards creating the atmo sphere which I am suggesting should be created if-he could say, here and now, that those members of the Defence Force who are not required for maintaining the skeleton organisation of the force until the whole crisis is over can be demobilised at once. There is, of course, the question of the expense of the force. We were told that it was costing £1,000,000 a week. I do not suppose that that was all expended on the 78,000 men, but that was the complete figure given by the Prime Minister. This week is going to pass without anything happening, and we are going to drop £1,000,000. I do think that, in the interest, not only of the public honour, but of public economy, it would be wise on the part of the Government to state, if they can, what reduction can be made at the present moment.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked whether the bounty of £5 would be paid to every man called up, irrespective of the period for which he had served? It will be paid. It will be like the labourers in the vineyard.
Mr. HOGGE: Even then it caused a dispute.
Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's knowledge of divinity is a little defective. Then the suggestion was made that we should release men from the Reserve and take on more men for the Defence Force, if necessary.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I interrupt the hon. Baronet? I did not suggest that that should be done unless it was necessary. I wanted the shopkeepers released.
Sir R. SANDERS: I said, "if necessary." That is exactly what I said, namely, release men and take on more for the Defence Force, if necessary. That would be, financially, exceedingly inexpedient. After all, the men of the Reserve are paid 1s. a day all the year round, which is a substantial sum, and we are going to consider cases of hardship. I cannot put the matter into Categories, but the case of university men has been specially considered, and I can assure my hon. Friend that everything that is possible will be done in that case, which is a very special one. As to the retail traders, I cannot say more than that they must be considered with other people. As has been said before, if you once begin making exceptions of particular classes, you never quite know
where you are going to stop. Without pledging myself, and still less anyone else, to exempting categories, cases of hardship will be considered on their merits, and, as I have said, the question of university men is already being considered.
The hon. Member raised the larger question of demobilising the Defence Force. We cannot say yet that all is quiet in the coalfields, and I think hon. Members will agree that it would not be right to put down the Defence Force. Partial demobilisation is suggested, but it would be very unwise to demobilise partially if there is any chance that we may want all these men up again, and I think that that would be a foolish course to take. It is suggested that we can keep a skeleton, but skeletons cannot put down riots. We hope that this will not last very much longer. We are ready to consider special cases of hardshipp, but I cannot give any promise that either complete or partial demobilisation will take place until the trouble is settled. I do not agree that a settlement is more likely to come if we demobilise this force. I believe that a settlement is more likely to come if the Government show that they are prepared for eventualities. I do not think that, by throwing away a resource that may be required, we make it more easy. On the contrary, I believe that we should make it more difficult to get a settlement. I hope that with this explanation the House will give us the Report stage of this Resolution.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes. 39.

Division No. 8o.]

AYES.

[8.13 p.m

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

Butcher, Sir John George

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Campbell, J. D. G.

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

Armitage, Robert

Carr, W. Theodore

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Casey, T. W.

Edgar, Clifford B.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

Edge, Captain William

Barker, Major Robert H.

Chadwick, Sir Robert

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Barlow, Sir Montague

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Evans, Ernest

Barnett, Major R. W.

Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Barrand, A. R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Barrie, Charles Coupar

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Fildes, Henry

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

Clough, Robert

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Bigland, Alfred

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Forestler-Walker, L.

Borwick. Major G. O.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Forrest, Walter

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Breese, Major Charles E.

Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

Gange, E. Stanley

Brown, Captain D. C.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Gardiner, James

Bruton Sir James

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Gilbert, James Daniel

Lort-Williams, J.

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel Sir John

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Seager, Sir William

Glyn Major Ralph

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Seddon, J. A.

Gould, James C.

Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Gregory, Holman

Lynn, R. J.

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

Greig, Colonel James William

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

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Guest, Capt. Rt Hon. Frederick E.

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

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mallalieu, F. W.

Stevens, Marshall

Hailwood, Augustine

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

Sewart, Gershom

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

Middlebrook, Sir William

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Mitchell, William Lane

Sugden, W. H.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Montagu, Rt Hon E. S.

Sutherland, Sir William

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Taylor, J.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Neal, Arthur

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

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

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

Hinds, John

Norris Colonel Sir Henry G.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.

Hood, Joseph

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Tryon, Major George Clement

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

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Waddington, R.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Wallace, J.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Perring, William George

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

Howard, Major S. G.

Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

Waring, Major Walter

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

Warren, Lieut. Col. Sir Alfred H.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Purchase, H. G.

Weston, Colonel John W.

Jameson, J. Gordon

Ramsden, G. T.

Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

Jephcott, A. R.

Rankin, Captain James S.

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

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Raper, A. Baldwin

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

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

Johnstone, Joseph

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

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

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

Remer, J. R.

Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Wise, Frederick

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Woolcock, William James U.

Kidd, James

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Rodger, A. K.

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

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

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Rutherford. Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

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

Lloyd, George Butler

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lorden, John William

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Parker.

NOES.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

Sitch, Charles H.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

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

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hallas, Eldred

Spoor, B. G.

Cairns, John

Hayday, Arthur

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

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Hayward, Major Evan

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

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Hirst, G. H.

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Edwards, C.(Monmouth, Bedwelity)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Hogge, James Myles

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Galbraith, Samuel

Irving, Dan

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Gillis, William

Kenyon, Barnet

Glanville, Harold James

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and

Grundy, T. W.

Royce, William Stapleton

Major Watts Morgan.

Remaining Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.

DISBANDMENT OF BRITISH CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
Major Sir K. FRASER: I beg to move
"That, in the opinion of this House, the proposal to reduce the Mobile Forces of the Crown, and especially the disbandment of four British cavalry regiments, is contrary to the experience gained in the late War and inimical to the beet interests of the defence of the Empire."
1980
I know that many hon. Members who had great experience in the War wish to speak and some who commanded the three arms, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House. I only wish to deal with one part of my Motion, and that is as regards the light cavalry, the branch of the service I have served with. I would especially call attention to the case of the 5th Lancers, the senior Lancer regiment in the service. It is proposed to disband this regiment as if it was one of the junior Lancer regiments.

1981
The Secretary of State for War decided to disband four light cavalry regiments for the sake of economy. I do not know what he knows about economy to treat the senior Lancer regiment as one of the juniors. The right hon. Gentleman was a bit out in his dates. He stated that the 5th Lancers were raised in 1858. They were raised 169 years before that. They have on their colours the battles of Oudenarde, Ramillies, Malplaquet, and Blenheim. Those battles were not fought in 1858. I saw a letter recently from the Secretary for Scotland to a constituent of his, a member of the 5th Lancers, saying the Secretary for War had decided that the 5th Lancers were junior because there were new men and officers serving in it in 1858, but it stands to reason that there were none who served in 1799 still serving in 1858. May I tell the House the history of the 5th Lancers? They were raised in 1689. They served with great distinction not only in the Marl-borough wars but since. There is no more distinguished regiment in the service. In 1799 they were disbanded, but I would ask 'the House to remember that George III. at that time was suffering somewhat from mental ill-health. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State" or his advisers at the War Office were also suffering from mental ill-health when they came to their decision to disband the 5th Lancers, I am told that the reason for the 5th Lancers being disbanded is because they are an Irish regiment, and yet they want union between the two countries. In 1858 the 5th Lancers were not being raised but they were being re-embodied. It is the only occasion that a blank has been kept in the Army List, and it was for the 5th Lancers. Their place had never been filled up. For all these years, from 1799 until 1858, there was a blank left, and in 1858 the 5th Lancers were re-instated. Their disbandment in 1799 was very unjust, because they were a very distinguished regiment. On the 8th January, 1858, the following General Order was issued to every regiment in the Service, and there is no other occasion when a General Order has been issued to every regiment in the Service with respect to the reinstatement of a regiment:
"His Royal Highness, the General Commanding-in-Chief,"—
—the late Duke of Cambridge—
"has much pleasure in communicating to the Army the Queen's command to cancel
1982
the Adjutant-General's letter, dated 8th April, 1799, announcing the Royal determination of His late Majesty, King George III, to disband the 5th Royal Irish Dragoons."
They were Dragoons then.
"The Queen commands that the 5th Royal Lancers be restored to its proper place amongst the cavalry regiments of the line, and His Royal Highness feels assured that this mark of Her Majesty's gracious favour will be appreciated."
Now the right hon. Gentleman treats that Royal command as a scrap of paper. This question has been discussed in another place. I think the old lancers in the other place were a bit rusty. The whole lot of them might go back to the riding school. They talked only about sentiment. If you get the higher command disobeying Orders, and if you get the Army Council treating Army Orders and General Orders as a scrap of paper what can you expect of the rank and; file? I admit that my right hon. Friend is immune under Section 40 of the Army Act, which deals with conduct contrary and prejudicial to good order and discipline. He is merely a civilian. Members of the Army Council are also immune because they shelter themselves behind my right hon. Friend. Section 40 of the Army Act counts as nothing. What about Section 42? That Section says, that if an officer has a grievance, or an imaginary grievance, he has the right of appeal to his, commanding officer. If his commanding officer does not satisfy him he can go to the higher command. He can go as far as the Army Council, and if he is not satisfied with the Army Council he can go still further, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War—he can appeal to the King himself. This question came up quite recently on the Army Annual Bill and it was contended by hon. Members, and Members experienced in soldiering, that for all practical purposes Section 42 was of no account.
I quite agree, and I think the House will agree with me, that you must support authority. A man may have a grievance and he can make a complaint to a higher authority, and if he is not satisfied he can go further; but it is right and proper that authority should be supported, and in 99 cases out of 100 you will not find Section 42 of any use to an officer with a grievance. If the Secretary of State or the Army Council or any man in high

1983
rank disobey Orders, and sets Army and General Orders at defiance, just as my right hon. Friend has treated with contumely and as a scrap of paper a General Order, what discipline and justice can we expect? If Lord Allenby, the Colonel-in-Chief of the 5th Lancers, or if the officers serving in the 5th Lancers, who have given the whole of their lives to the Service, and who served throughout the recent War with great distinction, and also in the South African War—there is not a better regiment in the Service than the 5th Lancers, and every cavalry regiment thanks them for the service they have done—took advantage of Section 42 of the Army Act and appealed to the head of the Army for justice, because of his adviser disobeying a lawful Army Order, well, I should be sorry for my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend made a mistake or committed a breach of discipline when he decided the question about the Yeomanry. He decided to disband a number of Yeomanry regiments. I think he is not to blame. If I remember rightly, the question of the seniority of the Yeomanry was decided 30 or 40 years ago by one of his predecessors, and I think my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the action of his predecessor.
If complaint is made against my right hon. Friend by the 5th Lancers, I venture to say he will not get support. I am anxious to help him out of a difficulty. There is only one thing he can do. If he is going to treat the 5th Lancers as a junior regiment he has to cancel the Order of the 8th January, 1858. Otherwise they must remain as they are by the Order of the late Queen Victoria as the senior Lancer regiment of the Service. You cannot get away from that. I do not wish to suggest that you should reduce any of the Light Cavalry regiments for the sake of economy; but if you are going to do so the four junior regiments should be reduced, the 18th, 19th, and 20th Hussars and the 21st Lancers. You will find it a difficult thing to do that, and you will get into a lot of trouble. If you are going to reduce any Light Cavalry Regiments you must take the junior ones, and in all fairness, those who have less service than the others. My suggestion is that if you must reduce the Light Cavalry Regiments you must not pay attention to
1984
whether they are Lancers or whether they are Hussars. The way out of your difficulty is to make the 15th Hussars into a Lancers Regiment. They will not mind. They will be proud of it. I do not like to say it, and perhaps I ought not, but there are wheels within wheels. There is a certain officer in the War Office who has something to do with this question, and he is in the 18th Hussars.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not give some satisfaction to-night he will hear more of it. My right hon. Friend I think, looking at him, has a sort of idea that he is going to settle this question to-night about the 5th Lancers. I can assure him that he is not. There will be a cavalry charge coming later on before he can finally disband these four light cavalry regiments for the sake of economy. We hear of the poor taxpayer. I often wonder whether Cabinet Ministers realise that they are taxpayers themselves. Of course, I know that they are supermen. I read it in the papers, and so it must be so. But the question is not whether they are supermen, but whether they know anything about the animal horse. If they did they would not reduce the four cavalry regiments for the sake of economy. The House knows that every pound weight you put on a horse during war-time means hundreds of pounds to the British taxpayer. Yet you propose to keep the heavy cavalry and disband the light cavalry. It is impossible. I would be the last person to suggest disbanding heavy cavalry. I do not suggest disbanding any cavalry, but to disband your most mobile force in the cavalry only shows that the War Office and my right hon. Friend know nothing whatever about it.
In marching order the light Hussar, the young boy, will not ride under eighteen stone. The Dragoon will probably be up to 21 or 22 stone. Every pound weight you put on a horse on service means shortening the life of the horse on service, and yet you are going to do away with light cavalry for the sake of economy. Hon. Members may not know that a Hussar may not enlist if he is more than 5 ft. 8 ins., while the height of the old Dragoon is 5 ft. 11 ins. They are great big strong fellows, and they enlist when they are 18, and, as you know, big men put on weight, and everything a big man wears weighs more than what the small man wears. The Hussar, who comes from such places as Whitechapel, in London, is

1985
invariably thin. He is one of the best fighting men, but he is a very spare man. The old Dragoons are great big heavy fellows from the country, sons of farmers, and what not. It must be realised that the heavy cavalry are far heavier than the light cavalry, yet it is suggested to do away with the light cavalry. That is not within reason. The life of the cavalry horse on active service does not last long. He is under the saddle for many hours in the day. He has to move about for a long time. He is fed at irregular intervals; sometimes well, sometimes badly. He does not get water at the proper time. Then you get the inclemency of the weather, and you get the raw recruit. As I have said, every extra pound means a difference to the life of the horse, and yet, for the sake of economy, you are going to do away with light cavalry. Someone has blundered.
I have been trying to think of what my right hon. Friend will say in reply. He may say, "There is no use saying that we shall do away with heavy cavalry. The old cavalry regiments might say, 'Make us into light cavalry,' which would be perfectly simple." Would it? There is a very distinguished regiment, the Queen's Bays, and among the former officers I have very good friends I hope. The Queen's Bays are a very old Dragoon regiment. They had a great reputation—I do not think that any regiment in the Service has a better reputation—for the way in which they took care of the horses. We in the 7th Hussars and other cavalry regiments used to look on them as a bit slow. Some thirty years ago a colonel commanding the Queen's Bays, who was a very good horse master, gave a word of command that will never be forgotten. He turned round while the regiment was on parade and he said, "Steady the Bays I am going to trot." You cannot turn the Dragoons into light cavalry and expect them to gallop about all over the country with whippets. Their horses would break down. Again, it may be contended by my right hon. Friend or by the Army Council that the Army is very strictly rationed with money, that there is every prospect of its being more strictly rationed next year, and that the Army Council have to think of the many new arms and devices which the War has produced—tanks, gas, machine guns, aircraft, etc. We may be told that all those things will cost an
1986
enormous sum of money and that if we spend that money on cavalry units it will be impossible to develop the new arms in times of peace. I see that contention from an entirely different point of view. Every person who has ever soldiered knows there is squandermania going on. In every Command in the Service there is squandermania, a reckless expenditure of money. My right hon. Friend is responsible. Cavalry regiments which have served with, distinction are to be exterminated because of the incompetence and waste of money in every Command in the Service.
The Army Council may maintain that they are not alone in their resolve to reduce our mounted forces. It may be said that India is making a reduction by no fewer than 20 regiments. Is that any reason why we should abolish four of our light cavalry regiments? I have been a few years in India, and I ask the House earnestly to consider that matter. It is a most dangerous thing to do away with Indian cavalry regiments. I do not know who chose the regiments for disbandment, but they have been chosen from the best in India, from our most loyal subjects in India. These men are high caste men, and their profession is to fight. An Indian cavalry regiment is not like the ordinary regiment that we know. When an Indian leaves a cavalry regiment he goes back to his own village. If a father serving in a regiment has a son, the son follows him into the regiment. It becomes a family concern. When the son has served his time he goes back to the village and lives among his fellow soldiers who have retired before him. Mark my words. There is to be trouble in India; there is sedition. I have heard it suggested that it was sedition which persuaded the Government to get rid of these extremely loyal subjects. Probably that is not so. If you do not allow these loyal men, who have served us for generations, to fight for us in any struggle in India, they will fight against us. Again, we may be told that France is reducing her cavalry from 85 to 62 regiments. Does France rule a great Empire like ours—the greatest the world has ever known? We have taken on enormous new territories in Asia and Africa, and in any future wars we shall want mounted units. The Government may say that Italy has reduced her cavalry from 29 regiments to 12. He might just as well say that Japan has

1987
reduced her cavalry, and that therefore we should reduce ours. What has Italy to do with this great Empire? It is beyond reason that, for the sake of economy, these regiments should be abolished.
It may be contended that it is the business of this country to see that we keep no redundant units, that every unit maintained should be able to fight the moment war breaks out, and that it is impossible that we should want more than two cavalry divisions in the first six months of the wars; moreover that if we kept more they would be out of proportion to the six infantry divisions and the fourteen Territorial divisions. When war breaks out you want to increase your cavalry. You could get your infantry trained in fourteen weeks. There are many Members of this House who trained infantry battalions in fourteen weeks and jolly good ones they were too. I cannot see the sense or the reason of this proposal. If you want to economise do away with six infantry battalions. I could understand that. When war starts, are you going to denude the whole of the Empire of cavalry. With your two divisions at the front, are India and Africa to have no cavalry regiments? I would beg the Government not to form new cadres for the sake of economy. Do not form a new corps for the sake of economy. Do not create a new staff. If you have a Tank corps you will have staff officers galore. Staff officers mean more correspondence and more correspondence means more staff officers, and the more staff officers there are the more the correspondence grows. You should attach light tanks to the cavalry. Let detachments of light tanks be attached to every cavalry regiment, but do not do away with one of the cavalry regiments. I know what it is in the cavalry in winter time. Put the men on the tanks. I know the infantry, too. I was with them 30 years ago as a militiaman. The men go on parade and do a bit of drill. They go into the barrack room, they clean their belts and their rifles and they go to sleep for the rest of the afternoon. Let my right hon. Friend imagine himself in the Tank Corps and that he has enlisted for 7, 12 or 21 years. How long will it take him to learn about a tank? One year? Not that. What is he going to do with the rest of his time? He will not be allowed to parade; you cannot go parading
1988
about in tanks. The men will be drawing good pay, probably as mechanics, and they will sit and look at their tanks for 21 years. The tank should be an adjunct to the cavalry and to the infantry. The day will come when light tanks will operate with cavalry, and cavalry will be able to fight mounted, in trenches as infantry, and in tanks as well. The days of cavalry are not over. In conclusion, I sincerely hope my right hon. Friend will not proceed with this proposal for a reduction such as is suggested.
Sir C. TOWNSHEND: In the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), I rise to second the Resolution. I am very much in sympathy with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, as I have taken very much to heart this proposed reduction in the mounted arm. I am going to put it from the point of view of the importance of the mounted arm in offensive battles. We must remember that a great deal of the experience of the War Office regarding the recent War has been experience of the Western Front, which was trench warfare and fortress warfare, recalling the times of Dutch William and of Louis Quatorze, whereas the war we had in Mesopotamia and Palestine was a war of movement, which is absolutely different. In that war of manoeuvre we had battles where the three arms were engaged. I cannot understand how any general who has ever commanded a force of the three arms in an offensive battle—where you have to win by manoeuvre—could ever agree to a reduction in the mounted arm. It is an unanswerable argument that you win offensive battles by victory in manoeuvre. The secret of success is the turning manoeuvre, where you hold the enemy in front and throw a net round his flank and rear, and fling your heavy mass, with the cavalry far ahead, to get around him. That is the principle on which victories are generally won in warfare of this character, as any student of military history will agree. Though I do not wish to bring personal matters into this question, I am one of the few in the War who commanded a force of the three arms. I have won battles with my cavalry thrown out on that principle of the turning movement, and if I were in the War Office no one would ever induce me to agree to a reduction in the mounted

1989
arm. I am not going to join in any suggestion that the Secretary of State is not fully aware of the importance of the mounted arm, but I would urge that this reduction has been too hastily put forward as a result of experience on the Western Front alone. I do not think if the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine were here now he would agree to it, or the gallant lord who is now dead, and, as a much more humble man, no one will ever get me to agree to it.
9.0 P.M.
Regarding the tanks, on the last occasion when I spoke on this subject it will be remembered that I took what may have seemed to have been a some what exaggerated view about the tanks. One does exaggerate a little sometimes, but it is very difficult to discuss military matters in this House, where the bulk of one's audience is composed of civilians to whom the rudiments of military science are naturally unknown. One like myself, who has been studying the matter for 37 years, does not wish to talk at any length on subjects the discussion of which are more suited to the lecture-room. In the last discussion that we had on the 15th March, I therefore only lightly indicated what I thought were the faults of the tank, and what I had heard men of experience saying about it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered the possibility of future wars? I hope we shall not have any, but the horizon is very dark when one looks all round. If this war is allowed to go on in the Near East, who can say what may not happen? Would you propose to use tanks in Anatolia or in Cilicia? There are other possible theatres of war where I do not think they would be suitable. Europe favours the tank, but in considering the future we must look to North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, the Near East, India, and so forth. I submit that the conclusion you must come to is that the mounted arm is absolutely necessary. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down said, you cannot improvise cavalry of a quality to compare with the regular trained and disciplined cavalrymen. We saw quite enough of that in South Africa. The fact that they are reducing cavalry in India does not console me at all. A Member of the House told me to-day that they were making a reduction in India and I replied, "What do you think I care
1990
What India does?" I have seen enough of India, having had about 18 years service there, and my experience is that Army Headquarters at Simla possess all the worst faults common to Army Headquarters and some peculiar to themselves besides. In seconding this Motion I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if we cannot have more time to consider this matter. There is no hurry, until we are out of the wood on this Near Eastern question, because I regard it, and I am sure most people regard it, as a most dangerous situation. I would ask that there should be some sort of care or waiting before we entirely destroy these cadres. I would have kept up the cadres. I remember the right hon. Gentleman told us the amount that it would cost, and it did not seem to me a big amount. The real economy I look for is in greater efficiency, and I would not reduce that money. You have got enormous Departments. I was staggered to see the figures the other day of the size of the R.A.M.C. and our Chaplains' Department, and the Pay Department is enormous, although the strength of the Army has gone down. I would have looked right, left, and centre before I would have agreed to have destroyed the cadres.
Lieut.-Colonel MCLEAN: It is very evident that the Government has made up its mind to reduce our mounted forces within the Empire. A great many soldiers are firmly of opinion that the Government should reconsider their decision. We must remember very strongly the usefulness of cavalry. We cannot agree perhaps, and I do not think soldiers will agree, as to whether cavalry or mounted infantry is the most useful arm, but there is one evident fact, and that is this, that a great number of mounted troops are needed in nearly every theatre of war. The early stages of the Indian Mutiny is an example, and the late Boer War is a remarkable instance of the uselessness of an army without plenty of mounted troops. We all remember Lord French's advance from the Modder River to Pretoria. On entering Pretoria, the number of mounted troops was 6,000, and the number of infantry 22,000, or one cavalryman to every three or four infantrymen. In regard to the late War, the best thing I can do is to read an extract from Lord Haig's final despatch. He says:
"In the light of the full experience of the War, the decision to preserve the

1991
Cavalry Corps has been completely justifies. It has been proved that cavalry, whether used for shock effect under suitable conditions or as mobile infantry, have still an indispensable part to play in modern war. Moreover, it cannot safely be assumed that in future wars the flanks of the opposing forces will rest on neutral states or impassable obstacles. Whenever such a condition does not obtain, opportunities for the use of cavalry must arise frequently. Throughout the great retirement in 1914, our cavalry covered the retirement and protected the flanks of our columns against the onrush of the enemy."
He ends up by saying:
"Finally, during the culminating operations of the War, when the German armies were falling back in disorganised masses, a new situation arose which demanded the use of mounted troops. Then our cavalry, pressing hard upon the enemy's heels, hastened his retreat and threw him into worse confusion. At such a time the moral effect of cavalry is overwhelming, and is in itself a sufficient reason for the retention of that arm."
Again, in Lord Allenby's despatch describing the operations which resulted in the destruction of the Turkish Army, the liberation of Palestine and Syria, and the occupation of Damascus and Aleppo, he said:
"The complete destruction of the VII and VIII Turkish Armies depended mainly on the rapidity with which their communications were reached. The enemy's columns, after they had outdistanced the pursuing infantry, were given no time to reorganise and fight their way through."
In these operations, Lord Allenby had two mounted and seven infantry divisions, or one cavalryman to every three or four infantrymen, so that there is one evident fact in these examples, and that is that all our successful operations have been conducted with a proportion of one cavalryman to every three or four infantrymen. On Tuesday, 15th March, the Secretary for War said it was intended to economise by disbanding four cavalry regiments, but I would point out that before the War we had 55 yeomanry regiments, and these have now been reduced to 10; in India we had 39 cavalry regiments, and these are being reduced to 21. If you work out the total of mounted troops to infantry, you find that you have one cavalryman to every 12 infantrymen. It is a very serious step indeed to destroy regiments proud of their traditions, but it is a much more serious step to reduce below the safety limit the number of mounted troops in the Empire.
1992
Only one thing could justify such a course of action, and that is that a new instrument had been found to replace the fighting value of these troops. My right hon. Friend said he was experimenting with light tanks, but he did not know yet what the result would be, and he did not know the value of the tanks until the experiments had been finished. I can recall vividly the failure of the tanks on the Somme and at Ypres, and I can see them now strewn about the country. They had a moderate success at Cambrai as an instrument of frightfulness and surprise. Their failure may have been due to lack of experience in the tactical handling of the tank, but the fact remains that their radius of action was limited by the exhaustion of the crews, and that no distant troops have anything to fear from tanks, and that a well-placed mine or field gun would quickly place a tank out of action. Yet, on the strength of these experiences, we are reducing the mounted forces not by four cavalry regiments only, but by 67 cavalry regiments, which is an enormous number. If the question is one of money, there is nothing more to be said, but if it is a question of economy coupled with efficiency, let us find the money for the upkeep of these four cavalry regiments from the mounted police force of London, full dress uniforms, an overstaffed War Office, the upkeep of prehistoric fortifications, and the maintenance of barracks in the most expensive districts of crowded cities. I must conclude by saying that it is not by the help of the State that the cavalry maintain their great traditions and high state of efficiency, but in spite of the State. Faced, as they will be in the next great war, by the almost superhuman task of raising and training mounted troops with a reduced staff of capable instructors, I assure you that the reforming of these regiments which you now disband will be the one great joy and achievement of their lives.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I rise to support the Motion, because I am particularly interested in this matter as one who has served in one of the regiments which it is proposed to disband, and, in fact, belong to the reserve of that regiment now, and also as having been associated with two of the other regiments which are going to be disbanded, the 5th Lancers and the 18th Hussars, with which my regiment was at the seige of Lady-

1993
smith. I think the Secretary of State for War based his proposal to disband these regiments on the ground of economy. On the 15th March he said he was going to economise in two different directions. The first was to be in cutting down excessive numbers of officers, which, he said, amounted to something like 7,000 more than our pre-War strength, and that a committee was sitting at that time at the War Office which had already come to the conclusion that they could dispense with the services of 2,200 officers; and expected to be able to dispense with some few hundreds more. Then he said that the other method by which he hoped to establish some economy was by disbanding these cavalry regiments. He then went on to say that the cavalry regiments cost about £100,000 each per annum to keep up, and therefore the total economy to be effected by reducing the four cavalry regiments is to be £400,000 per annum. That works out at a percentage of something less than 6 per cent. of the whole amount voted for the Army this year, which is something like £70,000,000, if we exclude the non-recurrent expenditure and the expenditure upon the Middle East.
What I would suggest is, that if we are to make economies, they should be made, first of all, along the grounds of general policy; that is to say, we can save far more money on the Civil Services, which now are costing us something like £280,000,000 a year, than by cutting down the Army by four of, perhaps, the most highly trained troops we have got. The total expenditure of £70,000,000 upon the Army only forms about 5·8 per cent. of our total revenue, which is about £31,200,000,000, and we are going to spend less than 6 per cent. of that on the Army, whereas before the War, when we had a very much less revenue, we were spending 14½ per cent, of our revenue upon the Army. Before the War we were spending, both in 1912–13 and 1913–14, only 17 per cent. on our Civil Services, and now they are costing us 28 per cent., and that does not include the pensions, of course. Therefore I say if we are to economise at present—and everybody knows that that is absolutely necessary—the field for economy should be in the Civil Services of the country rather than in the Army, because the Army at the present time is ridiculously
1994
inadequate for the tasks which it has to perform. We have got a rebellion in Ireland. It is quite true we have got over 50,000 men in Ireland, but that is not enough if we are going to restore law and order rapidly and properly in Ireland. We ought to have a much larger force in order to protect the police and ensure the establishment of order. We have got troops on the Rhine and in Constantinople, and we have a state of war existing in Mesopotamia. In India, we have a country which is generally reputed to be simmering with sedition, whilst in Egypt affairs are not at all too hopeful. Under those circumstances, to cut down the Army by one man seems to me to be an absurdity. Our Reserves are at less than one-half the strength they ought to be, and our Territorial Force is only at one-half the strength it ought to be.
Therefore, at such a time, to cut down the Army by a single man, seems to be a very short-sighted policy. But if you are going to cut down the Army at all, why select that arm of the service which is certainly one of the most highly trained? It takes a long time to train cavalry soldiers, and when they are trained they form a nursery for the Reserve. They also form an excellent cadre of troops which can be used for many other purposes, such as those they were used for in the War. During the War large numbers of cavalrymen were turned to other purposes. Some were used as machine gunners, some went into tanks, and large numbers, who were not wanted for the cavalry, served with infantry battalions. I remember very well, after the Somme battle, as commander of a battalion, receiving a large draft of cavalrymen, and I am sure lots of ex-officers who are in this House will have had the same experience that the cavalry reinforcements they received were some of the finest men they could get, because all were well-trained and well-disciplined. Not only that, but the cavalry in the past have always attracted a somewhat superior class of man, more intelligent, perhaps, because he comes from a better-off class who have been able to give a better education, and so on. I do not mean to say for a moment that the cavalryman is a bit braver or better than his infantry brother, but he is, as a rule, deived from a more intelligent class, perhaps, than the infantryman. [HON.

1995
MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, and I say that as one who has served in the infantry as well, and who, as I need not say, does not wish in any way to disparage the British infantry soldier, because anyone who attempted to do such a thing would be simply making himself ridiculous. The British infantry soldier is known to be the finest infantry soldier in the world, as has been acknowledged even by Napoleon. That does not mean he is necessarily a very intelligent man, but the cavalry have always drawn that class of men to it, and, therefore, they can at any moment be turned into other branches of the service, without any loss to the service.
Therefore, I say that, as the cavalry are derived from this class, to destroy these four regiments, which have long tradition—and that means a great deal, as everybody who has ever served knows—is a false economy from every point of view. I know it has been in the past generally a sort of cheap gibe at the cavalry officers that they were supposed not to be officers who took their profession very seriously. I think that idea has been knocked on the head in the War. Out of the eight Field-Marshals in the British Army to-day, four are cavalry officers. Considering that the cavalry were less than half the strength of the artillery and less than a quarter of the strength of the infantry before the War, the proportion of cavalry officers who have risen to high rank in our Army is magnificently high. Two Commanders-in-Chief on the Western Front, Lord French and Lord Haig, were cavalry officers all their lives until they had high command. Lord French actually commanded one of the regiments which it is proposed to disband, the 19th Hussars. Lord Allenby, the man who has made his name immortal through what has happened in Palestine, was a cavalry officer all his life until he also arrived at high command. Lord Byng, another great general, was a cavalry officer all his life. Sir Philip Chetwode, the right-hand man of Lord Allenby, and also an ex-commander of the 19th Hussars, was a cavalry officer, and is now a member of the Army Council.
The cavalry has turned out some of the best officers in the British Army, and from the point of view of training officers alone, it would be a false economy to re
1996
duce the cavalry regiments. Personally, I should hate to see any single regiment in the Army cut down; on the contrary, I think we ought to increase the strength of our Army, but if it is to be kept down, then, as has been pointed out before, there are other branches. I think that the supply services in the Army are overdone. The French used to laugh at us in the War because of our tremendous transport arrangements behind the lines. They used to describe the British Army as a triangle with its apex at the front. Although that was an exaggeration, we had a smaller proportion of our men at the front in the battle line than the French. There are some of the auxiliary arms that could be pruned out a bit without reducing the fighting forces of the Army. I do not think, therefore, that to save£400,000 a year, less than one-half of 1 per cent. of the amount voted for the Army, we should reduce these troops. When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement on 15th March we did not know we were going to call out 70,000 Reservists and 70,000 for the Defence Force for use in this country. It is an ironical commentary upon his statement that he was going to disband four cavalry regiments—four regular regiments—of the Army, that within three weeks he should have had to issue an appeal to the country for thousands of men to join the Defence Corps and to call up the Reservists.
Our Army is totally inadequate for the purpose for which it is designed at the present moment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what has happened and of the enormous expense to which the country is being put at the present moment through having to call out other men temporarily to fill a gap, if he cannot see his way, at any rate to postpone for a year or two, this question of cutting down the cavalry. We do not know what is going to happen in the world. Ireland is in an awful state, India is in an unsettled state, and we cannot tell what wil happen in Egypt. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Army Council to reconsider that decision. Better still, I would ask him to go to the other end of the street, and ask the Cabinet whether they will not sanction any further provision for the Army Estimates, so that he may retain these splendid regiments at any rate for another year or two until we know better what is going to happen.
Colonel LAMBERT WARD: It seems to me in these days of almost universal poverty it is incumbent on the Government to see to it that the taxpayer gets the best value for the money which they are going to spend on the Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Resolution rather scoffed at the sufferings of the taxpayer, but I can assure him that a great many people are feeling most acutely the pinch of excessive taxation from which this country is now suffering. It is therefore up to the War Office and the Government to see to it that this £108,000,000 that is going to be spent this year on the Army is devoted to those services which will give us the best and most effective fighting force, should we ever be called upon again to use it. I admit that there is a very great difficulty in deciding which particular arms will be of the most use in any particular war. If the war takes the line it took in Palestine, or Mesopotamia, then there is no doubt that the Government are wrong in dispensing with the services of these four cavalry regiments. If, on the other hand, it takes the line of the war on the Western Front, there is not the least doubt they are right. With regard to what happened in Palestine and Mesopotamia I know nothing. I never took part in great victories such as those won by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend). We did not win victories on that unimportant quarter of the battlefield, the Western Front, we merely struggled for an existence, which makes all the difference.
So much depends upon the particular line which the war is going to follow. Perhaps a good many of us remember how, after the South African War, we all thought that we knew exactly, or that our senior officers at any rate knew exactly how a war ought to be carried on and what ought to be done, only to find that as regards European warfare the French and the Germans had forgotten more than our men ever knew. Although the Commander-in-Chief was once credited with making an observation to the effect that nothing that had happened during the War had caused him to alter his opinion as to how men should be trained or how operations should be carried on, the fact remains that we had radically to change our organisation, our equip-
1998
ment and our methods of training our men, and to adapt them more closely not only to the French, but to the German methods before we could make any headway at all upon the Western Front. If we are going to model our future methods upon the lines which were necessary upon the Western Front during the War I do not hesitate to say that cavalry is of very little use.
The fact remains that the cavalry contributed less to the ultimate victory of the Allied arms on the Western Front than any other unit of the Allied forces, except perhaps the Army Veterinary Corps. I daresay some hon. Members will be disposed to challenge that, but I do not think they can do so consistently if they trace the career of the cavalry during those five years of war. After all, what did the cavalry do to further to any extent the ultimate victory of the Allied Armies? Of course, it is quite possible that, had the War gone on for any length of time, they might have shown up in their true colours; but I am only dealing now with what really did happen, and not with what might have happened. I have heard and read that the cavalry rendered very good and most valuable services during the retreat from Mons and Le Cateau. I do not know; I was not there. My first experience of seeing the cavalry was at the first Battle of Ypres, when they undoubtedly held the line extremely well, and suffered heavy casualties, but no better than their very much cheaper and more economical comrades the infantry. You must not forget that, from the point of view of that fighting, or of any other kind of fighting except shock tactics, a cavalry soldier is very uneconomical. He is very expensive in proportion to his infantry brother, and the cost per man is more than two and a half times as great. Except for shock tactics, a cavalry regiment can hardly put into the line as many men as an infantry company; in fact, two infantry battalions will practically put into the firing line as many men as a whole cavalry division.
The next appearance of the cavalry was at the second battle of Ypres, when they crammed their trenches with an unnecessary large number of men. I know perfectly well I held a subordinate position at the time, but I was informed of these things. We had been taken out of the line, as we understood, for a month's

1999
rest, and were sent up again after six days because we were told that the cavalry were making such a mess of it. That may be true or not. It may be only what may be called professional jealousy. The next appearance of the cavalry was coming up behind at the battle of Loos, where they were held up in readiness should the infantry break through. In fact, they were held in readiness during the whole time that the infantry were making attacks on the Somme and at Cambrai, with the idea that an opening was coming. At the battle of Cambrai, reading the official despatches, we are informed they were held up by an obstacle, a partially constructed canal, which they ought to have crossed. In fact, I think the only cavalry unit which distinguished itself on that occasion was a squadron of the Fort Garry Horse, irregular troops, which certainly at that time performed one of the finest feats the cavalry performed during the entire War.
It is not my intention to inflict any more of these reminiscences upon the House. In conclusion, I would like to say that the matter depends upon whether the Government are right or wrong in their forecast as to the lines on which the next war—should there be one—will be fought. If they think it is going to be fought on the lines of the campaign in Palestine or Mesopotamia, then, as I said before, they are quite wrong in taking action such as they have taken. If, on the other hand, they consider that the War will be fought out on the lines that it was fought on the Western Front, then there is not the slightest doubt that they are right in dispensing with the services of some of these very ornamental and also rather expensive cavalry regiments.
Brigadier-General WIGAN: I disagree with almost every word the last speaker has said with regard to the cavalry. Before dealing in some detail with what he said I should like to have a few words on the general question. The proposal is to abolish, not only four cavalry regiments, but 45 yeomanry regiments, and some 20 Indian cavalry regiments. The easiest form of economy for any Department or any Minister to come and announce to this House is that of abolishing so many fighting units. It may be the easiest form
2000
of economy, but so far as the power of the offensive of your Army goes it is certainly the worst. As the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) said there are very many fields of economy in which you can practice without interfering with the efficiency of your Army. The hon. and gallant Member referred to our swollen Civil Service Estimates. If we turn to the staff of the Army a very large reduction could well be made without interfering with the efficiency of your fighting power. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can let us know what size the War Office staff is now as compared with 1914? Why is it necessary to have it three or four, or five times as large? Why is it necessary for the War Office to have 20 times the number of motor cars attached to it than before the War?
I heard, not lately, but a year ago, of an officer not very high up in the War Office driving about the park in a Government car and going for a ride in the morning on a Government charger. This is only very small, it may be said; but the extravagance and waste in the Army is in the larger commands, and the War Office leads the way. We saw in the last Estimate£250,000 of the taxpayers' money spent on a single-line of railway between the Suez Canal and Jerusalem, where we have some 3,000 troops. If Palestine or Egypt wants that railway, why cannot they pay for it? If that money was saved you could pay for two cavalry regiments without further cost to the British taxpayer. My right hon. Friend talks about economy. I think the House would feel more convinced if we were assured, when some minor extravagances are pointed out, that some real effort would be made to deal with them. Let me give an instance.
I asked a question some time ago as to why there were 14 major-generals and a large number of brigade commanders employed some 18 months and paid for commanding 14 territorial regiments and a large number of brigades which did not exist. I repeated the question. These officers were still being paid, and the divisions were still non-existent. I am told that the cost of these to the country for one year was£75,000. I asked the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman why they were necessary. I was told they were employed in conferring with the War Office. I know some of these

2001
men. They were not living in their commands. One was in Scotland. Another was abroad, and this one admitted to me that they were not doing one hour's work per week. They were being paid£100 for doing one hour's work, and were not commanding anything. When that is pointed out to the War Office not the slightest notice is taken, and then they come to us and plead for economy in cutting down regiments.
Apart from economy I believe this decision has been given—allowing some of the minor aspects of it—from the experience of France. There you had an unprecedentedly protracted war on a huge scale, and it came down to trench war-fare. You had no flanks, that is to say, one flank rested on the sea and the other on a neutral country. Therefore, obviously in trench warfare, with no flanks, the action of cavalry, as cavalry, was restricted. But the right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a great many of the highest commanders consider that the cavalry very much more than pulled their weight as a mobile reserve. No other force you could have put in their place could possibly have fulfilled that function so admirably.
Colonel L. WARD: If that is so, why is it that whenever this mobile force has to be sent from one place to another, it is usually sent in motor omnibuses or lorries?
Brigadier-General WIGAN: I was not aware that that was the case. The shock tactics of cavalry are one of their most important functions. People say that aeroplanes will take the eyes and ears of the army in place of the cavalry, but I do not think you will find any responsible commanders agreeing with that view. Aeroplanes may take their place to a certain extent for distant reconnaissances, but no commander dare allow an aeroplane to cover his immediate advance. It is easy for an enemy to hide from an aeroplane where they could not do it from cavalry. Another function of cavalry is to push home a success, and to convert an enemy defeat into a run. There is no arm that can cover the retreat of one's own side like the cavalry. In the seizing of tactical positions no army can take the place of the cavalry. In the last advance to Damascus General Allenby had three corps, two infantry and one cavalry corps, and by having that cavalry corps, he was
2002
able to cut the line of retreat of the Turkish Army and so annihilate three Turkish Armies which led to the capitulation of the Turks, and materially hastened the Armistice with Germany.
I have tried to bring before the House very shortly a few reasons in regard to the value of cavalry, and what high commanders think of them, but if you are to abolish your cavalry regiments, I really think the War Office decision is wrong. You have got three Household Cavalry regiments. I have asked questions about them in the House, and I am fully aware of their fine traditions and efficiency, but you cannot get away from the fact that those regiments cost more than an ordinary line cavalry regiment, and the Secretary for War admitted that in answer to my question. The Household Cavalry spend two-thirds of their time in London. They are either at Knights-bridge, Regent's Park, or Windsor. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks London is a good place to train cavalry? With regard to the Household Cavalry, they are, as a rule, big men, and weigh more than the ordinary cavalry men. When I asked the Secretary for War whether he thought heavy men were as efficient as lighter men in the cavalry, he said that it was a debatable point. The hon. and gallant Member who proposed this Motion said that for every pound you put on the back of a horse you take a year off its life. A light Hussar would weigh about 10 stone 7 lbs., and would represent with equipment about 18 stone, whereas a Household cavalryman with equipment would represent about 23 stone. On the grounds of economy, training, and efficiency for war, I would like to ask why one of these three Household Cavalry regiments should not take the place of a line regiment, and why should one of them not be abolished or converted into a line cavalry regiment?
The previous speaker spoke about the training of the cavalry and the way they did their work, but you cannot improvise cavalry, and it takes three years to make an efficient cavalryman. You cannot rapidly train infantry, but when you have trained a cavalryman you can make him straight a way into an efficient infantryman, whereas you cannot take your infantryman and convert him into a cavalryman in so short a time. It was found during the War that the rank and file of the cavalry

2003
were more adaptable for machine guns and tanks than any other arm, and when you come to the higher commands, I think the cavalry found a greater proportion than any other arm of the whole Service.
In view of that it seems additionally surprising that you should decide to do away with 32 out of 42 yeomanry regiments. I am not going to underrate the splendid work the yeomanry did in the War, but the cost of 14 yeomanry regiments is only the same is one cavalry regiment. As you cannot train cavalry quickly, surely it is necessary to have some auxiliary cavalry beyond the ten you mean to keep. If that is so, I would point out that for the cost of one regular cavalry regiment you could maintain 14 yeomanry regiments. Therefore to maintain another division of yeomanry would be a true economy, and it would add to the efficiency of the Army. Lastly I would submit that the best people to judge as to the policy of the Government in reducing the cavalry units, whether regular yeomanry or Indian cavalry, are those who have held the highest commands in the field. For this reason I should like to ask the Secretary for War if he will say whether before coming to this decision he consulted our greatest commanders, Lord Haig and Lord Allenby.
Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: I wish very briefly to support those who have spoken in favour of the Motion. When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in March, I listened to it with a considerable amount of sympathy, because I knew the incessant cry there was for economy and I was aware of the pressure which was put upon him and on the Army Council to produce some reduction in the Army Estimates. I admit that I was not at the moment fully seized of the staggering reduction which was proposed in the mounted arm, not only in the cavalry and yeomanry, but even more so in the Indian Army, and I must confess that I think these reductions, coming together and at once, approach very nearly the danger line. The hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend) spoke of the advantages which cavalry afford in winning a battle. They not only aid in winning battles but what is even more important, they help in avoiding battles and consequently in avoiding loss of human life. The South
2004
African war has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Brigg (Lieut.-Colonel McLean) and though, of course, South Africa, as compared with the Great War, was comparatively nothing, still I think we must visualise the situation as it stood at that time. When Lord Methuen started on his Western advance he had to fight the battles of Modder River and Maggersfontein, and I have seen a letter he wrote just after Maggersfontein in which he complained of having had with him only one cavalry regiment, the 9th Lancers, which by constant scouting and patrolling was so worn out that they could barely go beyond a walk, and he added that if he had only had three cavalry regiments he might have outflanked the enemy both at Modder Eiver and Maggersfontein. These battles were very costly in the matter of casualties, and that is a thing we ought to remember.
The War Office, and indeed the Army generally, are much too inclined always to run at a tangent and to be guided by the experience of the last War. They said that nothing but what happened in the South African War would ever occur again, and, later on, they declared that nothing but what happened on the Western Front could ever happen again. I think it is exceedingly possible that in the future we may have campaigns of something in the nature of the South African War or the Egyptian Campaign, where mounted troops would be af great value and tanks could not be used. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be inclined to deal with this matter in a spirit of compromise. That spirit is very much in the air at the present moment. We find it mentioned in the papers every morning in connection with various great disputes, and I would ask him to consider whether, instead of abolishing all four cavalry regiments, he cannot see his way to abolish only two, and those the two junior regiments, which would go far to meet some of the objections which many of us entertain to the scheme.
10.0 P.M.
Major WATTS MORGAN: I rise on behalf of those with whom I am associated on these Benches to offer our support to the Government, and to the Secretary of State for War, in resisting the principle contained in this Motion. We offer a vigorous opposition on principle to any departure being made, because we feel that no one has talked more to other people than have the

2005
representatives of this nation upon the absolute and imperative necessity of reducing the burden of our present armaments. Unless we carry that out in the policy laid down by the Minister for War we shall be told that we have been talking with our tongues in our cheeks, that our professions were false, and that we were full of insincerity. We have throughout the land declared that our forces should be reduced to the lowest possible minimum. I am in entire disagreement with the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion as to the results obtained, at any rate on the Western Front, in the last War. I was a witness, unfortunately, of the failure of our cavalry at Cambrai and in other places. Of course, the fiascos which were brought about were undoubtedly due to the change in the method of warfare carried on on that front. I do not claim to be any authority on military matters, but I can honestly say that if the war on the West ern Front proved anything it demonstrated beyond all doubt the utter futility of cavalry being employed in modern warfare. We shall have in future to depend as far as we can upon new machinery, on new explosives, and on science, and I do not think there will be the scope for cavalry in the future that there has been in the past. We know that they are very ornamental and pleasing to see on parade, but we hope the Government will not agree to this motion, because if it does it will have no real answer to the charge with regard to our excessive expenditure. One despairs of the attempts made from time to time in relation to the spending of money. We know our exchanges have tumbled down, and that our export trade has come almost to a standstill. We know for a certainty that the, next Budget will be a startling revelation to all of us. We are at the present moment living under a £1,200,000,000 Budget, and I do trust that the majority of this House, by their votes, will convey the view that we must do everything possible to reduce expenditure in this direction.
Colonel BURN: As one who has served all his life in the cavalry, I wish to add my voice in support of this Motion. If we are going to reduce our already very small force of cavalry, it is well we should
2006
know on what ground the reduction is going to be made, and if it is going to be on grounds of economy or an grounds of utility. If the former, how much are we going to save by wiping out these four regiments, the yeomanry, and the native cavalry regiments in India? If it is on the ground of utility, is all the organisation of our Army for the future to be based on the experience of the Great War? It is very unsafe, when you have already a comparatively small body of cavalry, to break up historic regiments which have done splendid service ever since they were first raised. You wipe them entirely out of the British Army. You do not keep so much as even a cadre. If you did, it might be possible to form a regiment comparatively easily, but if the regiment entirely disappears, and you have to begin again and form it from the very foundation, I know from my own experience the difficulty and the great expense that are entailed. I had the honour of raising a regiment for service in South Africa, and when I did so I had the advantage of the depots of four of the Scottish yeomanry regiments. That made my task very much easier, and the regiment, when formed, by its service in the South African War more than justified itself. On my return home, I raised, at the request of the War Office, a new regiment of yeomanry, the Westminster Dragoons. That regiment I raised from the very foundation. Indeed, I was the regiment, and from myself I had to form everything: and I know the extraordinary amount of time, trouble, and expenditure that has to be put into it before you can make a regiment efficient.
You are going to do away with some 30 or more of the yeomanry regiments of this country. The cost of those yeomanry regiments is comparatively small, and I maintain, in regard to them and the four cavalry regiments, that it is more than possible to save in other direetions, so that the taxpayer shall not be burdened by their remaining in the Army List of this country. I should like to know if a report has been sent in by the military attaches at the capitals of the Continental nations. Does my right hon. Friend know what is being done regarding reduction in France, Germany, Italy, and the other Continental countries, remembering always that the British cavalry regiment is a very small unit when

2007
compared with the cavalry unit of the Continental nations? Anyone who has had experience with cavalry knows that it cannot be improvised, and I think that we ought to a certain extent to be guided by what Continental nations are doing. But we, with our world-wide responsibilities, have a different task from any Continental nation. From my experience of India, extending over a period of 10 years, I am certain that no other country is more suited by its features to the action of cavalry, and the upkeep of cavalry in that country is far less expensive than in Europe. The natives are natural riders, and in all minor campaigns, as, for instance, in Egypt and Mesopotamia, cavalry has proved and always will prove itself to be invaluable. We know that mechanical transport is coming very much to the front, and that great improvements are being made each year, but, in the scouting work that is necessary in every open country, no tank can do what cavalry can do—no tank can be as mobile as cavalry, nor can the examination of any locality be made in the same way by a tank as it can by cavalry. Those are points which are very strongly in favour of the retention of cavalry. Experience has proved that British cavalry is the most highly trained arm in the world. An hon. and gallant Gentleman just now spoke of cavalry in a very derogatory tone, but he can have known very little about the part played by the British cavalry in the early days of the War after the retreat from Mons. Had it not been for the part played by the British cavalry in those days, the tale now would have been a very different one. It is very galling to me to hear any hon. Gentleman, knowing practically nothing about cavalry, run it down and base his remarks on something that he has been told or has heard casually.
Major MORGAN: If that remark refers to me, I should like to point out that I was present there, and that I said that I knew very little about cavalry or about military matters generally.
Colonel BURN: I was not referring to the hon. and gallant Member, but to an hon. Gentleman below the gangway who is no longer in the House. If the hon. and gallant Member feels that the cap fits, I am afraid he must have a guilty conscience. Then there is another rôle
2008
in which cavalry has always proved invaluable, and that is when it is necessary to call in troops in the event of civil strife. Our body of cavalry is small enough at present, and is spread very widely. There are a certain number of regiments in our own country, and others in India and South Africa. The number of cavalry that we retain in England, Scotland, and Ireland is comparatively small, and the regiments are placed more or less stategically. 'It will be a very great pity if that force is made less than it is. Cavalry is necessary for the duties we have to perform in various parts of the Empire, and the name of the British cavalry stands high. The behaviour of the British cavalryman, wherever he may be, has always been, on the whole, very satisfactory. Whatever task our cavalry has had to perform has always been well done, and I know that the strongest advocate of our cavalry is the former Commander-in-Chief in France, Lord Haig. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider once, twice, and thrice before these regiments are once and for all wiped out. Can he not leave a cadre of each regiment so that in case of necessity the regiment can be formed with comparative rapidity? As long as you have a cadre, it is not such a difficult matter to form the regiment. You have something to start with. But if you extinguish the regiment altogether, it is a very different affair. When you choose the regiments that are to be wiped out, why do you take a very old historic regiment, whtin another might certainly be taken in its place? When my hon. and learned Friend (Sir John Butcher) moves his Amendment for the rejection of the 5th Lancers, I should like very strongly to support him.
Major KELLEY: I should not have risen but for what I consider one of the most unfortunate remarks ever made in this House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee), who said cavalry required more intellect than any other portion of the British Army. I repudiate that remark with all the Parliamentary language you, Sir, would allow me to use if I dared say what I would like to say about it. I held a commission in the Royal Engineers, and I have yet to learn that the Royal Engineers do not require as much intellect as the cavalry, and I have yet to

2009
learn that the infantry do not require as much intellect as the cavalry, because there is no body of officers and men who suffered more in the War and had to bear the brunt of it more than the infantry, and I repudiate with everything that is in me that the cavalry require more intellect than the infantry. A great many of the cavalry regiments were turned into infantry in the War, because cavalry were found to be of no use. My hon. Friends go back to Waterloo and the South African War, but there is no comparison. The place of cavalry has to-day very largely been taken by aeroplanes and science, and new inventions have taught us that the cavalry cannot be of the same use. They could not be of use in the War because of the trenches. It is an insult to the Service that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should say the cavalry require more intellect than any other arm of the British Service.
Colonel Sir A. SPROT: The decision which apparently has been arrived at by the Army Council to reduce four of our historic cavalry regiments, in addition to the large reductions in the same arm which are proposed both in India and in the yeomanry, is a very serious one. We must give the Army Council credit for having well considered the matter, but I think the House of Commons also has a right to examine the question, and to come to some decision upon the point. There are two reasons that are given. The first is economy. I am all for economy, but what is the amount of economy that is going to be effected? It means a saving of £400,000 a year. Due hon. and gallant Member spoke about a Budget of £1,200,000,000. What is a saving of £400,000 a year out of a Budget of £1,200,000,000? It would not carry us very far in the way of economy. Other hon. Members have pointed out many other ways in which a similar or even a much greater economy could easily be effected by the Government. Some pointed to the Civil Service and some pointed to the staff. I can make a slight suggestion without going very far from the subject with which we are dealing to-night. Great economy could be effected in the Remount Department. If you compare the cost of the Remount Department at the present time with what it was before the War, you will find that the cost has considerably more than doubled. It employs a large number of officers at a very
2010
high rate of pay, and most of them are retired officers in receipt of pension, so that their services could easily be dispensed with without reducing them to abject poverty. The cost of the Remount Department to-day is, I believe, double the saving proposed to be effected by the abolition of these four cavalry regiments.
I suggest that in dealing with remount matters we ought to make more use than we have hitherto done of the Veterinary Department. I saw during the War in France large veterinary hospitals accommodating 5,000 sick horses. Some of these horses became fit; but they were not sent out to the front from the veterinary hospitals. They had to be marched or conveyed by train to the Remount Department some miles in the rear, where there was another set of officers to look after them and feed them for a considerable time, and then from the Remount Department they were sent up to the front when they were wanted. My suggestion is, and I believe it has been made at the War Office, that if there was more co-operation between the Remount Department and the Veterinary Department a great deal of saving in war time, and probably in peace time, could probably be effected.
So much for economy. I will pass to the reason that has been given with respect to the disbanding of these cavalry regiments, namely, that the mounted branches are not so useful nowadays as they used to be and that these regiments can be more easily spared than other parts of the Service. There is no saying what sort of war we are going to be in for next. Our Empire is very large and we have very many vulnerable points. I suppose the argument which will be put forward by the Army Council will be something like this: "We intend to provide 6 Infantry Divisions, 14 Territorial Divisions, and 2 Cavalry Divisions, and these 4 Cavalry Regiments which we propose to abolish do not fit in with that scheme in any conceivable way" For what reason is that particular sealed pattern force kept up? For what possible war could such a force as that be required in the future? If you had a war anything resembling the last war you would require a great deal more than these divisions, whereas we might have many small expeditions for which this particular form of force might not fit in. We cannot say

2011
what form the next campaign is likely to take nor can we tell what will be the class of country in which it is to take place nor the style of fighting in which we shall be engaged. In these circumstances it is a great pity to abolish any unit of the present force.
The mounted branches, I submit, are of the greatest possible importance, as every trained and instructed soldier will be ready to agree. I deprecate entirely the throwing of reflections from one branch of the Service to the other. Members of one branch should recognise the usefulness, traditions, bravery, and skill of the other branches. Let us all do our duty in the branch to which we belong. Those who belong to the mounted branch have never taken part in any criticism with regard to the performance of the infantry or any other branch of the Service. We should look at the matter from the purely utilitarian point of view. I was pleased to hear in the last debate on the subject the very strong and thoughtful speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely). He gave the greatest credit to the utility in the future of the mounted branches. You must not look on the cavalryman as making charges such as you see depicted in the illustrated London papers. He must be prepared for that sort of thing, but he must be prepared to give up other things as well, and he is able to do them. For instance, he is able to fight on foot and to act as mounted infantry just as well as the best of mounted infantry, and he has frequently done so. The chief weapon of the mounted forces is their mobility. They can be taken up and applied at any points, and it is necessary to have them, as every instructed soldier knows.
I may refer to what happened at the outset of the South African War, to which an hon. and gallant Member has already alluded. Lord Methuen's force consisted of the very finest troops which we could send out from this country. He had the Guards Division and the Highland Brigade and many other distinguished regiments, but he had only one cavalry regiment. His mission was to relieve Kimberley. In three months he fought three or four very tough battles with the Boers, but he finally came to such a pass that he could no longer advance. Lord
2012
Roberts went out and reorganised the plan of campaign. General French's cavalry division was assembled at the Modder River, and in four days, and with very small losses indeed, that cavalry division effected the relief of Kimberley, and two or three days afterwards stopped Kronje in his retreat to Bloemfontein, and held them there until the infantry came up and surrounded him and finally made him surrender. If we follow that campaign we find that there were many other occasions on which the cavalry, the mounted forces, showed their extreme utility. How are we going to know that we shall not have a similar campaign in open country in the near future? If we refer to the Great War we recall that a great deal has been said about the good work done by the cavalry. During the retreat from Mons they covered our flank all the way under the direction of Lord Allenby, and I have always heard my friends in the British cavalry say that they had the greatest contempt for the German cavalry whenever there was occasion to meet them. It has already been said that at the first Battle of Ypres, the cavalry came up mounted—they got there on their horses that time and were not conveyed by lorries—and they defended the line about Messines and Wyschaete, and were the only line which at one time stood between the Germans and defeat.
That sort of warfare was, of course, unfavourable for the use of the cavalry. It was exceptional in that there were no flanks. Trench warfare is no novelty. If you read the history of Marlborough's wars you will find they had trench warfare and bombs and so forth very much the same in those days. But the characteristic of the Western Front in the Great War was that there was no flank. One flank rested on the sea and the other on Switzerland. There were, therefore, no opportunities for the cavalry. It was practically a siege, and you do not expect cavalry to do much in a siege. The mistake made by our commanders was that they were too anxious to push the cavalry through. You could not expect to do that unless you had a very wide and very deep break-through of the enemy's lines, because naturally the Germans would have more than one line of trench which it would be necessary to surmount. The cavalry were used all through that part of the campaign as a mobile reserve, and their utility in that

2013
capacity has been acknowledged by all the Generals under whom they served. When the German break-through took place in March, 1918, our infantry—one cannot blame them—were driven back by overwhelming numbers, and having been a long time stationary in the trenches they were unable to manoeuvre as trained troops should have done. The cavalry was moved up, and formed a very useful support and rallying point for our retiring infantry. I would like to read to the House a few words from Earl Haig's despatch dealing with that particular matter. He said on 24th March, 1918:
"Throughout the whole of the fighting in this area very gallant work was done, both mounted and dismounted, by units of the Second and Third Cavalry Divisions in support of our own and the French infantry. The work of the mounted troops in particular was invaluable, demonstrating in marked fashion the importance of the part which cavalry have still to play in modern war. Without the assistance of mounted troops, skilfully handled and gallantly led, the enemy could scarcely have been prevented from breaking through the long and thinly held front before fresh reinforcements had time to arrive."
That is the opinion of Lord Haig upon the matter. We ought to consider the campaign as a whole. I do not wish to go into-the question of the Eastern or Western fronts; that is too big a question for me. We ought to look upon the whole as one single line extending from the English Channel, along the North of Italy, through the Balkans, and so on to Mesopotamia. It was practically one continuous line, and it was our object to break through somewhere. I am reminded of the saying of the American general, Sheridan, when he stood alongside General Buller at Oolenso. He said, "Say, General, ain't there some way round?" For years we attempted unsuccessfully to break through, and finally we did break through; but where did we break through first? The first and most important break-through was that effected by Lord Allenby in Palestine, and the mounted troops enabled him to attain that wonderful success by which he crumpled up the Turkish Army.
I have said enough to show that the mounted arm is of importance, and it behoves the Army Council to think, not once nor twice, but many times, before it comes to such a decision as is, apparently, in contemplation. When the last Debate on this subject took place I was upstairs attending to some Scottish
2014
business, so I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and when I came into the House I was unaware of what had happened, but I heard hon. Members talking about a reduction in cavalry regiments. I did not know, what had happened, but terrible misappre hensions entered my mind. I wondered could it be possible that the distinguished old regiment, in which I had the honour to serve for some time, was one of those selected for disbandment. I made inquiries, and was glad to find there was no danger of that, but from my feelings at that moment I can realise the feelings of those who are now connected, or have been at any time connected, with those regiments unfortunate enough to be included in this proposal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter if he possibly can. I ask him to take up the suggestion that if it is necessary really to effect some economy in this line, he should keep alive the names and the cadres of these regiments in the Army List, because we have often seen regiments and battalions reduced, and we have after a short time seen them raised again. The time may very shortly come when the country will desire to reincorporate these regiments.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): This Motion has given rise to a most interesting Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir K. Fraser), who moved it in a very entertaining and forceful speech, has set me a task which I shall endeavour to fulfil. I am handicapped in some ways, because unlike so many hon. and gallant Members who have taken part in this Debate, I have not had the fortune to be in a cavalry regiment, but I shall endeavour to justify my opposition to the Motion, not by criticising the work of the cavalry or by running them down in any sense. I have far too high an opinion of their past and their future services to attempt to justify my opposition on that ground, but I shall oppose the Motion, and on two grounds—on the ground of policy, due to the lessons of the War, and on the ground of economy. First of all, let me take the lessons of the War. I am very far from suggesting that the War has proved that cavalry will not be required in the future, but we have not got an unlimited sum to spend, and it is our duty to spend it in

2015
such a way that the fighting forces of the country, taken as a whole, shall be as strong as they can possibly be for the expenditure which is devoted to them.
Let me first deal in a very few words with the question of the reduction of the yeomanry. A reduction of yeomanry from cavalry is being carried out, it is true, but that reduction is being made largely by the conversion of the yeomanry regiments into artillery. Can anybody say that artillery is not as much required—I will put it no higher than that for the moment—as is yeomanry cavalry? I have not the slightest doubt that the real answer is that the artillery is even more required and even more necessary to be strengthened than the yeomanry cavalry regiments. Hon. and gallant Members have spoken as if it was proposed to abolish the cavalry altogether. That is not the proposal. The proposal is to reduce them from 31 to 27 regiments, or a reduction of four regiments. The War, as I am advised—I speak as a layman, but on the other hand, I am blessed with very learned and experienced advisers—has proved the vulnerability of cavalry through machine guns and through air forces to such an extent that this is certain, that there will be occasions in the future where cavalry cannot be used because of the machine guns and the air forces, and if you want to get the same amount of force you have got to choose some other arm, some mechanical means, which will be better protected against these particular forms of attack, and so it is intended, not to reduce the general mobility of the Army, as has been suggested, but to replace the four cavalry regiments by other mobile forces, namely, tanks and armoured motor-cars. There is, therefore, no refusal to realise the real lesson of the War, that the Army should be mobile, but what is happening is that a different form of mobility is being chosen because of the lesson of the War, namely, the increased vulnerability of the cavalry.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) said we might be guided to some extent by Continental examples. If that test is applied—and I have no objection to applying it—we find that, whereas we are reducing our regular cavalry by something under 13 per cent., France is reducing hers by
2016
just under 30 per cent., and Italy is reducing hers by just about 20 per cent. So that we are, in fact, not going to the full extent that either France or Italy is going. That, I agree, is not conclusive, because the requirements of our Army are not on all fours with either France or Italy. I do not want to put it too high. We may be engaged in a class of warfare for which neither Italy nor France may need to provide, and for which it is; essential for us to provide, and that may well account for the difference in the amount of the reductions that are being, made. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee), keen advocate though he is for the cavalry—and who wonders? His distinguished connection with a very distinguished regiment, which is one of those doomed, would excuse much greater warmth of language than he thought it necessary to use to-day—he had to admit in an aside that large numbers of the cavalry were used as infantry during the War, and he very properly praised them. But used how? As infantrymen in the trenches, and he rightly claimed that they made fine soldiers on foot. Yes, but they were not being used as cavalry, and they had had to go through that long and expensive training which would have provided two, or even three, infantrymen at the same cost.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: That was for a Continental war.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope I have not over-stated it, but I was really quoting what my hon. and gallant Friend said. I agree it was for a Continental war, and I admit that that is not the only war for which we have got to provide. I hope I have made it quite clear that this policy is not based upon any idea of belittling the enormous services that the cavalry officer and man have rendered, not only during the last War, but during all history. It is not based upon that at all. It is based upon other considerations. It has been also stated that this economy which is proposed is, after all, only £400,000, or 6 per cent, of the total expenditure on the Army, and that this is a false economy, and that savings ought to be made in other directions. It is noticeable that economy is never right in the particular arm or the particular object that we have most

2017
at heart. It must be so. You could not expect the mounted arms to be willing to admit that they should be reduced even by £400,000. It is suggested that the same amount might be saved in other directions. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite suggested that motor cars were extravagantly used. He quoted a case—I am glad to say it was a year ago—where some officer of not very high rank drove about in a Government motor car, and went on a Government horse for a ride in the Park. If that were ever done, it certainly has not been done in recent months, and I should have doubted whether it had even been done as recently as a year ago. The most rigid economy has been enforced, and is practised day by day now, and such an incident as he quoted could not now obtain.
Another hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "Look at remounts, there you are spending £800,000 a year." The figure surprised me. I cannot carry in my mind what the actual cost of remounts is, but, certainly, that shall be looked into. During the course of this Debate I have noted a good many very useful suggestions where inquiry may be made and, perhaps, economy effected. Undoubtedly, we will do that, but that is no reason why, if policy dictates that it is possible to save £400,000 upon cavalry, that that saving itself should not be made. The other question about which my hon. and gallant Friend waxed very warm was, the choice of the regiments. I hope he will sympathise with me—
Brigadier-General WIGAN: I do.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is invidious enough to have to make such a choice at any time and to have to carry through the destruction of honourable and ancient regiments; but it is worse still that there should be a controversy as to which regiments should be retained and which should go. Let me repeat the principle upon which we are acting. It is necessary to reduce two Hussar regiments and two Lancer regiments. I will come to the question of linking up in a moment, but let me deal with the thing in my own way. There is no question about which of the two Hussar regiments it must be—the 19th and 20th. The dispute arises over the Lancer regiments, but can it really be said that the 21st and 5th are not the two junior regiments?
Sir J. BUTCHER: Yes, certainly.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Baronet thinks that they are not the two junior regiments?
Sir J. BUTCHER: Most certainly; Lancer regiments, no.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is what I wanted to know. I know what the argument of the hon. Baronet is, that these are not the four junior cavalry regiments, but that is not the point I am dealing with at the moment.
Sir J. BUTCHER: From one point of view, which was fully expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, the 5th Lancers are the senior Lancer regiment in the Service.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would like to deal with it, because I think on proper consideration that cannot be claimed. The 5th Lancer Regiment, as I stated during the Estimates Debate, were re-raised in 1858. There might be some controversy as to what the effect of that Order, to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, was, but there can be no doubt that they were re-raised, and the establishment started as from 3rd February, 1858. They were not in the Army List for 59 years; there was a gap in their history for 59 years. I do not want to refer to the gap except to state that they did not exist as a regiment for 59 years, and if you take the time of continuous service from the re-raising, they are clearly, next to the 21st Lancers, the junior of the Lancer regiments.
I believe the four regiments that have been chosen are the right ones—the two junior Hussar regiments and the two junior Lancer regiments. The hon. and gallant Member says "Why do you make it two Lancer regiments and two Hussar regiments? Why not three Hussar regiments and one Lancer regiment?" It has been suggested that if that were done it would be perfectly easy to convert one of the other regiments into a Hussar regiment in order to get equality. I want to deal with that argument. It is not nearly so easy to do as hon. and gallant Members seem to think. As they know, reinforcements for cavalry regiments abroad are, and have to be, trained in the similar regiments at home. For that

2019
reason there is the linking system in the cavalry regiments. The difficulty of converting a Hussar into a Lancer regiment it is not merely that of the consent of officers and men; you have to remember that you will be affecting five regiments instead of four if that course were followed. It is not only that you have to reclothe them: the difficulty is greater than that. The Lancers are a corps and the Hussars are a corps. These enlist into the corps, and we sent the men of one Lancer regiment into another; not out of a Lancer corps into a Hussar regiment. I am not talking of war-time, but of peace time, and whether the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is feasible or practical, I am afraid hon. and gallant Gentlemen have not realised the difficulty of converting an Hussar regiment into a Lancer regiment and vice versa. They must admit that we have got to continue the linking system, and that if one cavalry regiment is likely to be abroad we must keep equality of lancers and hussars, and conversion of the one into the other is fraught with the greatest difficulty.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Was not the 21st Lancers converted from Hussars into Lancers quite recently?
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, not quite recently, twenty odd years ago, I think it was. But it does not affect the point. There are not only the difficulties of the serving men but of the reserves. There are the reserves of a corps, and they can only be called up for the purpose of serving in the corps. On the question of the choice of regiments there is, I think, no dispute. If you take the date of re-raising the 5th Lancers and the 21st Lancers they are the junior lancer regiments; and there is no question that the 19th and 20th Hussars are the junior regiments. I am going now to give my
hon. and gallant Friend an opportunity of correcting a sentence that I am sure he would wish to do. He said there was some officer in the War Office connected with the 18th Hussars. I am here to answer for the War Office. My hon. And gallant Friend cannot wish to throw any blame upon any officer in the War Office who is not here to defend himself—
Sir K. FRASER: I would do the same.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am perfectly certain my hon. and gallant Friend would wish to withdraw—
Sir K. FRASER: If I were in the same position I would do the same.
Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend has less than his usual forbearance. He is entitled to attack me, but not junior officers in the War Office, who are not able to answer for themselves. These two regiments of Lancers and Hussars have been fairly selected. Much as we regret the necessity; much as I regret the necessity for reducing regiments with such a distinguished history, officered by such gallant officers, and with good, gallant men in their ranks, it has to be done, and because of that I am unable to accept the Motion.
Sir K. FRASER Sir K. FRASER rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Question put,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the proposal to reduce the Mobile Forces of the Crown, and especially the disbandment of four British cavalry regiments, is contrary to the experience gained in the late War and inimical to the best interests of the defence of the Empire"
The House divided: Ayes, 34; Noes,143.

Division No. 81.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Hopkins, John W. W.

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel-Martin

Lort-Williams, J.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Barker, Major Robert H.

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

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Barnett, Major R. W.

Macquisten, F. A.

Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

Brown, Captain D. C.

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

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

Butcher, Sir John George

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Goff, Sir R. Park

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Gretton, Colonel John

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

Major-General Townshend and

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmond

Sir Keith Fraser.

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

Rankin, Captain James S.

Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

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

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

Armitage, Robert

Hayday, Arthur

Remer, J. R.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

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

Hinds, John

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Betterton, Henry B.

Hirst, G. H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bigland, Alfred

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Hood, Joseph

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Howard, Major S. G.

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Bruton, Sir James

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Jameson, J. Gordon

Sitch, Charles H.

Cairns, John

Jephcott, A. R.

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Casey, T. w.

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

Johnstone, Joseph

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Churchman, Sir Arthur

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

Sturrock, J. Leng

Clough, Robert

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Sugden, W. H.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Sutherland, Sir William

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Kenyon, Barnet

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Coote, Colin Reith (isle of Ely)

Kidd, James

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kiley, James D.

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

Cowan, Sir W. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

Tryon, Major George Clement

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Turton, E. R.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Waddington, R.

Edge, Captain William

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

Wallace, J.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

Lynn, R. J.

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

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Mallalieu, F. W.

Weston, Colonel John W.

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Whitla, Sir William

Evans, Ernest

Matthews, David

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Mills, John Edmund

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

Forrest, Walter

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

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

Galbraith, Samuel

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Gardiner, James

Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

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

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Mosley, Oswald

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Gillis, William

Murchison, C. K.

Wintringham, T.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wise, Frederick

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Neal, Arthur

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

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

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Gregory, Holman

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

Greig, Colonel James William

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grundy, T. W.

Parker, James

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

Wilson.

Hailwood, Augustine

Question put, and agreed to.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice requires that a vacancy should be filled in the number of puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those Judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such a vacancy accordingly in pursuance of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910."
This is not a case for many words. As the House, is aware, when the Act of 1910 was passed there was a serious congestion of business in the King's Bench Division By the provisions of that Act, the number of puisne Judges was raised from 15 to 17, subject, however, to the proviso that
2022
when their number was 15 or more no vacancy should be filled without an Address from both Houses of Parliament. There matters remained for ten years. On the 16th June last year, I had to move in this House that, in pursuance of the provisions of that Act, two vacancies should be filled. The case was strong in 1910; it was far stronger in 1920; it is still stronger to-day. What has happened is that a vacancy has occurred by reason of the appointment of Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence, as he was, to be Lord Chief Justice of England, and what is now proposed is not to authorise the appointment of an additional Judge, but only to fill up the vacancy so created; so that the number will still be, and will only be, the number authorised by the Statute of 1910.
May I just mention one or two figures as supporting my proposition that, if the case was strong in 1910, and stronger in

2023
1920, it is stronger still to-day? The figure for the number of causes entered for trial in the King's Bench Division at the beginning of Michaelmas term last year was 973. At the beginning of Hilary term this year it was 1,124; at the beginning of Easter term this year it was 1,390. The number of causes entered in the King's Bench Division when this House adopted the Resolution in June last year was 709. In other words, the numbers are, roughly, twice as large.
I turn to one other matter, and one only. As the House is aware from the former discussion, no small part of the congestion of business in the Courts is due to the great increase in the number of petitions for divorce—an increase not only to be attributed to some consequences of the War, but also in no small measure, I have no doubt, to be attributed to the facilities which are given, and properly given, to poor persons to enable them to obtain the divorce to which they are entitled. At the beginning of Michaelmas term last year the number of petitions for divorce was 2,628. At the beginning of Hilary term this year it was 2,459; at the beginning of Easter term it was 2,320. The corresponding figure at the date of the Resolution for the appointment of additional judges in June of last year was 1,751. In other words, the case is stronger now than it was then, and it is stronger in spite of the exceptional efforts which have been and are being made to reduce the number of these pending causes. I would refer in a sentence to the public-spirited work of Lord Mersey, who, at his considerable age—in point of years at any rate—and at his own suggestion, has resumed work on the judicial bench.
I am conscious that when a proposal of this kind is made there is always someone who will refer to the length of the Long Vacation. I desire to anticipate what may be said upon that head by making a statement which I am authorised by the Lord Chancellor to make, namely, that he has under consideration a scheme whereby the facilities for trial during the Long Vacation may be increased for those litigants who desire such a trial. The matter was discussed with the Judges during the course of last year, and it will be further considered with them, so that any arrangement made may be put into force by the
2024
Long Vacation of this year. It is not every litigant who desires to have his cause tried during August, September, or in the early days of October. And so far as urgent matters are concerned, certain provisions already exist. It is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to increase those facilities. In these circumstances I submit that the case for this Resolution is overwhelming.
Captain THORPE: I rise not in any sense to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, because I am in entire agreement with him, but to express a hope that this new Judge when appointed will be properly paid. My friends on my right spend a considerable amount of their time in propaganda, I do not say improperly, in demanding that the working man shall be paid a proper wage. That principle seems to be accepted, at any rate in their ranks, as applied to a man who works with his hands. My submission is that a man who works with his brains, and a man who is so assiduous and so constantly occupied as a High Court Judge in a position of great dignity, should have a proper salary. This is a question which obviously cannot be put forward by the Judge himself. It is one, perhaps, which can only be laid before the House by a member of the Bar who is so far junior that his own prospects of immediate emolument are a distant possibility. He has no personal object to serve. At present a puisne Judge is paid £5,000 a year. After contributing to the Treasury—and I think it is a fair assumption that these gentlemen pay a proper Income Tax return, though one could not say it of everybody—they are left with about £3,000 on which to preserve the rank and dignity of one of His Majesty's Judges. If one considers the fact that the cost of living has increased 140 per cent, since pre-War days, we are faced with the proposition that a Judge, who frequently in the course of his duties has to represent the King on circuit, who always has to occupy a certain social position, has to live on something less than £1,500 a year. An hon. Member says it is quite enough. In my submission, it is a great deal less than a business man would pay to his chief managing clerk. That has an immediate effect not only on the individual, but on the type of man that is procurable for this office. I would not

2025
for a minute suggest that the effect of paying a Judge a small salary has any effect on his administering justice. The training of the legal profession is such that by the time a gentleman is in a position to accept high judicial office he is entirely beyond a suggestion of that kind. There is no longer any inducement of a practical kind to a man who is making large emoluments as a leader at the Bar to accept this honour. To be one of His Majesty's Judges is one of the highest honours to which a man 'can aspire, and, when it means changing a salary of perhaps £30,000 or £40,000 a year inside the Bar—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, every penny of which is well earned.
Major WATTS MORGAN: Where is the profiteer now?
Captain THORPE: And is paid by a willing public. If they object they can obtain counsel at a cheaper rate. To change that large salary for life at £5,000 a year limits the number of people who are prepared to give up the substance for the honour. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that this is a very earnest suggestion and a pious hope. I hope that in this matter my Labour friends will support me, inasmuch as in my part of the country they spend a considerable amount of time in advocating the principle that a man should get every penny that he earns and at the same time that he should earn every penny that he gets. That is the position of the Judges. No one can say that they are not hard-working. No one can say that the British judiciary, while the worst paid, I believe, in Europe— [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]—very nearly. My own experience of foreign courts is limited. The hon. Member, who has had more experience, will perhaps enlighten me. The fact remains that the salary at present paid to a High Court Judge is totally inadequate, and at the first possible opportunity, not as an extravagance, but as a proper meed of justice, it ought to be raised to a fitting salary.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I do not think this Debate ought to finish without one word of congratulation to the Lord Chancellor on the prospects of our having cases carried on in the Long Vacation. That is a most hopeful proposal. As to the salaries of Judges, I hope that their salaries, like all fixed salaries, will have
2026
less taxation upon them before many years are over, and that they may be better. At the present time it is quite impossible for the Government or any body else to suggest increases of salary all round. [HON. MEMBERS: "Civil servants!"] Yes, but they would not get it now.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: They got it the other day.
Sir C. WARNER: They would not have it voted to-day. It is a great improvement that there should be some work done in the Long Vacation, and the Lord Chancellor ought to have the thanks of hon. Members for the innovation.
Mr. BETTERTON: The Attorney-General told us of the great arrears in the courts at the present time, arrears which mean an absolute denial of justice, but he has not satisfied the House that there are not other steps which ought to be taken, which have not been taken, to deal with this very serious situation. He has told us, and we welcome it, that arrangements are to be made for dealing with certain cases in the Long Vacation; but I suggest to him and to the House that the time has come when the House might definitely insist that the Long Vacation should be shortened by at least a fortnight. For years the Incorporated Law Society has been passing resolutions, not only in London but in the provinces, demanding that this should be done. I heard one of the most distinguished of my right hon. Friend's predecessors, Sir Edward Clarke, say that in his opinion the Long Vacation should be shortened from ten weeks to eight weeks. I think it is an anomaly at this time of day, and an anomaly which ought to be brought to an end, that any branch of the Civil Service should be allowed a vacation of no less than four months in the year. If the Attorney-General would say that the re-commendations of the Law Society, and, what is more important, the definite recommendations of the Royal Commission, which reported in 1913 in favour of shortening the Long Vacation from ten weeks to eight, would be, carried out, the House would with the greatest readiness support the Resolution. But at this time of day it does seem to me that he is undertaking a serious responsibility in not giving effect to the definite recommendations

2027
of the Royal Commission. We are entitled to something more definite than what he has told us to-night. Not only this House, but the country has made up its mind that four months' holidays is too long for any branch of the Civil Service to demand at present. It is difficult to ask miners, bricklayers, or anyone else to work longer hours and produce more when they see the most important class of civil servants taking what they believe to be an unduly long holiday.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am in no way connected with the legal profession and hope I shall never require the attentions of the additional Judge, but I believe that on the general ground of the congestion of business this appointment is justified. But I understand that this appointment is to fill the vacancy caused by the appointment as Lord Chief Justice of Mr. Justice Lawrence, and I think that this Motion should not be passed without a protest being made at the long delay in filling the very important post of Lord Chief Justice—a most undesirable delay—and at the way the personality of whoever was to fill the vacancy was discussed in the political papers. Naturally I make no criticism on the appointment of the distinguished judge who has been appointed. I am not in a position to criticise him in any way. I certainly have not the will. But the general impression has been created that the appointment has rested largely on political considerations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say yes.
Mr. SPEAKER: How does that matter arise on this Address? This relates to a, puisne judge, and not to the Lord Chief Justice.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We were told by the learned Attorney-General that this was to fill a vacancy caused by the appointment of Lord Chief Justice Lawrence to his present high post. I wish to represent to the House that if Lord Chief Justice Lawrence had not been appointed this vacancy would not have been caused.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a strong hypothesis. Had that particular judge not been appointed, one of the other judges would have been appointed, and that would have led to exactly the same Address.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I believe I am right in saying that the usual practice has been that the post of Lord Chief Justice has been filled in the past by one of the Law Officers of the Crown.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in any way relevant to this Motion.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If one of the Law Officers of the Crown had been appointed, this vacancy would not have been caused, and this Motion would have been unnecessary. I wish to protest against the savour of political considerations being attached in an altogether unprecedented way to the appointment to the second highest judicial post in the purview of His Majesty. I feel it was the duty, at any rate of one voice, to protest against any suspicion of political considerations in an appointment of this sort. I make the protest without any reflection on the present most distinguished holder of the office or on the Law Officers of the Crown, but I think the incident reflects on the Prime Minister, and that is the reason why I speak.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's criticism is wholly irrelevant.
Sir G. HEWART: I should like to say a word in reply by way of removing, if I can, certain misapprehensions which appear to exist. One of my hon. and learned Friends cherishes the belief, it would seem, that the learned judges of the High Court enjoy four months' holiday in the year. That, really, is a startling proposition. In the more fortunate days when I was at the Bar some of us used to work about 46 weeks in the year. The learned judges worked then and, I believe, work still, about 40 weeks in the year. A second misapprehension was embodied in the statement that the figures of the causes I had mentioned were figures showing arrears. That is not the case. Exactly what part of those figures may truly be said to represent arrears, I do not know. But I do know that the main part of those figures included nothing of the kind. It is due to the considerable and persistent increase in the volume of business. With regard to the Long Vacation it was said that an undertaking ought to be given. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend does not think that it is open to me, by any act of mine, to curtail the Long

2029
Vacation. The statement which I was able to make on the authority of the Lord Chancellor, indicates a certain disposition in those who have the control of the matter, and I hope that that statement may prove satisfactory to the House. May I add that personally I agree entirely with observations that have been made as to the need of increasing the salaries of the learned judges of this High Court. I cannot help thinking that the time has fully come when those salaries should, in common fairness, be reconsidered, in the light of the experiences and the facts of to-day. Finally, the House will, I think, forgive me, if I do not pursue the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last. I daresay he has heard—and, if he has not heard it perhaps he will forgive me if I bring to his mind—the story of the Master of an Oxford College who was lampooned in a book, that attracted some notice at the time, by a former undergraduate of his own college. A few months later they happened to meet, and the master, having ignored the writer for some time, at length condescended to observe to him: "I rather think that nine men out of ten could have written that book, but I am sure that eight men out of nine would not have written it."
Sir HAROLD SMITH: If the House will bear with me I should like to make some observations on the subject of the shortening of the Long Vacation. My only excuse for rising is that I think no member of my profession has done so, with the exception of the learned Attorney-General, and much as I admire him, I think he has not dealt with this matter quite satisfactorily. He explained to the House that he had no power to shorten the Long Vacation. I do not know whether the power lies with the Attorney-General or with the Lord Chancellor, but I feel, if the Attorney-General had the power, he would exercise it. I am glad to see he approves of the suggestion. If, in fact, the power lies with the Lord Chancellor, then I little regret that the Noble and Learned Lord, in the information which he authorised the Attorney-General to give the House to-night, did not deal with the question which to the vast majority of lay minds, and I believe also to the majority of the minds of lawyers, is a question which should be dealt with. I have no right to speak on behalf of the profession
2030
of which I am a humble member, but speaking personally, and with some knowledge of the views of the profession, I believe the Bar would like to see the Long Vacation curtailed. I can honestly say, as one who is not altogether unoccupied, that at the end of two months one looks forward to the ordinary routine of one's daily work, and I never yet met any member of my profession who would not willingly support the proposal to shorten the Long Vacation. I realise that this does not touch the question which we are discussing, because even if you shorten the vacation by any reasonable length of time, you would still be compelled to appoint another puisne judge. At the same time, even if you added another two weeks to the legal working year, it would help to reduce those deplorable arrears in our lists, arrears which are often fraught with great anxiety, and which cost litigants great trouble and even expense. I am convinced myself that this is a reform which ought to be brought about, and I hope, if my right hon. and learned Friend approves of the suggestion that the Long Vacation should be shortened, he will vise his great influence, which I know he has with the Lord Chancellor, and endeavour to see that before long we have a definite proposal before us whereby we can shorten the vacation and reduce the most deplorable arrears with which we are faced more and more every year.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: There is obviously only one test to apply to this Motion, and that is the condition of business in the courts. I think the whole House agrees that the Attorney-General has laid before us a condition of arrears of work in the courts which more than justifies the unanimous decision of this House in its support, but I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether, agreeing, as I know he does, with the old maxim that a delay of justice is often tantamount to a denial of justice, he could give us some assurance that the appointment of one puisne judge will be sufficient, and also whether he could give us the assurance that in future High Court judges will be, so far as is possible—and that it shall be in future more possible than it has seemed to be in the past—permitted to remain at the task to which they are appointed and confine themselves more and more to their judicial functions The country has

2031
watched, with growing amazement, the perpetual calling from their judicial functions of High Court judges to assist in tasks which do not strictly relate, although they are highly fitted for them, to their offices. I hope the Attorney-General will understand that my observations are entirely sympathetic when I ask whether he thinks that in moving this Motion he is adequately providing, not merely for the immediate needs but for the early prospects of the business of the courts, and if he can give us some assurance that in future our High Court judges are going to be limited in the discharge of public functions to the office to which they are appointed. As to the extra judge, if these arrears are to accumulate as they have been doing, if the learned Attorney General asks for the full number of 17 judges, those of us who believe in the instant and swift administration of justice will think it a small sum to pay.
Sir G. HEWART: The hon. Member says he asks me for an assurance, but he is really asking me both for an assurance and for a prediction. I cannot predict that the appointment of this one judge will be sufficient. I hope, as I believe, that it will be a great help, but more than that it is not possible to say. With regard to the appointment of learned judges of the High Court to what may be called extra-judicial duties, so far as I am aware, that employment of them—I do not think one can call it a practice—arose mainly, at any rate, out of the emergencies of the War, and I must remind the House that upon the last occasion when that was done, it was done at the request and, indeed, upon the demand of this House, namely, that a learned judge of the High Court should be invited to preside over what was then called the Defence of the Realm Losses
2032
Commission and is now called the War Compensation Court. I cannot give assurances, but this at least I can say, that, so far as any small influence of my own is concerned, it will always be given in the direction which is suggested.
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice requires that a vacancy should be filled in the number of puisne Judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those Judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such a vacancy accordingly in pursuance of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act. 1910."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

TREATY OF PEACE (HUNGARY) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and Hungary—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow. — [Mr. Shortt.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
  APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (F. J. PEET).
  MACHINE GUN CORPS (F. J. PEET).
  ATTRIBUTABILITY (NAVAL SERVICE).
  ATTRIBUTABILITY (NAVAL SERVICE).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  SPRINGFIELD TRAINING INSTITUTION (MR. C. J. KEEBLE).
  SPRINGFIELD TRAINING INSTITUTION (MR. C. J. KEEBLE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION (MR. A. E. GERRARD).
  UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION (MR. A. E. GERRARD).
  CASES OF DISTRESS (VICTORIA CROSS RECIPIENTS).
  CASES OF DISTRESS (VICTORIA CROSS RECIPIENTS).
  DEFENCE FORCE.
  DEFENCE FORCE.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (EMBARGO).
  CANADIAN CATTLE (EMBARGO).
ROYAL NAVY.
  CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS (GLOVES).
  CHIEF PETTY OFFICERS (GLOVES).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  MYSTAGMUS (MEDICAL CERTIFICATES).
  MYSTAGMUS (MEDICAL CERTIFICATES).
  NET PROFITS AND PAID-UP CAPITAL.
  NET PROFITS AND PAID-UP CAPITAL.
HOUSING.
  GUILD CONTRACTS.
  GUILD CONTRACTS.
  EXCESSIVE PRICES, HEYWOOD.
  EXCESSIVE PRICES, HEYWOOD.
  COMBINED DRAINS.
  COMBINED DRAINS.
  MEDICAL OFFICER, HARROW (SALARY).
  MEDICAL OFFICER, HARROW (SALARY).
  NURSES REGISTRATION ACTS.
  NURSES REGISTRATION ACTS.
IRELAND.
  FIRES, TRALEE.
  FIRES, TRALEE.
INDIA.
  PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  EGRET FEATHERS (EXPORT).
  EGRET FEATHERS (EXPORT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COMPANIES (WINDING-TIP RULES).
  COMPANIES (WINDING-TIP RULES).
  COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND TREATIES DEPARTMENT.
  COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND TREATIES DEPARTMENT.
  KEY INDUSTRIES BILL. (ARC-LAMP CARBONS).
  KEY INDUSTRIES BILL. (ARC-LAMP CARBONS).
TRANSPORT.
  IRISH EGGS (FREIGHTS).
  IRISH EGGS (FREIGHTS).
  ROAD MATERIALS (COST).
  ROAD MATERIALS (COST).
  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (CLOAK-ROOM CHARGES)
  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (CLOAK-ROOM CHARGES)
EDUCATION.
  INSTRUCTION IN ECONOMICS.
  INSTRUCTION IN ECONOMICS.
  PROVISION OF MEALS.
  PROVISION OF MEALS.
  ALLOTMENTS, EAGLESCLIFFE, DURHAM.
  ALLOTMENTS, EAGLESCLIFFE, DURHAM.
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORT).
  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
  LAW OF ADOPTION.
  LAW OF ADOPTION.
  POST OFFICE (PROMOTION).
  POST OFFICE (PROMOTION).
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS (W. PADOVAN).
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS (W. PADOVAN).