Sitting of 28 June 1921

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
London and North Western Railway (Holyhead Harbour Leasing) [Lords],
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Cattedown Wharves Bill [Lords],
Mid-Glamorgan Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Glasgow Deaf and Dumb Institution Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    REVENUE.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for India the total gross revenue of India, including the receipts both of the Government of India and of all the different provinces; and what percentage does the proposed military expenditure of 62 crores of rupees bear to that gross revenue?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India has been asked to supply the figures, and I will let the hon. and gallant Member know when they have been received.

    DISTURBANCES, BENGAL AND ASSAM.
    Mr. A. SHAWasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent disturbances in Bengal and Assam?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton.
    Mr. A. SHAW: Is there any further information as to the situation since that communiqué was dispatched?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think so. My recollection is that I received the communiqué only a few days ago.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are any arrangements being made to facilitate the return of these coolies to their homes, or is it being left to chance?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My recollection is that the Government have not felt it their duty to give free passages to the coolies. I will send a copy of the communiqué to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the Government of India are to leave these people to die of cholera and starvation on the roadside?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Every conceivable step has been taken to safeguard the interests of these poor deluded coolies; but it would obviously be an unwise step to establish the precedent that when a coolie breaks his contract and leaves his work owing to gross misrepresentation of the state of affairs the liability should be put upon the Government of India.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the Government itself?
    Sir J. D. REES: Would it not be more useful to facilitate their return to their work rather than to their homes? Is any provision for that made by the Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend reads the communiqué of the Government of Bengal he will see that the Government have acted with great humanity, and have done everything possible in the circumstances. If, after reading the communiqué, my hon. Friend desires to put any other questions, I should be only too happy to answer them.

    OFFICERS' PAY (RUPEE EXCHANGE).
    Major McMICKINGasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the sterling value of the rupee pay of certain classes of British service officers in India is less than the home rates, the Government of India will permit officers to remit their rupee pay in sterling at the rate of 2s. to the rupee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: For the reasons given in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 21st June, I am unable to accept the suggestion.
    Major McMICKING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government of India have considered the case of married officers who through family arrangements find it necessary to remit portion of their pay to this country?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend will be aware that the fluctuations of the rate of exchange cause hardship to many other people besides those about whom he is asking.
    Major McMICKING: Does it not really amount to a breach of contract with officers who in these circumstances are serving in India at a less rate of pay than they would receive at home?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No, it does not amount to a breach of contract.

    ELECTIONS (BOGUS CANDIDATES).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the number of bogus candidates put forward at the last elections in India, the Government of India have now reviewed their previous decision not to require a deposit from each candidate for election to the Imperial and provincial legislative councils, as is the case with candidates in the United Kingdom and as also provided for in the new constitution of Malta; and, if so, whether steps will be taken in future to require such deposits and make them forfeitable if the candidates fail to secure a prescribed number of votes?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I communicated, as I promised, the hon. Baronet's previous question on this matter to the Government of India, but I have not yet received from them any proposal for the alteration of the rules. I doubt whether in any case they would think an alteration necessary until they had considered what other amendments, if any, are required for the purposes of the next general election.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not the unfortunate fact that these bogus candidates have not failed at the election, but have been elected?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That depends upon what you mean by "bogus candidates."

    EMIGRATION BILL.
    Mr. A. SHAWasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information regarding new Indian legislation with respect to emigration; whether the new Measure, if passed, will for the first time include Ceylon as a country to which emigration is restricted by special regulations; and whether the

    1963
    ports of Negapatam and Tuticorin, and other ports from which emigration ordinarily takes place to Ceylon, are not mentioned in the Bill among those from which emigration will be permitted?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Indian Emigration Bill, the objects of which are to continue the prohibition against indentured emigration from India and to provide for the control of emigration in the future, was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on the 21st March. I shall be happy to send to my hon. Friend a copy of the Bill and a copy of the explanatory speech made by the hon. Member in charge when introducing it, if he so desires. The Bill applies to emigration by sea to all countries, and both in the case of skilled and unskilled workers emigration shall be lawful only from the ports of Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, and Karachi, and such other ports as may be notified. Pending further examination, however, the Government of India propose to ask the Legislature provisionally to approve the present system of emigration to Ceylon and the Straits Settlements.
    Mr. SHAW: Can my right hon. Friend say why the ports of Negapatam and Tuticorin, which are the ports ordinarily used by coolies going to Ceylon, are not mentioned in the Bill? Is this a case of arbitrary action by the Executive?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hitherto emigration to Ceylon has not been regarded as emigration, and that India and Ceylon are so close together and the movement is of such long standing that the utmost inconvenience and hardship will probably result to coolies if previously existing arrangements are totally interfered with?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It was because of that that the Government of India propose, as I have said, to ask the Legislature provisionally to approve the present system of emigration.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me the papers in this case, because I think a provisional arrangement will hardly meet the case?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly.
    Mr. SHAW: Will the question of these ports be taken up by the Government of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the Bill. I think he will find that it is all right.

    CIVIL SERVICE (DISTRICT OFFICERS).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for India if he can hold out hopes of early action on the memorials submitted last year by a large majority of district officers, members of the Indian Civil Service; if he has information that numbers of these officers are in serious financial distress and unable to live on their present pay without falling into debt; and that economic conditions have rapidly deteriorated since those memorials were submitted?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask the hon. Member to refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Kensington on the 15th instant. The issue of the Resolution of the Government of India as to the pay of the Imperial Indian Services may be expected very shortly.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the Indian Government do something to help Indian civil servants in regard to the question of transport from here to India, because with the present cost of passages it will be very difficult to enter the Civil Service if they cannot pay the enormous sums required?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. Friend will find that all the circumstances are met.

    ISLAMIC DEPUTATION.
    The following question in the name of Mr. R. GWYNNE was not asked when first called:
    6. To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state what were the credentials of the Islamic deputation to this country, and by whom was Mr. Kidwai selected; what was the cost of the hospitality afforded to this deputation by His Majesty's Government; what subsidies they received; and whether the amount paid was that demanded?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am afraid my right hon. Friend (Mr. Montagu) is not here. He is attending a committee of the Imperial Conference, but was here earlier.

    RICE.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. A. T. DAVIES:
    8. To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that

    1965
    business in the Indian rice market has been suspended by local merchants; whether the Home Government has received strong representations from rice merchants and traders regarding the situation; whether he is aware that all rice on the Indian market has been cornered by one or two operators, and that this artificial manipulation of prices tends to raise the price of this essential food; and does the Government propose to take any steps against such operators by legislation or otherwise?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is it not customary for Ministers to leave answers to questions with other officers of their Department in the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no obligation in that respect, if hon. Members fail to put their questions at the proper time.

    JAPAN (MILITARY EXPENDITURE).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what is the military expenditure of Japan for the present year, and how that expenditure compares with the proposed expenditure in India of 62 crores of rupees; and what is the cost for the defence of India and Japan, respectively, per head of population, comparing the 77,000,000 of Japan with the 315,000,000 inhabitants of India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend should address the Foreign Office for information as regards Japan.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of Japan is in my hon. Friend's question exaggerated by 20,000,000?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think that observation should be addressed to the Foreign Office.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DESERTERS (AMNESTY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is considering the granting of an amnesty to those men who deserted from His Majesty's Forces during the War, and who would otherwise have been demobilised in the ordinary way?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I refer the hon. and gallant Member to-the reply given on 13th June last to the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Glasgow.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there going to be any time limit after which these men will not be liable to arrest? In 10 years from now-will it be possible to arrest and prosecute men for deserting in the Great War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend has not in his mind the reply which was given to the right hon. Gentleman and I will send him a copy.

    HORSES, BASRA (TRANSPORT COST).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what is the cost of transporting horses, per unit, from Basra to India and from Basra to England, respectively?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The cost of transporting horses from Basra to India under the existing agreement is 87½ rupees per head. It is estimated that the cost of transporting them from Basra to the United Kingdom would be about £50 to £60 per head, exclusive of the cost of attendance and forage; it is only possible to give a very approximate figure and it is also based on the assumption that suitable vessels are available in India. I might add, however, that since my answer on Tuesday last on this subject, the position has changed somewhat and offers are now being considered for the sale of the surplus animals at Basra.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the existing arrangements for transport from Basra to India were made when freights were very high, in view of the reduction in shipping freights, will there be a chance of a reduction in these charges?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If freights drop the cost will drop.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend take care that these horses which have served us in the War are sold in such circumstances that they will be well treated?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and learned Gentleman can rest

    1967
    assured that that is one of the considerations most prominently in view

    TERRITORIAL OFFICERS' DECORATION.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether Territorial officers who have served for a long period are entitled to any decoration; and, if so, will he state the-qualifying period and conditions and the nature of the decoration?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir; the Territorial decoration was instituted to reward such officers. The decoration consists of an oak wreath in silver tied with gold, having in the centre the Royal Cipher and Crown in gold; it is suspended from a silver oak bar-brooch by a green riband with a yellow stripe down the centre. The qualifying period is 20 years' service; service in the Yeomanry and Volunteers before April, 1908, is allowed to count and war service is reckoned two-fold. The detailed conditions are too long to give in an oral answer, but I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Royal Warrant governing the decoration.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman leave a specimen of the decoration in the Tea Room for inspection by Members?

  GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND OFFICES.

    WAR OFFICE (INFORMATION SECTION).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State, for War whether, apart from the clerical staff, journalists employed in the Information Section of the War Office are ex-service men?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Two journalists are employed in the Information Section of the War Office; neither is an ex-service man, one being over military age, and the other in medical category C3 and in an exempted occupation.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Why have not the definite recommendations of the Committee on Substitution been carried out? Are there not plenty of ex-service men, qualified journalists, who ought, above all others, to have these jobs in the War Office?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I feel very strongly in sympathy with the general proposition which my hon. and gallant Friend lays down, but one of these journalists is over age, and was over age during the War. He has done good service and, obviously, it is not fair to turn him out because he was over age. The other is in medical category C3, and was in an exempted occupation.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Then what is the use of the recommendations of the Committee?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The recommendations, as far as the War Office are concerned, are observed with the greatest care.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "over age"?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Over military age.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is that over 56?

    HOME OFFICE (FACTORY DEPARTMENT).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he will submit particulars to the House of the new scheme for the reorganisation of the Factory Department of the Home Office; what would be the actual addition to the staff of the Department were the scheme to be put fully into operation; how many of the proposed new posts is it proposed temporarily to leave vacant; will it be necessary to obtain additional office accommodation in connection with the proposed decentralisation; and, if so, at what estimated cost?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I shall be happy to give the House any information on the subject which it desires. A full summary of the scheme was issued to the Press last August, and I will send the hon. Member a copy. The addition to the total authorised staff, if the whole scheme were carried out, would be one inspector; but there is a number of vacancies which have not been filled up, and it is now proposed to leave 24 posts temporarily vacant. Additional office accommodation will be wanted for some only of the new districts, and the arrangement for providing this accommodation, which will usually consist only of a single room, are now under

    1969
    consideration. I am not in a position at present to say what the actual cost will be. In some cases it is hoped to provide the accommodation in existing Government buildings.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will this scheme really be an economy? Will there be only one additional inspector, and are there 24 vacancies to be left?
    Mr. SHORTT: The vacancies will be left temporarily, but to make the scheme efficient they will eventually have to be filled up.
    Sir W. DAVISON: They will not be filled up immediately?
    Mr. SHORTT: Not immediately.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (LAND DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received from the Somerset Agricultural Committee a resolution calling his attention to the fact that, while for a long time past the Ministry have urged and ultimately, by their letter of 8th June, directed the committee to reduce the architects' staff, the Ministry themselves have now advertised for three district architects for their Land Department at salaries of £400 to £500 per annum; and what is the reason for this course?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I have received the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers. The Ministry's letter of the 8th June contained a number of suggestions with regard to the agricultural staff employed by the Somerset County Council, and inter alia expressed the hope that the council might find it possible to dispense almost entirely with its architectural department before March, 1922. The reason for this suggestion was that approval has already been given to three-quarters of the equipment programme of the Somerset Small Holdings Committee, and the Ministry considers that the work should be practically completed by the date mentioned. Unfortunately the provision of cottages and farm buildings in connection with the Land Settlement Scheme is not so far advanced in the majority of counties as it is in Somerset, and, in view of the desirability of settling approved ex-service men as quickly as possible, the
    1970
    Ministry has been obliged to fill temporarily three vacancies for district architects on its own staff to press on the work in areas where less than 50 per cent. of the programme has been approved up to the present. It will be possible, however, for substantial reductions in the Ministry's architectural staff to be made on or before 31st March next.

    OFFICE OF WORKS.
    Mr. LORDENasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many were employed on the 31st May last by the Office of Works; total staff; staff employed on housing; total employés in direct employ; employés in direct employ upon housing schemes; and the salaries and wages payable on that date?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): The total number of the administrative, professional, and clerical staffs employed by this Department on the 31st May last was 1,893, of whom 114 were employed on housing. The total number of industrial and other manual workers in direct employ on the same date was 9,618, of whom 4,455 were employed on housing. The total amount of salaries and wages payable at that date was at the rate of approximately £2,533,320 per annum.
    Mr. LORDEN: Is any attempt being made to reduce this Department to pre-War size?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The whole matter is under consideration.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education how many officials in his Department receive a salary of £1,000, including war bonus, or over; and how many received a salary of £1,000, or over, in June, 1914?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The number of officials in the Board of Education who received a substantive salary of £1,000 or over in June, 1914, was 21. At present there are 56 officials whose substantive salary amounts to £1,000 or more; in addition, there are 185 officials whose substantive

    1971
    salary ranges between £560 and £1,000, but who receive remuneration at the rate of £1,000 per annum or over when war bonus at the present rate is included. The reduction of the war bonus contemplated to take effect on the 1st September next will reduce this latter figure by about 45.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with workmen's compensation?
    Mr. SHORTT: The position has already been explained in the replies given to the previous questions asked by my hon. Friend. The subject is controversial, and no legislation could be undertaken this Session except on the basis of an agreement. As my hon. Friend is aware, enquiries were being made as to the possibility of securing such an agreement for a limited Bill, but they were interrupted by the present industrial crisis. Negotiations will be resumed when a more favourable situation permits, but I am afraid that the prospects of obtaining any legislation this summer are now very small.

  IRELAND

    MR. R. C. BARTON, M. P.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Home Secretary whether the result of the inquiry made by the prison authorities into the treatment accorded to Mr. R. C. Barton, M. P., a prisoner in Portland Prison, by the governor of the prison was to show that the governor had exceeded his powers in the punishment of Mr. Barton; whether he has since been removed from the governorship of Portland Prison and sent to Nottingham Prison, a second-class establishment; and whether Mr. Barton's health has suffered severely from the treatment given him?
    Sir J. D. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, is he aware that neither the prison, nor any other establishment in Nottingham, can properly be described as a second-class establishment?
    Mr. SHORTT: The punishment in question was awarded by the Board of Visitors in the ordinary course, and not by the governor. It was a proper punishment for the offence, and within their statutory powers. The governor has been transferred from Portland to Nottingham in the same rank, because Portland will cease to be a convict prison. The transfer had no reference whatever to Barton's case. Barton's health has not suffered, and is reported to be good.

    TRIAL, BALLYMACELLIGOTT.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what is the result of the trial of five men, named O'Connor, Dowling, Carmody, Herlihy, M'Ellistrum, charged with taking part in an attack on the police at Ballymacelligott, County Kerry, on 12th November last; and whether these men are at present in prison?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): O'Connor and Dowling were sentenced to 18 months' and one year's imprisonment respectively. Carmody and M'Ellistrum were found not guilty and released. Herlihy was found guilty by the Court, but the sentence imposed upon him was not confirmed by the confirming officer. I am not clear, however, whether he has been released or whether he has been detained for other reasons. I am, however, making inquiries on this point, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chief Secretary what compensation is paid to the owners of premises and other property destroyed by rebels; if such compensation is paid either directly or indirectly out of Irish money; and, if so, whether steps have been taken to impress upon the Irish people generally that they themselves are the real ultimate sufferers for acts of destruction committed by the rebels?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Compensation for the malicious destruction of property is by law payable from the local rates. In the case of injury to Crown servants, advances have been made from the local taxation account from the grants withheld from local authorities which, by their refusal to submit their books to

    1973
    audit or otherwise, have severed their relations with the Local Government Board, or have declared their allegiance to Dail Eireann. In either case the loss involved falls directly on the Irish ratepayers. The effect of this burden will doubtless be felt for many years. I think the Irish people themselves are well aware of these facts.

    CREAMERIES (CLOSING).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the injustice and hardship caused to small farmers in Ireland by the arbitrary closing of creameries by order of the military because of damage to roads; whether, seeing that the farmers themselves suffer far more than the military by the damage to roads, punitive measures of this kind must fail to achieve their ostensible object; and whether, in view of the impossibility of unarmed citizens either to prevent damage to roads by the Irish Republican Army or to take steps to repair the roads without risking their lives, the whole policy can be reconsidered?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have nothing to add to the reply given to a question on this subject by the hon. Member on Thursday last.
    Mr. WATERSON: Are we to understand that no action is being taken by the Government to dispose of the milk produced, day after day? Is it going to waste?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope not.

    RAID, BALLYMENA.
    The following Question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. DEVLIN:
    54. To ask the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the raid in Ballymena carried out by the Ulster special constables on Friday, 17th June; whether the houses of a number of Catholics in the town were raided, the system being to place in each house at about 4 o'clock, a.m., two or three special constables who, in most cases, separated the men and women into different rooms and kept them there until an officer arrived to carry out a search, which meant that in many cases people were kept in this position from 4 o'clock until 9 or 10 o'clock; whether in most cases
    1974
    the special constables adopted a very aggressive and provocative attitude; whether in the case of one leading merchant the officer in charge took the keys from the assistant manager at his residence and, accompanied by two special constables, entered the business premises, which contained valuable goods and securities, and remained there for a half-hoar without informing the owner that any raid was intended, and unaccompanied by any representative of the owner; whether in the case of a hotel in the town special constables who were not under the control of an officer burst in the door, went through the hotel holding up everyone at the point of the revolver, and entered the room of an old lady about 80 years of age, a confirmed invalid, and ordered her to get out of bed; whether he can state who was responsible for this raid and for what purpose it was carried out; why was the raid directed against Catholics alone, as was evident from the questions asked some of the residents; whether the instructions issued by the Government are that the district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary, as executive officer for the district, should be consulted prior to such raids; whether the district inspector in Ballymena was consulted about this raid; whether there has been a clear breach of discipline: and whether he will cause a full and searching inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to ascertaining who were the parties responsible for this attack on the liberties and rights of the Catholic population of Ballymena?
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: On a point of Order. With reference to question No. 54 in the name of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), may I point out that it is something like 400 words in length, and, in view of the fact that questions are cut down to three per Member, could not some rule be made that questions should not exceed 200 words?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is legitimately one question. It all refers to a single incident, and the fact that it is rather detailed may make it easier to obtain a full answer.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD, in reply to the Question on the Paper: I regret that, owing to a temporary breakdown of communication with Belfast, I have not yet received a report on this case. Perhaps

    1975
    the hon. Member will repeat the question on Thursday?
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether this question was not put down on Thursday last, and whether I was not asked to postpone it until to-day? What is the meaning of such long delay in securing a reply to a question of such an important character?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will tell the hon. Member. The report of the case is being sent in answer to this question. Owing to a temporary breakdown in the communications, it has not reached me. Therefore I cannot give the answer, which is already on the way.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert, in view of the fact that we have a Parliament in Ulster, that it takes four days to send a communication from Belfast to London?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is that one of the first fruits of the Ulster Parliament?

    MURDERS.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the murder of John Murphy, B. A., national school teacher, at Ballinalee, County Longford; whether in the early hours of Thursday, 26th May, six armed and masked men, wearing light raincoats and rubber-soled shoes, came to his home and dragged him away, despite the protestations of his wife and himself, and shot him dead a little distance from his home; whether at the military inquiry next day the widow stated that the murderers spoke with a marked English accent. that she could identify some of them, and that she was prepared to swear that they were members of the auxiliary forces stationed at Ballinalee Barracks, about half a mile from the scene of the murder; whether relatives of the widow state that they saw members of the auxiliary forces on the morning after the murder carefully erasing all traces of footprints when they came with the County Inspector to investigate the crime; whether he is aware that there was no charge made against the late Mr. Murphy and that he had no connection with politics; whether he can state who was responsible
    1976
    for censoring the report of the proceedings at the inquiry and deleting that portion of the evidence which pointed to the crime having been committed by the Crown forces; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been in communication with the Commander-in-Chief and I am able to give an absolute denial to the grave suggestion that footprints were erased and that any evidence given before the court of inquiry was deleted from the records. In the course of her evidence the widow stated that the accents of the murderers sounded to her as though they were English but that she could not recognise them as they were masked. She is not reported as having stated in her evidence that these men were members of the Auxiliary Division stationed at Ballinalee, and I may add that in point of fact there are no members of the Auxiliary Division stationed at this place. It was well known in the neighbourhood that John Murphy was a loyal and law-abiding citizen, and the court in finding wilful murder by persons unknown expressed their sympathy with the deceased man's relations.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will an impartial inquiry be set up to investigate the death of this innocent man, who was a loyal subject of the Crown?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: An impartial inquiry has already been set up.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Surely you do not call that inquiry impartial?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You say it is an inquiry, but not that it is an impartial one.
    Mr. MOSLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether any persons have been arrested in connection with the murder at Drumcondra, on 9th February last, of Joseph Murphy and Patrick Kennedy, other than those persons tried for and acquitted of these murders in April last?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

    SPECIAL CONSTABULARY, ULSTER.
    Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is prepared to make any statement to the House regarding the action of Ulster special

    1977
    constables in firing upon military near Fivemiletown, County Fermanagh; whether it is a fact that some of the military, including an officer, were killed and wounded; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am having inquiries made, and I regret that I have received no report up to the present time.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not get the information as rapidly as the newspapers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Sometimes some newspapers get information which is based on nothing.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does that refer to the "Weekly Summary"?

    SLATE QUARRIES AND MINES (REGULATIONS).
    Major BREESEasked the Home Secretary if it is intended at an early date to formulate fresh regulations for safeguarding the health, and providing against accidents, of men employed in the slate quarries and mines of the United Kingdom?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The revision of the existing regulations has already been taken in hand, and will be completed as quickly as possible, having regard to the paramount claims of the work put on the Department by the prolonged stoppage of the coal pits.

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTAL RATES, GERMANY.
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that German samples and postcards combined are being sent to British manufacturers, merchants, and traders at a postal charge of 1·40 marks, or less than 1½d. at the present rate of exchange, and that postcards alone without samples to Germany now cost 1½d.; and whether, in view of this handicap thus imposed on the British trader, the Post Office authorities will readjust such charges to put the British trader on an equality with the German in circulating samples?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): The minimum postage rate on
    1978
    samples from Germany to this country is 60 pfennig for 100 grammes. In the reverse direction it is 1d. for 4 oz. (about 113 grammes). The postage on a postcard from Germany to this country is 80 pfennig, and in the reverse direction 1½d. The German charges are somewhat lower than the corresponding British charges at the current rate of exchange, but if the finance of the Post Office is to be placed on a sound basis it is impossible to regulate the charges according to the depreciated currencies of Central Europe.

    SUNDAY POSTAL SERVICE (HULL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the great loss suffered in Hull by the commercial community by the cessation of Sunday deliveries of letters, and that this loss is particularly heavy owing to the large trade done in perishables from the Continent, for which the prompt, delivery of documents is very desirable; why a preferential postal service on Sundays by special express letters, at a fee of 1s. is permitted at the smaller ports of Bristol and Cardiff and refused to Hull; if he is aware that the Hull postmaster has assured the Hull Chambers of Commerce and Trade that it is not impossible to make local arrangements for the delivery and receipt of such express letters on Sundays and that even the present train service admits of this; and will he give the matter his attention?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have arranged for an express service (as at Bristol, Cardiff, and certain other places) to be given at Hull experimentally. Its continuance will depend upon the use made of it.

    POSTCARD RATE.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction caused by the recent increase in the postcard rate to 1½d.; and whether, in view of his general statement that he would make remissions of increases in charges whenever the Post Office revenue warranted this step, he will agree, in order to moderate this dissatisfaction, that the first remission to be made when the revenue warrants it will be in the postcard rate?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The question of reducing the rates charged to the public will be considered as soon as the state of Post Office finance permits, but I cannot.

    1979
    anticipate the decision which will then be arrived at.
    Mr. MURRAY: Can my right hon. Friend give some undertaking that these will be the first rates to be reduced?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That was the question which my hon. Friend has put, to which I have given an answer.

    IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster-General what is the present position of the Imperial wireless chain; and whether, as stated by the chairman of the Empire Press Union, the first link is not yet fashioned and may be a dead-end for some years after it is complete?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The wireless stations at Leafield (near Oxford) and at Abu Zabal (near Cairo), which are to form the first link of the Imperial wireless chain, will be ready for use before the end of the year. The delay in the completion of the stations has been due mainly to labour difficulties. I do not agree with the statement attributed to the chairman of the Empire Press Union. A Commission of experts has been appointed to consider the design of the other stations recommended by the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee. Pending the construction of these stations arrangements are being made for the further transmission to and from places beyond Egypt of telegrams forwarded by wireless between the Leafield and the Abu Zabal stations. In addition there is a considerable amount of terminal traffic to and from Egypt.
    Mr. HURD: Are any steps whatever in progress between ourselves and Canada in reference to this matter of wireless communication?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, conversations have been going on for some time.
    Mr. HURD: Conversations, but nothing else?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Conversations are first necessary if something practical is to be done.

    PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Minister of Pensions whether the Com-
    1980
    mittee appointed by him some seven months ago has yet reported; if so, whether the Report contains recommendations or suggestions in the direction of greater efficiency and economy in administration and greater satisfaction to pensioners; and whether the Report will be published and an opportunity of discussing it provided before the House rises?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The Report of this Committee is now with the printers, and, as Chairman of the Committee, I hope to submit our recommendations for my right hon. Friend's consideration within the next few days.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are the recommendations unanimous?
    Major TRYON: The recommendations of the Committee throughout are unanimous.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will a Bill be presented this Session to give effect to the Report?
    Major TRYON: I anticipate that legislation will be necessary to give effect to some of the recommendations.

    SUGAR IMPORTS.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a state of uncertainty exists in the overseas sugar industry due to the apprehension that in the future they may again be handicapped by the competition of foreign sugar sold in the United Kingdom below the cost of production, and that this is acting as a deterrent to the further development of our overseas sugar industry; and whether the Government will give an assurance that they will take all necessary steps to prevent any unfair foreign competition in the sugar markets of the United Kingdom?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I am aware of the circumstances referred to, but I am not prepared to give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will take special measures to penalise imports of cheap sugar. I would remind the hon. Member that sugar of Empire origin already enjoys a substantial preference

    1981
    over foreign sugar on importation into this country, amounting to about ½d. per pound.
    Mr. MURRAY: Is that preference which is granted by the Government intended to meet unfair competition, or would it not be possible to make some arrangement, like the arrangement before the War, for meeting unfair competition apart from Imperial preference?

    COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to secure public confidence in the cost of-living index figures periodically issued by his Department, he will appoint a Standing Advisory Committee, whose functions would be to keep in touch with and to advise him generally regarding these figures; and if not, whether he will appoint a committee of inquiry into the whole question?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): As was stated on 20th June, in reply to questions by the hon. Members for the Frome and Stratford Divisions, we have invited the Joint Committee representing the trade unions, the Labour party, and the Co-operative Union, who have issued a statement disputing the accuracy of the Ministry of Labour index figure, to supply us with details showing how their conclusions have been arrived at. We will consider, these facts when they are presented, but, on present information, we do not think that a Committee of Inquiry is necessary.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING GRANTS).
    Mr. RAWLINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of Mr. T. Boyd, who was unanimously recommended by the interviewing board of the Ministry of Labour, on the 11th January, 1921, for a grant for tuition and maintenance for the purpose of his reading in chambers as the pupil of a barrister, and whose case was characterised as a very suitable case; whether, a month later, Mr. Boyd's application was refused in toto by a Grant Committee on the sole ground
    1982
    that the grants for tuition could not be made to candidates who had already been called to the bar; whether any such rule exists in writing; whether grants have been made to barrister candidates; if such rule existed why was it not communicated to Mr. Boyd; and whether, having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the Minister will reconsider the decision of the Department?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have inquired into the case cited by my hon. Friend. The Training Grants Scheme was designed to assist ex-service students in their training towards a professional qualification but was not intended to cover men already qualified. In certain special cases the Committee have awarded or continued grants to barristers for a short period after call. But on examination of Mr. Boyd's case they did not feel that the circumstances were such as to justify the expenditure of State funds.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Is there any such rule as is suggested, and, if so, why was it not communicated to Mr. Boyd instead of his being kept for two years in the belief that he was being recommended for the grant, thus allowing him to incur much expenditure?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware that he was kept all that time waiting. It is not in accordance with my information.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If such a rule existed, why was it not communicated to him?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Generally speaking, the reasons for the refusal of a grant are not communicated to those who make applications. In considering grants very confidential circumstances have to be taken into account, and the reasons for refusal are not communicated to the applicant.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman read the question? It says that the Committee recommended the case as thoroughly suitable for a double grant, and Mr. Boyd was allowed to go on that understanding for a long time until the recommendation was reversed by the act of the Government.
    Sir M. BARLOW: It was not a Committee. It was a Provisional Examining

    1983
    Board, and the Committee did not accept the recommendation of the Board.

    ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention was called on 24th June, 1920, to the feeling that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance should not be renewed for a term of years before the British Government has had the full advantage of understanding the views and desires of the new Government in the United States of America which was due to come into power in March, 1921; in view of the fact that the Government were aware of this feeling, whether they have now frankly communicated with the new Government in the United States; and whether His Majesty's Government will take into its immediate consideration the State Department's communication to the Press in America on 22nd June that the State Department is not informed with respect to the plans of the British Government, and has received no assurances in the matter as to negotiations in regard to possible terms of renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the question of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is now under consideration in all its bearings by the Imperial Conference. I cannot therefore add anything at this moment to the answer which I gave to him yesterday.

    ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR CONSUMPTION (WALES AND MONMOUTH).
    Major BREESEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state in terms of quantity and value the consumption of alcoholic liquor in Wales and Monmouth-shire for the respective years ending 31st March between 1913 and 1921, inclusive, and the consumption per head of the population of Wales and Monmouthshire during each of those years?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for is not available.
    Major BREESE: Is it not possible to get the figures in order to arrive at the quantities?
    Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid it is not possible to get the figures for the specific areas.

    POLICE PENSIONS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any provision has been or will be made for reassessing the pensions of pensioners of the police force in England and Scotland who retired before the War and joined His Majesty's forces and served during the War; and whether any similar provision has been or will be made for reassessing the pensions of pre-War pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin metropolitan police in similar cases?
    Mr. YOUNG: There is no special provision for re-assessment of pension in the circumstances described, nor is any under consideration. An increase of pension may, however, be granted, under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, in the cases defined by that Act both to pensioners of the police forces in England and Scotland, and to pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin metropolitan police.

    HOUSING (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. H. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether there has been a change of policy as regards housing in purely rural areas; and whether it has been decided not to sanction any more housing schemes in rural areas?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for Sir A. Mond): In view of the necessity of limiting the number of houses to be built under the Government scheme my right hon. Friend has decided for the present to give precedence to the large industrial areas.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will this decision be communicated to the local authorities?
    Mr. PARKER: I will communicate that suggestion to the Minister of Health.
    Mr. W. R. SMITH: Are we to understand that housing in rural areas does not matter, and that only industrial areas count?

    SCOTTISH EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (PENSIONS).
    Mr. A. SHAWasked the Secretary for Scotland whether education authorities in Scotland have power to grant pensions in deserving cases?
    Sir J. GILMOUR (for Mr. Morison): The powers of education authorities in Scotland with regard to the granting of pensions are to be found in Section 61 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and Section 12 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, as adapted by paragraphs 1 (a) and (c) of the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918.

    BRITISH DUMPS, FRANCE.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what relationship has Messrs. Picket and Sons to the British Government as contractors or otherwise; whether the shell breaking-down plant and the dump at Meninghan, North France, is British property: whether any other British dumps in France are managed by this firm, or whether British dumps have been sold to the firm; and, if so, what was the reserve price and what was the price obtained?
    Mr. HILTON YOUNG: It could not be stated without extensive inquiry through Departments generally what contracts Messrs. Picket hold with His Majesty's Government other than contracts for the purchase of dumps in France, but I presume it is to the latter that the hon. Member refers. Both breaking-down plant and dump at Meninghan were British property, but have now been sold to Messrs. Picket. No dumps are managed by this firm, but five dumps in all have been sold to them. It is not the practice of the Disposal Board to divulge the terms upon which individual sales were effected, and I am not prepared to depart from that course in this case. The purchase was made in competition with others, and the price obtained was the highest offer.

    RAILWAYS BILL (CORRESPONDENCE).
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD:
    45. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that correspondence
    1986
    passing between the Ministry of Transport and the directors of the great railway companies has been extensively quoted from in the Committee considering the Railways Bill; and, in view of the fact that this correspondence is at present fully known to certain Members only of the Committee, will he lay the whole correspondence for the use of all Members?
    Mr. WATERSON: I beg to ask this question on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend. Can we not secure an answer to this question, seeing that it is a very important one, bearing upon a matter which is now before a Standing Committee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to an answer on the second calling of questions except through the courtesy of the Minister. I may point out that the Minister was present when hon. Members who have down questions were absent.
    Mr. SPENCER: When hon. Members are serving on a Committee it is difficult for them to ensure attendance in the House.

  COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

    SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House what is the present position of negotiations in the coal dispute, and, if they have really terminated, is he in a position to say what the conditions of settlement are; if he is not in a position to say now, will he inform the House at what stage of the sitting to-day he will be able to make a statement on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister hoped to be able to make a statement immediately at the close of questions to-day, but I am sorry to say that matters are not sufficiently advanced for that. He hopes, however, to be able to make that statement in the course of the afternoon. Any settlement which is come to must be subject to the approval of the House—
    Mr. HARTSHORN: And other people too.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:—and it is very important that no delay should be interposed. We should desire, if the

    1987
    proposals of the Government for a settlement are challenged, to meet the challenge at once and immediately get a decision of the House. I hope that we may be able to conclude early in the afternoon the Debate on the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and the Prime Minister could then make his statement, and if the House wished to challenge the policy of the Government, an opportunity could be given to move the Adjournment for that purpose.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the settlement must be subject to the approval of the House. Do I understand that in submitting the question to the approval of the House the Government Whips will be on?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. The Government have taken a decision of great importance, and they neither could, nor do they wish to divest themselves of their responsibility. In a matter of this consequence we must present our policy to the House and stand by it, and it is for the House to say whether they approve it or not. I hear my right hon. Friend say that a Vote of money is involved. That is the point. I do not want to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but a Vote of money will be required. That cannot be done without the consent of the House, and if the House, when they hear the settlement, challenge the propriety of making a grant from public funds, we should desire to take the opinion of the House on the point, in order, if the House approved, to enable the miners' representatives to proceed this evening to their several districts, there to recommend a settlement to their constituents in order that work might be resumed on Monday next.
    Mr. HOGGE: As a matter of convenience purely, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will interrupt the Debate on the Third Reading of the Insurance Bill, or whether the statement will be made at the end of the Debate on the Third Reading?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We must have the Third Reading of this Bill to-day. There is one precedent for interrupting a Debate without Question put, but if there is any desire to challenge the policy of the Government, a Question must be put which enables a decision to be taken. The Adjournment of the House is the only
    1988
    Question we can put, and it must be treated as a Motion for acceptance or rejection. That, I believe, is the only way in which we can take a decision of the House at such short notice. The mere interruption of the Debate on the Third Reading would not give an opportunity to the House of expressing an opinion. I suggest, therefore, in view of the immense importance of this matter to the whole country, as well as to the particular interests concerned, that the House would perhaps be willing to facilitate an early decision by bringing the Debate on the Third Reading of the Insurance Bill to an earlier close than was intended.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Assuming that the Government propose a grant of money, will there not be required a Supplementary Estimate from the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, but I cannot ask the House to vote a Supplementary Estimate this afternoon without notice, and without the Vote being printed. Certainly there will be a Supplementary Estimate required.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Could not the discussion of the policy of the Government be brought under the review of the House then?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. That Vote can be taken on Friday, but if the decision of the House is postponed till Friday, work cannot be resumed on Monday, and if the House insist upon that, I must point out to them that they will make themselves responsible for a further delay in the settlement of the dispute and a resumption of the industry.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: In view of the discussion by the Front Benches upon this subject, does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that anyone, providing there is a possibility of settling this dispute, will be mad enough to vote or to say anything to continue it?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Plenty of them.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope hon. Members will not press me further at the present time. I think it would be much better for everybody concerned that they should have the full statement before them before they discuss it, and I would only say that when they have the full statement I am very hopeful that the

    1989
    House will agree that the course is a proper and wise one, and that there will be no desire to challenge it in any quarter. If it is challenged, we want an immediate decision.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, before the Safeguarding of Industries Bill is further considered in the House, he will be able by means of a White Paper or printed answer to show what Clauses of Treaties, Engagements, and Conventions would have to be taken into consideration by the Board of Trade in connection with the provisions of the said Bill?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A list of countries with which Treaties that would have to be taken into consideration are in force has already been communicated to the House in the reply given to the hon. and gallant, Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes) on the 13th June. Copies of these Treaties are available in the Library of the House. They are, speaking generally, those which in some form or another provide for the mutual accord of most-favoured-nation treatment. I do not think that there would be any advantage in reprinting the relevant Clauses of these Treaties as a separate Paper. The circumstances of each case and the precise provisions of the Treaty concerned would have to be considered before an Order is made.
    Captain BENN: May we take it that in the case of all the countries to which my right hon. Friend has referred the Bill will be inoperative?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. The effect of the Treaties with each of these countries would have to be taken into account before an Order was made.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the convenience of Members, in discussing the Bill, of having before them the considered opinion of the Department as to what Clauses would affect the operation of the Bill?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already indicated what are the Clauses which would affect its operation.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were these Treaties taken into consideration when the Bill was drafted?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    HENRY BRUCE ARMSTRONG, Esquire, for the County of Armagh (Mid-Armagh Division).

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir William Pearce to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill); and Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Church of Scotland Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED PERSONS) BILL,
"to amend the Law relating to the summary jurisdiction of magistrates in reference to married persons," presented by Sir Robert Newman; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Hurst; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill): Lieut. -Colonel Sir William Allen, Mr. Thomas Davies, Mr. Finney, Sir James Greig, Sir Edgar Jones, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Robert Richardson, Sir Alfred Warren, Colonel Penry Williams, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Church of Scotland Bill): Mr. Broad, Major Breese, Mr. Grundy, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. John Murray, Major Steel, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Tootill, and Mr. Aneurin Williams.
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Wallace.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. William Carter, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Waterson, and Mr. Robert Young; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Cairns, Mr. Evan Davies, and Mr. Kennedy.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move to leave, out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
  The announcement that the House has been able to hear from the Leader of the House on the miners' dispute is an additional reason for not proceeding with this Bill and placing it on the Statute Book. Surely if, as we anticipate and desire, there should be an early resumption of work in the coal industry, that would probably be followed in the immediate future by a return to work of a very large number of men and women at present unemployed, in part because of the coal stoppage, and for other reasons connected with it. At no distant date the right hon. Gentleman may anticipate there will be a considerable reduction of the numbers of persons at present obliged to seek relief by the means provided in the National Insurance Act. When this Bill was introduced no early settlement of the miners' dispute could be foreseen; the stage had indeed been reached when the parties to the dispute, as well as the country, had settled down to the idea of a rather prolonged stoppage. No doubt that was one of the factors that induced the right hon. Gentleman to submit proposals to the House to diminish benefits, so that his resources might be spread over a wider area, and cover an increasing number of people. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that circumstance, if it has not entirely disappeared, has been completely altered by the announcement that we have just heard. One harbours the expectation, amounting almost to a certainty, that at no distant date the miners will have returned to work and there will be a corresponding and speedy reduction in the number of persons now unemployed. There is, therefore, no urgency, financial or otherwise, to justify the right hon. Gentleman in proceeding with this Bill.
  2004
  The Bill proposes a severe reduction in the payments, and that at a time when the severity will be greatly felt, for it takes no account of the depleted household resources and reserves that have been more deeply and deeply felt week by week. A couple of months ago £1 a week did not stand alone as the resources of the household, but was in all likelihood supplemented by other items of income scraped or collected together after a manner known in the common experience of many working-class homes. Those reserves, household goods, and so on, have gradually disappeared, having gone into the pawnshop; borrowing resources have been exhausted, and past savings are no longer at the disposal of these various families. Having now by this prolonged and bitter experience not merely endured privations, but having completely exhausted the supplemental additions to their ordinary household and domestic needs, many have reached that stage where the income from unemployment benefit is the sole source of support to which they can look forward. It is at such a time when, as I say, they are deprived of every other kind of assistance, that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to reduce the level of pay from £1 to 15s. We hear a great deal—and rightly!—of employers of labour seeking too large a reduction in the wages of their workmen at one time. That is the first cause of most of our present-day industrial troubles. But there are few employers who are going so far as the Government. I know of cases where employers are asking for reductions of 2s. 6d. or 3s., some even of 4s. in the £, but few, if any of them, have dared to demand that their men should forfeit a fourth of their income. I seriously press upon the right hon. Gentleman the cruelty of this degree of reduction. He has so far contented himself to it on the ground that ways and means could not be devised out of the financial resources of the Government—
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Hear, hear!
  Mr. CLYNES:—to enable him to find the money. That surely is closing his ears to the appeals which have been addressed to him to draw, if not upon present resources, upon what has been termed our future resources. Bad as things are, the condition of things outside the House gives us—if I mistake not—a great deal of hope of a speedy

  2005
  recovery, or, at any rate, of a gradual and complete recovery, from our industrial difficulties. Suppose we do think that we shall not emerge from these difficulties for, say, six, nine, or twelve months, we should not then even be compelled to despair of finding the money required to maintain the level of payments which up till now the people compulsorily unemployed have been able to receive.
  We have not elected to follow this line to solve the unemployment problem. It is the line pursued by the Government. No special measures have been devised or applied by the Government specially to meet the very exceptional circumstances of this extraordinary unemployment in the country. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this line of insurance, he must, in reason, make the level of benefit reasonably adequate to the needs of the mass of the unemployed. He has failed to do that, and has made no attempt whatever to procure the money upon the lines that we are suggesting. If there is one thing left to this country it is the idea of British trade and such credit as we might be able to retain and even increase ultimately by a return to that state of industrial prosperity which we enjoyed before the War. Therefore, we may look with a confidence amounting to a sense of certainty to a state of trade 12 months hence out of which we could draw, if necessary, financial support to meet the present pressing necessities of the unemployed workers.
  The right hon. Gentleman has looked out upon the disputes and upon the enormous increase in the number of unemployed with a good deal of relief because of the way in which those disputes have been conducted. In regard to general conditions of peace, orderliness, submissiveness to conditions which in face of the industrial position were inevitable, we have had in the behaviour of our people a notable instance of how well they can face privations, and how stoically they can suffer even when they think they are suffering in the wrong. I do not think my right hon. Friend is treating that aspect of the question respectfully, but he is rather presuming upon this exhibition of patience, and is rather concluding that those who have so long endured and endured so much can endure much more.
  2006
  Let any hon. Member of this House put himself for a moment in the position of the head of an ordinary working-class household in which there may be two or three persons unemployed. Such a household has already suffered for months, and its resources have been thinned, its goods have gone to the pawnshop, its borrowings are exhausted, and its sufferings have disappeared, and they have reached a level where £1 a week, or some other sum, has been all they have had to live upon. We have to remember that the cost of living is still very high, and there are a great many things which are still absolutely indispensable in a household which never find their way into the list of items which go to make up the cost of living. Let us consider what would be the position to which we should be reduced ourselves under such circumstances? It would be a position of absolute desperation if any of us had to face a week's living on such a sum as the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to allow to those who have already endured so much. Those in such a position might very well say that the complete exhaustion of their resources is a sufficient reason for maintaining the benefit at the higher figure until the unemployment problem has been solved.
  The Bill does not merely err on the side of a general reduction, but on the side of exclusions and making it impossible for some people to get any pay at all. I say nothing at this stage on the question of contributions. We have during the Committee stage had our opportunity and we have said our say and we cannot do more, and we intend seriously to press the case with regard to an increase of contributions. This is a matter of some importance, but it does not present difficulties which cannot be overcome, and we may reasonably call upon those in work and able to pay contributions to make even still some little additional sacrifices in order that the funds shall be well supplied to meet the needs of those who have no wages at all.
  I pass by the question of increased contributions, but I ask the attention of the House to the conditions of exclusion introduced into this Bill which deprive certain workers who are compelled to pay of any opportunity of ever being able to receive the benefit for which they must contribute. Insurance at least should mean equity of opportunity among the insured persons becoming

  2007
  unemployed in varying and differing degrees according to the custom of their occupation and according to the varieties of the demand for their services or employment. One man may be out of work, say, for a full spell of three weeks at once, while another man may be out of work for a period of three weeks spread over three months. The extent of the suffering is practically the same for both, but they do not both get an equal opportunity of benefit according to the provisions of this amending Bill.
  Hon. Members behind me in the discussion last night pressed upon the House the particular hardship of the men employed in the docks in our coast towns. I know that much has been attempted to make their work more regular, but especially in periods of severe trade depression and at a time when our export trade is in such a condition as it is at present, dock workers and seafaring men stand to suffer severely and their irregularity of employment becomes more irregular and the casual nature of their work is increased, and they are helpless and can do nothing to remove these difficulties, and nothing the State can do can be done to lessen their difficulties. They are greater than the difficulties of other men and their opportunity of getting benefit is less than that of their fellow workers within the terms of this amending Bill. Therefore I claim that next to the reduction in pay the greatest blemish within the terms of this Bill is that of the absolute exclusion from the opportunity of benefit of certain workers whose conditions of unemployment do not allow them to be brought within the terms of this Bill.
  4.0 P.M.
  This subject of insurance has become almost a regular one in the House of Commons. During the life of this Parliament there has scarcely been a month in which it has not been discussed. This is the fourth Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, is establishing a record. I can assure him that he is not without the real sympathy of many of us in the extremely difficult duties which he has to discharge, but, as this is the fourth Measure treating with the subject of unemployment insurance, surely it ought to have been a better Measure and not one which will have to be followed by a fifth. My right hon. Friend must anticipate a
  2008
  fifth Measure, for such will be the trouble arising from these reduced benefits, and such the anger and dissatisfaction, that Ministers before long will feel the pressure, and, being responsive as they are to all manner of popular appeals when manifested in the right way, they will find some ways and means for coming forward with some Amendment. The level of £1 per week was reached for some such reason, and they will have to return to the level of £1 for corresponding reasons. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman may be establishing a reputation for the number of Bills treating with this question, I would suggest to him that it is better to go in a little more for quality and a little less for quantity. Let us have fewer and better Measures dealing in a more satisfactory way with this problem. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend personally acquaints himself with the actual position of the large number of persons who are in search of his money week by week, but, if he does, especially in certain parts of London, personally inquire into the household circumstances of many of those who are driven to seek unemployment relief, he must surely feel some sensation far deeper and more wholesome than the sensation of sympathy. Sympathy will not assist those who are in need.
  I do not know what other remedies other hon. Members may suggest, but we have suggested a remedy. The real solution of the problem of unemployment is to find other work, remunerative, profitable, and enduring work. If work cannot be found—my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Hopkinson) shakes his head and he makes an effective contribution to the finding of employment—either by employers or the State, then the State is driven to this device of providing some measure of maintenance rather than let people be left in a state of absolute starvation. It is no use dissenting from that proposal. I say deliberately that when people cannot find work they are entitled to be maintained at some reasonable level of existence until work can be found for them. If that be not the law, it is justice; if it be not political economy, it is common sense; and, if it be neither, it is at least a human doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of these discussions, clearly made it known to the House that there were very few vacancies and very few opportunities for employ-

  2009
  ment in the case of more than 2,000,000 men who are at present unemployed. I do not know how many of those listening to me have personally endured the experience of being out of work with an empty pocket and an empty cupboard, faced literally with all the distresses which produce such a state of desperate mind in men who have been driven to expose their hardships and their difficulties in the streets by forming processions, making collections, and in other ways appealing to the sympathies of the people to assist them.
  We in this House have no greater internal or domestic problem to deal with than this matter of unemployment. There is no greater or pressing question. It will affect the life of this country for years and years after the problem has disappeared. People who have suffered severely from conditions of prolonged unemployment do not speedily forget what they have endured. I ask hon. Members of this House to act in relation to this problem in the terms of the deepest human sympathy. It is not an ordinary party or political issue. We are dealing with men and women outside these walls in the sense that they are our brothers and sisters enduring conditions of misfortune from which we ourselves are shielded. It is on that account that we are entitled to say that this condition of difficulty should have been met by the extraordinary financial device of pledging our credit and of trusting to that which is more than a belief and must in our minds be an absolute sense of certainty, namely, a return to that state of prosperity which all of us are most anxious to hasten. I repeat that this above all moments is one when a reduction in benefit ought not to have been imposed upon those who have already suffered so much and who will feel bitterly and resent strongly the law as it is to be expressed in the Bill now before the House.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: For over nine months now unemployment has continuously deepened and spread, and during the last three months it has assumed the gravest dimensions. During the whole of that period I have sought to adapt such provisions as we could make to the needs of the situation. My right hon. Friend, in his very moving and kindly speech, referred to the fact that I have established a record in the number of Bills designed to meet the problem before us. That is
  2010
  true. I have sought, as I have said, to adapt such provisions as could be made to the needs of the situation with which I was confronted. In March last with the greatest care and painstaking, revised plans were made which it was reasonably hoped would have carried us over the 16 months between March last and the end of July, 1922. The basis of the plan was that I should have to make provision for an average of 1,000,000 persons unemployed week by week during the whole of the 16 months from March to the end of July, 1922. It was a forecast based upon the most careful scrutiny of the cycles of prosperity and depression in our industrial history over a long series of years. I admit that it was at once, or almost at once, falsified. Within a few weeks, I found myself confronted with 2,000,000 men and women wholly unemployed and 1,000,000 working short time. I found myself paying out £2,000,000 per week in unemployment benefit, with an income from the weekly contributions of those who, happily, were in employment of between £300,000 and £400,000 per week. There are people who will say immediately, "Your March estimate was a bad one. You ought to have foreseen what was immediately going to come upon you." It is so easy to say that. It is so easy to forecast the future when it is behind you. We are all of us apt to do that, and, indeed, there are some people who, if wisdom is to be the criterion of true perspicacity with the march of events, make Solomon look very silly indeed. I tender my profound congratulations to those of my critics who say that I ought to have known what would happen on the fact that they have not my job to perform. The tremendous drain upon the Insurance Fund, which in March last stood at £22,500,000, and which at this moment has fallen to something like £3,250,000, with a rapidly diminishing income week by week in consequence of the spread of unemployment, compels me to make new plans for the future. Those plans are set forth in the Bill to which the House is now asked to give a Third Reading. Shortly, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, perfectly fairly, they involve the disagreeable necessity of reducing benefits, of increasing contributions, and of reverting to the six days

  2011
  waiting period instead of the three days in the Act of 1920.
  There is this much to be said with regard to the benefit. When the benefit was 7s. per week for men and women, the index figure of the cost of living got as high as 125 per cent. above pre-War. When the benefit was 11s. per week for men and women, the cost of living index figure got as high as 164 per cent. above pre-War. When the benefit was last 15s. for men and 12s. for women, as I am sorry that it will have to be again, the cost of living was 176 per cent. in November, 169 per cent. in December, 165 per cent. in January, and 151 per cent. in February above pre-War. I am glad to say that it has now been reduced to 119 per cent., with every prospect of a further fall. I agree that it is hard that this reduction of benefit has to be made. I do not disguise that fact, and I never have done so. It is particularly hard upon men and women with little children dependent upon them, but I have no alternative. Although financially embarrassed as I am, I have felt bound, as the result of the continuous unemployment with which we have been recently confronted, to make provision in this Bill for weeks of benefit additional to the weeks provided in the Bill of March this year. I will not go into that matter. Hon. Members know the terms under which the additional provision is made. I agree that it is at the lower level. As regards the increased contributions again I regret the necessity. The House knows what the figures will be for the men and women employed and for employers. My right hon. Friend says the State ought to do more. As one of the three parties contributory to this scheme as far as it goes, let me point out that the State is doing more. Under the Act of 1920 the State contribution was at the rate of about £4,250,000 a year. Under the Act of March last, as a consequence of the increased contributions from employed persons and employers, the taxpayers' contribution would have been at the rate of £5,750,000 a year. Under this Bill, to which the House is now asked to give a Third Beading, the State contribution will be at the rate of £7,750,000 a year, as a result of the increased contributions of employed persons and employers. It has been said both here and upstairs that in making these changes I have been
  2012
  guilty of a breach of contract with the public. I think it very unfortunate that that should be said. It is a very dangerous thing to say, and, what is more, it is not true. As a matter of fact, from the very first Unemployment Insurance Act, 1911, there has in every Act been a Clause under which a reduction of benefit and an increase of contribution could be made.
  Mr. HODGE: We never asked you for this Bill.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I could have gone a long way along the road I propose to pursue in this Bill by Administrative Order, but I preferred to come to the House of Commons, and lay the whole of the facts before it. It is said this is a breach of contract. My reply is that in every Unemployment Insurance Act there has been a Clause which permits the Treasury to pay a reduced benefit and to charge an increased contribution if insolvency is apprehended. I repeat I could have gone very far along the road I am proposing to pursue. I could have lowered the benefit and increased the contribution, although I could not perhaps have extended the waiting period without coming to this House for legislation. But I preferred instead to come to the House of Commons. Even with the reduced benefit and increased contribution and the extended waiting period I shall on the estimate of unemployment which I have to face—and I hope with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that my estimate may not be realised—it is an estimate of an average of 1,250,000 unemployed persons week by week for the whole period between now and July, 1922—
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: What percentage is that?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is somewhere round about 12½ per cent. I cannot work it out exactly as I stand here at the table. My basis is 1,250,000 unemployed during the whole period down to July, 1922, and even on that basis with a reduced benefit, and increased contribution, and an extended waiting period I shall run into debt with the Treasury under this scheme to the extent of £16,000,000. If I continue the reduced benefit and the increased contribution and the extended waiting period for a year after July, 1922, this fund will then be solvent on that basis. But to incur a liability of £16,000,000

  2013
  I have to ask for increased borrowing powers. I already have power to borrow £10,000,000, and here I may say I rather did an injustice to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) in the Committee stage on the Finance Resolution, by an interruption which I made in his speech. An Amendment had been moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to strike out the additional borrowing powers to enable me to borrow up to £20,000,000. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh was supporting that Amendment and I interrupted him and said, "You will wipe out my power to borrow altogether." Of course, that was not the case. The power to borrow £10,000,000, which I already possessed, would stand, and I hasten to make the correction and to say the hon. Member would not wipe out my borrowing powers altogether. It would remain at £10,000,000 instead of being £20,000,000 as asked for in this Bill. As I have stated, I had to increase my borrowing powers by £10,000,000.
  In the Second Reading Debate I made an appeal which I now wish to repeat with emphasis. To be entitled to the benefit, a person, among other things, must prove that he is genuinely seeking work and is unable to obtain suitable employment. The only way in which that test can be applied is for me to be in a position to say, "Here is a vacancy which appears suitable for you. If you do not taka it, I am bound to suspend your benefit and submit your case to the referee." There is only one field, of course, in which there are vacancies to any large extent at the present time, and that is the field of domestic service for women. When you come to the men, broadly speaking, as a result of the position of industry to-day, I have no large number of vacancies available. This is the appeal I desire to make. When things begin to pick up, as we hope they soon will do, I appeal to employers of labour to send their vacancies to the employment exchanges. If I get those vacancies, I can really make my scheme function as I would like to see it. The proper function of the scheme is in every way to assist men in their endeavour to find work, and if a man cannot find it, then he is provided with the unemployment benefit. That is how
  2014
  I conceive this scheme should work, but unless I have vacancies I cannot carry out that as it should work.
  My right hon. Friends the Members of the Labour party have consistently advocated a different course, and have maintained their attitude to the extent of moving the rejection of the Bill this afternoon. They want the Government to take a course very different to the one proposed in this Bill. They say, "Do not increase the contribution, do not lower the benefit, do not extend the waiting period, but pledge the credit of the State. Subsidise, carry on as you are at present, and trust to the future." I think I can show them that on the estimate of 1,250,000 unemployed week by week for the whole succeeding year, and adding the two extensions of the six-week periods which I am making on the present benefit and contribution, I should have to borrow not £16,000,000 between now and July, 1922, but £41,750,000. That is supposing the contribution and benefit remain as at present, and the waiting period is three days instead of six. Assuming that thereafter there are 500,000 unemployed in the year following July, 1922, I should be in the position on the current obligations for benefit, and so on, of not even being able to pay off any of that £41,750,000. In fact, I never could pay it off. It would be an irrecoverable balance for all time on the present basis of contribution and benefit. It would be irrecoverable from the Fund, and with great respect, I say that really will not do. It therefore does not help very much to talk airily about pledging the credit of the State. I have already pledged it to the extent of £16,000,000. I was bound to do that. Frankly, I could not reduce the benefit any lower or raise the contribution any higher. £1,000,000 of this £16,000,000 is interest, which will make no return whatever to the unemployed persons for whom I am trying to provide. We cannot go on pledging the credit of the State. Every step we take in that direction increases the cost of living, and widens the margin between the real and the nominal value of wages, and it really is not fair to the working classes themselves to pursue such a policy as that.
  In the Debate yesterday one matter conspicuously emerged from what was said. It is a fact that under all the Insurance Acts, from the very beginning, men thrown out of employment by a trade

  2015
  dispute in the establishment in which they work are rendered ineligible for benefit, even although they are not directly responsible for the stoppage. Take the case of the labourer. It is one with which we are all familiar. It has always been cited in these Debates. The labourer may have no dispute or dissension with his employer, but he is thrown out of work because the craftsman, whom he assists, either downs tools or is locked out. Under the law this man, because he is working in the same establishment, although he is thrown out of employment, is ineligible for the unemployment benefit. I have admitted the hardship, but the difficulty is to remove it without creating other evils which may be even more serious. When the Act of 1920 was under discussion, I said: "Let representatives of employers and workmen get together and see whether they can agree upon a form of words. If they are workable—and I will not gratuitously suggest that they are not—I will see what I can do to get them placed in the Bill in another place." They did meet, but without result. I was asked yesterday by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) why I took that course, and why I did not take the matter upon myself? I took that course because the employers and the employed are together by far the greatest contributors to the scheme. My estimate of income, for the year for which I am now budgeting, is, roughly, £37,000,000, made up of contributions from employed persons, the taxpayers, and the employers. Of that sum, £15,800,000 will come from the employers and £13,750,000 from the workpeople. That is a total of £29,550,000 out of nearly £37,000,000. That is why I said to them: "You have the greatest interest in this; see if you can agree upon a form of words."
  I appreciate the solicitude of the House on the matter, and I can assure the Noble Lord and the House that my attitude is not that of one who would quibble over forms of words. Far from it. During the short time that I have been Minister of Labour, this matter has been the subject of frequent discussions between my advisers—to whom I am profoundly obliged for their assistance—and myself. We have not, so far, been able to find a way out; and, knowing the extreme difficulties of the problem—the apparent simplicity of which is only exceeded by
  2016
  its real complexity—I regret that I cannot go any further towards a solution between now and the few hours which will elapse before this Bill must, if their Lordships so please, be placed upon the Statute Book. I will, however, take the matter up again. I will myself get together the representatives of employers and employed, and see whether it is possible, in the first place, to agree upon the principle. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) told us that the principle is not yet agreed upon, and it is no use trying to find a form of words until there is agreement upon the principle. I rather gathered from my right hon. Friend that it broke down at the outset on the question of principle. I will do what I can to get together a representative body, and see if we cannot agree upon the principle; and thereafter, if that is agreed upon, to find a form of words which would give effect to any agreement as to the principle.
  Lord R. CECIL: I quite understand that on the details the right hon. Gentleman would desire to receive the assistance of the employers and the employed, but is the principle a matter for them? Is not the principle a matter for the Government and for Parliament?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No doubt it is, finally, but I suggest that I am on pretty good ground when I take the line that, as these two sets of people are by far the greatest contributors to the scheme, I should like them to see if they can settle it themselves. I think that is perfectly sound.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Their positions are opposite.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: At any rate, I recognise the solicitude of the House. I listened to the Debate yesterday with profound interest, and the subject is one which is constantly in my mind. I will call these people together with a view to agreeing, if possible, upon the principles and then finding a form of words. It is very difficult, and it will take time, and I want it to be perfectly understood that it is utterly impossible to embody the words in this Bill, because this Bill, if I can get it, must be Law and commencing to operate by Friday, and I gravely doubt whether we could get agreement upon this matter, which has been debated all these years, in such a

  2017
  form as to implement it at any rate during the present Session. I thank my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) for his kindly speech. He disagrees with the policy I have pursued, but nevertheless he put his case, as he always does, with great consideration and thoughtfulness, and in a very winning way. I have lived with this problem of unemployment, ever growing and ever deepening, since last autumn. For ten months I have planned and contrived to make some provision for these poor people. Last week there were 2,000,000 men and women registered as wholly unemployed, and nearly 1,000,000 registered for benefit as working short time. For all of those 3,000,000, save some 60,000 or 70,000, this scheme finds something. What effort has there been in this country or any other comparable with that? It has helped to bring us through the greatest period of trade depression that this country has ever experienced. I have found no alternative, I regret to say, but to make the changes set forth in this Bill. I profoundly wish that circumstances had enabled me to avoid those changes, but they do not, and my altered plans must stand until I get a certificate of solvency. If, as the result of improved trading and improved industrial conditions—and what has happened to-day ought to bring us nearer to that improvement—that certificate can be given to me earlier than my plans provide for, the House knows me well enough to know that no Member of it will be better pleased than I shall.
  Mr. MILLS: I venture to think that, if the existing conditions of unemployment had been prophesied in the closing days of the year 1918, the man who made such a prophecy would have been laughed to scorn. One of the most startling things that one has noticed during these Debates has been the singular silence of those Members who support the Government. I could hardly have imagined that some of those who have spoken so brilliantly on medical science could remain silent when such proposals as these were being brought forward. The Minister of Labour is in the same position as was the former Minister of Health, namely, that of a man dealing with the needs of the people but with no executive power, dependent upon a Cabinet for the means to carry on. The Cabinet can give the means in other directions, but the order for economy is always put into
  2018
  practice from the bottom. I wonder if the Minister of Labour has consulted the Minister of Health as to the possible effect that this will have on local finances, because, after all, it is only transferring the burden. You are not saving money by this, but merely diverting the burden at the bidding of those wasters who have come in under the auspices of anti-waste. The expenditure is merely being diverted to the shoulders of the already overburdened local authorities. For these reasons we oppose these proposals. We do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has stated the whole truth in the case that he has made out. We believe, or at any rate I believe, that he has pleaded with the Cabinet for a more generous contribution from the Treasury to meet this issue, because he knows, from a long and intimate association with the organised industrial workers, that very many things that have been said against this Measure during these Debates are utterly untrue. There was the statement made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson)—the modern Sir Galahad, the man who by his very actions, by the very fact that he strives his utmost to prevent himself from becoming a millionaire, proves the viciousness of the method of distribution of the products of labour. This is what he said:
  "If only the Government would stand out of the way and not be continually reducing the capital available by all these socialistic devices of taking the money from the thrifty and distributing it amongst the thriftless, we might be able to pull the country round and avoid some of the worst disasters which are facing us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1921, cols. 1151 and 1152, Vol. 143.]
  I venture to suggest that the hon. Member would not willingly repeat that statement, after having read it in cold print, that it is handing it to the thriftless.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I would repeat is a dozen times if Mr. Speaker would allow me, but I am afraid he would not.
  Mr. MILLS: Handing it to the thriftless! The Minister of Labour knows, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that the most thrifty sections of the community are those who are suffering at the present time. I myself was brought into this scheme, and I never drew a halfpenny from it during the whole period while I remained at work until I left the

  2019
  workshop to come here. During those five years of war, there was continuity of employment. The trade unions were receiving regular contributions from thrifty men, and what has happened? Those trade unions have run through practically the whole of the accumulated capital that has come from their members. They have done their best, and the most that they can hope to do, but what they did during the whole time they have been in existence was what the State had always refused to do, up to 1911, except at the cost of the recipients' rights of citizenship. They endeavoured, during those periods when employers did not want men, to give the men a minimum bare existence during their compulsory idleness. The Insurance Act helped that a bit, but the men who were contributing compulsorily out of their weekly wages were also contributing voluntarily through the trade union movement. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary on the 15th June did not quite do credit to the trade union movement. He suggested that the precedent for reducing the benefit could be obtained by looking at the record of the trade unions, which had had to reduce their benefits owing to abnormal periods. Yes, but surely no analogy can be drawn between the case of trade unions, with their voluntary contributions from men already suffering under the wages system, and a State whose capital, however rocky it may be at the moment, has at least been contributed to by those who are now denied the opportunity of working.
  We say that not one man in a hundred would draw unemployment pay if he could draw wages. We say that the simple solution would be to bring the energies of the people, and the needs of the people, into the closest possible relationship. We cannot do that, because we are merely here as a minority, but surely it is not beyond the wit of those who are fit to govern, according to their own denunciation of our party, to devise some machinery for setting the countries of Eastern Europe going, and putting those who want to go to work into touch with those who need the products. It is no use saying that there is no demand for the goods. There is a demand, but somehow or other the Government cannot or will not interfere with the processes of
  2020
  international finance to such an extent that they can in some way balance the exchange values of the world. Locomotives are wanted; boots and shoes are wanted. It is known, from the official records of the Commission that inquired into the condition of Austria and of Hungary, that great men of science in Eastern Europe are going to work to-day with just an overcoat to cover their nakedness, and that women are going to work with the remains of a curtain made into stockings. That proves, if it proves anything at all, that if something could bring together those who need these products and those men who are out it would be better for the whole world, and it is not beyond the wit of man to devise that if only there was the will to do it upon the Benches opposite, where there is the power to do it if they would only take the step. They are quite eager to take the step when material interests are at stake, and there will not be half the resistance to the proposed £60,000,000 subsidy for the railways that there is to this measure, which, on your own showing, only works out at £7,750,000 a year.
  We speak on behalf of men whose efficiency must obviously be reduced, if dealt with in a niggardly spirit and treated under conditions which cannot keep them in a state of efficiency at a time when the employers need them again. How far can 15s, go? On 1st July you will be compelling those who are living in a house still further to increase their expenditure. In the Division I represent an ordinary five-roomed house costs 13s. a week. How is it going to be done? Take three meals a day at 2d. a meal with a family of four. There is 14s. a week in addition to the 13s. I will read a letter bearing on that from an unemployed man in Dartford, and it is typical of every constituency:
  "I notice you made the statement that the poorer classes who get their coal by the 28 lbs. pay at the rate of £4 a ton I beg to state that my wife cannot get her allowance of coal, 56 lbs., for less than 2s. 10d. for a half cwt., which is £5 13s. 4d. a ton, and she has to walk to Erith, a 2½d. fare, each week in order to get a permit to get that."
  Assume that we get back to the normal and assume it is 1s. 6d. Is ½-cwt. of coal the weekly consumption of the people who will go into the Lobby against us? That is what you have to come down to. Some of you talk about these people being thriftless. I know thousands of cases

  2021
  —they could be multiplied almost into millions of cases—where five years continuity of employment during the War has shown, by investments in War Loan, a saving on the part of the working people unparalleled in the previous history of the working classes. They have saved in the main and they have used it up in the main. They have never complained until the whole of their resources are gone. War Savings Certificates have been realised within the five years at a loss. These things all prove that before these people make their protest they do the utmost possible they can with the resources at their disposal. I want to keep myself within Parliamentary limits, but it is very difficult when one knows that the accusation has been levelled at the great mass of those who are without work that they are thriftless. You do not realise the struggle to bring up a family and then to go through a period of unemployment.
  We claim to represent the outlook and the feelings of the working classes because we ourselves have been through the mill. I have looked for work many a time without finding it. I have walked from Woolwich to Acton and back looking for a job. That has happened to many men on these Benches. But to-day is it worth while going to look for a job? The Minister of Labour knows perfectly well that it is not. A man living in Bexley gets tired of waiting about day after day doing nothing. He makes up his mind for a journey. I told some men in the trade I belong to that there was a job going at the new aerodrome, where they were initiating an aeroplane service to France. I found the employment exchange had sized up that opportunity for employment within an hour of it being open. The employment ex change manager had got every available local man into work. Every employment labour exchange manager is in the most efficient competition with every other employment exchange manager to place his men into work. But men will go and men will try, and they are paying 2½d. for a penny fare to look for work on a 15s. a week allowance. It does not even pay the cost of a newspaper. You cannot "buy a newspaper now for less than Id. How is it possible to buy them for six days every week to look for a job? I put it to the House that you are reducing the efficiency of those who are out of
  2022
  work through no fault of their own to such an extent that when you call upon them to resume work again their vitality will be lowered and their power for output will be correspondingly reduced. There are exceptions to every rule, but it is with regard to these people that you make use of arguments which ought not to be defended, and are not even worthy of being answered. They are used by people who would alter their view if they tried to live for three days on a basis of 15s. a week.
  Get down to an average centre. Go to Bermondsey, Deptford, or Woolwich, or any other centre where there is an Employment Exchange. Line up with the queue. Go as shabbily dressed as you like. It is not always good and warm weather like it is now. I have seen men and women on the hottest days of this month. You can go down on a bus from this House to Deptford on a Friday and see the room packed with women standing on their feet in a slowly moving procession from 2 o'clock till 6, whilst the people work at their utmost in paying them as quickly as they possibly can. Do people mean to tell me that people are going to queue up and wait for hours to register themselves on a paying day and then wait for further hours to draw this miserable dole if it is possible to get work? It is not true, and because it is not true, and because the suggestion is unworthy of those who make it, I most strongly protest against it. We believe another way can be found. We believe that in this particular case the capital of the country should be drawn upon in order to keep up the efficiency of the workers, because, after all, the worker, when put to work, is the capital of the country. We have made our protest against the extension of the waiting period. We have done the best we could. We cannot do more. So far as suitable employment goes, the Minister has met us. He has said it is possible to deal with these cases within six weeks. I will give him a case again from my constituency, which can be reproduced by every Member in every constituency, of a girl who found work for herself, apart from the Exchange, and was offered, in 1921, 14s. a week for a seven-day working week. She turned it down, and because she turned it down she has been without unemployment benefit from 9th April, and cannot get it. These are facts which should commend themselves to hon.

  2023
  Members opposite. We believe we are not asking you to sink your money into a bottomless pit. We do not agree with the Minister that it is irrecoverable. It is recoverable in the continued efficiency of those who are kept out of the mire of destitution, and if there were no other justification than that, that alone would justify the claim that we are putting forward.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I am afraid hon. Members opposite are inclined to say from time to time that I take a melancholy view of these matters. I take a very serious view of these matters whenever I hear Members of the party opposite speak upon them, because it is a thing which should give rise to most profound sorrow as to the future when we hear hon. Members calmly give vent to proposals such as the hon. Member (Mr. Mills) has done. He says surely the way to get over this difficulty is to give the unfortunate patients a little more of the poison which has caused the disease. It is most ungrateful of hon. Members to blame the Government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, for their action in this and other matters, for, after all, the policy of the Minister of Labour is one which has been forced upon him by hon. Members opposite. It is the policy of the Labour party itself to deal with unemployment by giving money out of the public purse—that public purse which they think belongs to an individual called the State, who carries a purse from which untold millions may be drawn and dispersed to prove any theory which they hold. I hope the House will kick this Bill through into the other place as quickly as possible. We want it kicked there so that there will be room for the next Bill on the subject. As far as I can guess, on the information at present available, we shall have about two more of these Unemployment Insurance Bills before the repeal comes about. Having regard to the fact that the rate at which the repeal of the Government's Measures of social reform is taking place shows a constant acceleration, so that although some Acts of Parliament exist for some six months before repeal, such as the Agriculture Act, others, such as the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, will become dead letters in a much shorter period, I hope we shall see very shortly the repeal of some of the Government's Acts before they are ever
  2024
  brought forward. Therefore, it is the duty of the House to kick this thing through into the other place with the least possible delay, and particularly so tonight, when we are all anticipating a most interesting announcement and an interesting Debate upon another subject.
  5.0 P.M.
  But in doing so those who think with me ought, at any rate, to raise some little protest against the whole policy involved. Hon. Members opposite may possibly, in the course of time, get to believe that some of the things which I so repeatedly tell them are not altogether untrue. The reason I have opposed the policy of these Insurance Acts in the past, and the reason why I welcome one which, at any rate, reduces the harm that is done by that policy, is that, the Government being committed to what is termed a policy of social reform, it is quite certain that we shall always have this unemployment problem with us, for the policy of social reform is a policy of producing what I call a submerged tenth. It dates from the time of the doctrinaire Liberals of the middle of the last century, who thought the prosperity of their own industry should only be secured if there was a surplus of degraded and unhappy creatures upon whom they could draw in times of prosperity and could return to misery in times of trade depression. It is a most significant fact in the history of the last 100 years that it was those doctrinaire Liberal employers who resisted every real improvement who initiated this abominable policy of social reform. This policy by which—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Debate on the Third Reading is supposed to be confined to matters contained in the Bill. I do not object to a little preamble, but the hon. Gentleman is going exceedingly wide of the subject.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Having initiated the argument, it is not necessary for me to complete it, because the logical minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite will be able to deal with it much more satisfactorily than I can myself. I should like to point out one thing with regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). He suggested that the way to get over the difficulty was not to reduce the doses of poison we are administering to the patient through unemployment

  2025
  insurance, but simply to increase these doses, to increase the amount of benefit by drawing on what he called the credit of the State. If there is one thing that would cause unemployment, and increase the cost of living it is going on borrowing and borrowing. The right hon. Gentleman talked about pledging the credit of the State. The credit of the State is pledged to the extent of £8,000,000,000 at present, a burden almost too heavy for the industry of this country to bear as it is. What hon. Members opposite do not understand is this, that borrowing money is a process which has to be paid for in the long run, and that in the case of money borrowed by the State under present conditions, and the price at which that borrowing has to be done, the inevitable result would be further trade depression, further rises in prices, and further unemployment. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that if there was only goodwill on the part of the Government, this problem would be solved. They seem to imagine that I myself and Members of the Government and Members behind me take a real delight in seeing their fellow countrymen unhappy and unfortunate. They suggest, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said, if the Government only had that goodwill they could immediately solve this great problem, and everybody would be happy. But they never give us any sort of suggestion or proposal which would be of the faintest use in solving it. The hon. Member for Dartford said some way ought to be found out of the difficulty. If hon. Members opposite would give us some sort of idea for a solution of the problem, I am sure the Government would be the first to jump at it.
  Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman give us one?
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I have said again and again on the floor of the House there is no solution of the unemployment problem on the part of the Government or on the part of the State—that the State or the Government of the country in interfering in these matters is only making matters worse. That is the main reason why I am supporting this Bill, because it does reduce the interference of the State in these matters. I would recommend hon. Gentlemen opposite, although they have turned down the Communist party, to study the writings, and more particu-
  2026
  larly the recent writings, of Mr. Lenin. He has tried all these wonderful methods of making people happy without working, and, whatever his faults, with the most singular intellectual honesty he has most openly stated what the result has been. He has said that, without this capitalist system which he set out to abolish, it is impossible to have free labour. I am going to ask hon. Members opposite to consider two things, and to consider them without any idea of controversy, because they are really very important to so many of our fellow countrymen. Consider, first, what has produced this present state of unemployment, and, in the second place, I should like hon. Members opposite to consider whether their policy of complete demarcation of trades and complete consolidation of wages is not a mistake. The whole policy of trade unionism has been devoted to the consolidation of wages at certain fixed rates, which shall be as the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable—
  Mr. HODGE: That is not true.
  Mr. HOPKINSON:—except in the right hon. Gentleman's trade where he has a sliding scale. But the whole tendency has been to consolidate wages rather than leave them liquid. If you are to carry that policy to its logical conclusion you are bound eventually to produce a very serious state of unemployment, and it lies with hon. Members opposite who are the representatives of trade unionism to consider whether they cannot be a little more careful in getting the balance of consolidation or liquefaction in wages properly adjusted. If they consider whether it is not possible to get at any given moment that balance between what I call liquid wages and consolidated wages, then I think if they can do that they would reduce unemployment in this country. I quite admit that the time is past—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is all very interesting, but not exactly relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: When one is an enthusiast on a subject of this sort, it is extremely difficult to keep within the bounds of order. I will not say more than I have said. If hon. Members opposite can take these broken fragments, although they may think it is all very foolish, I think they will find something which may be of some use to them. I

  2027
  should just like again to emphasise the necessity of getting this Bill through and out of the way before a worse thing happens.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) that we shall have to have another Insurance Bill at a very early date. I do hope that during the next two years while this Bill runs the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to think out a really proper and sound scheme of unemployment insurance. To my mind the great blot upon this Bill is that every possibility of contracting out of the Bill and of industries forming schemes of their own has been abolished. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has treated very fairly those industries who wanted to contract out. First of all he brings in a Bill in which he allows contracting out in the text of the Bill, and then issues Regulations which make it impossible for any but a few industries to make special schemes and contract out at all. He now brings in a Bill which abolishes contracting out altogether at a moment's notice, involving in great expense several industries who went to a great deal of trouble, consulted legal luminaries, and made special schemes, but were not able to come in by 8th June. This contracting out is really vital to a proper insurance scheme. In the first place, under a State scheme, there is no doubt that in a great many cases contributions are far too large for certain classes of employment. To my mind it is not fair to oblige persons in regular employment to pay as high contributions as persons who are likely to lose their work. I have got here the report of the Government Actuary, issued a short time ago, and we find, for instance, that at the docks unemployment is 10 per cent. We find also that among general labourers unemployment is 10 per cent., whereas in the mining, public utility services, and the railways it is only 1 per cent. I do not think it is fair to oblige people who are engaged in 1 per cent. unemployment industries to come into a scheme and pay exactly the same amount of contribution as the people who are far more likely to be thrown out of work. It is rather significant that, so far as I know, the only single industry which has been able to
  2028
  contract out under the scheme, and has come in under a special scheme by the date allowed in the Bill, is the insurance industry. It is very significant that the one industry that knows more about the insurance question than any other is so anxious to get so quickly out of this Bill. They have formed a special scheme under which the State pays far less contribution, the employers pay the same contribution, and the employed pay no contribution at all. That is the kind of scheme that appeals to me, a special scheme that saves the State a great deal of money, and under which the employed people themselves pay far less.
  There is another reason why contracting out is important. There is no doubt that under the scheme of the Bill abuse of the provisions does take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting on the Second Reading agreed that under the State scheme abuses of its provisions did take place very frequently. The Minister of Labour quoted two letters which he had himself had sent to the local authorities pointing out exactly the same thing. The weak spot of the State scheme to my mind is that the benefit is payable in an event which the insured person can bring about himself. Under a contracting out scheme, where an industry sets up a special scheme of its own, it is in the interest of every single employed person to see that the claimant for benefit only receives that benefit when he is entitled to it. Therefore, on these grounds, I do hope that in the future the right hon. Gentleman will think out provisions giving power for these special schemes to be formed.
  I should like to mention a further point which I think is very important. Under a contracting out scheme the expenditure of the State is no doubt considerably less. Under the State scheme of the present Bill the minimum of administration expenses is 10 per cent. of the whole of the income. These expenses may be much more; but under a contracting out scheme it has been calculated that the administration expenses would be between 5 and 2 per cent. of the whole of the income. Under the scheme which the insurance society has undertaken there are no stamps, and the whole of the work is done in the office itself. There is no expense of a Civil Service staff. Under the State scheme the Government contribution is very much larger. The Government con-

  2029
  tribution works out at about one-quarter of the whole contribution; it works out at about 4d. per person, whereas under contracting out schemes the Government contribution only amounts to one penny. That makes a great difference. The State scheme has been in existence year after year. In 1919 we were told by the Minister of Labour that it was going to cost £3,000,000, and in 1920 he told us. it would cost £5,000,000. It is now over £6,000,000, and on the Second Beading of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman told us that the cost was going to be over £7,000,000. Under a scheme which allows industries to contract out under their own special schemes, it has been calculated that the cost to the Government would only be £1,000,000 a year.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): The real difficulty about contracting out is that the hon. Member is taking out the good risks and leaving in the bad risks. The economics he suggests will only apply to the good risks which he proposes should come out, and not to the bad risks which would stay in the fund.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I agree that is the difficulty; but the right hon. Gentleman, when he brought in his Bill, put in a Clause allowing these industries to contract out of the Bill. He pointed out at the time that such provisions would be allowed and that the scheme would be solvent. Therefore, if it is the case that it would be solvent if he allowed these schemes to go through, he ought to allow them to go through wherever possible. At present the State scheme is insolvent; and we cannot do that; but during the next two years the Ministry of Labour ought to do their best to prepare a scheme of unemployment insurance which would allow all these societies who want to do it to contract out of the scheme of State insurance and make their own schemes by arrangement between employers and employed. Large employers could have their schemes arranged between themselves and their employés, and small employers could group themselves under the same kind of scheme as under the present State scheme. Where contracting out is quite possible there would have to be a
  2030
  modified State scheme. If these suggestions could be carried out it would mean far less cost to the State, it would be more efficient and it would be more satisfactory to employers and employed.
  Mr. CAIRNS: I am opposed to this Bill. I am opposed to the proposed allowance of 15s. a week for men. I do not know what the Government expect the men will be able to do with that sum. A man may have a wife and three children, and probably may have to pay 10s. a week rent. That only leaves Is. a week each upon which to live. Surely no one will defend that. I have gone through the mill, and I know what it all means. I have had twelve months' idle time when I could not get a day's work. Unemployment insurance pre-supposes that the workman has not sufficient money out of his employment which he can save. We never hear of an employers insurance Bill. The contribution of 7d. per week is too much. I was financial secretary to the northern miners for 16 years, and although our contributions were only 6d. per fortnight, we covered all expenses, paid our unemployment allowances, and saved £200,000. On 7d. a week we could save £1,000 a week and pay unemployment insurance benefit. We could not get the money for strikes and lock-outs. I have had long experience of coalmining conditions. If one section of workers caused another section engaged in the mine to be unemployed there would be no unemployment insurance under this Bill. I remember one instance of a colliery that was idle for 17 weeks and 200 hewers were out of work. Under this scheme they would get nothing at all. Common sense tells me that this Bill will be unworkable. Although our contributions were only 6d. per fortnight we paid 25s. per week unemployment allowance when the men were out of work. 2d. of the 6d. was used for this particular purpose.
  Since I have been in this House I have learned from the legislation that has been passed that this is no place to come to in order to get good thinking, and it is no place to come to in order to get good feeling. We could get better conditions from the coal-owners. Many times they have offered us better conditions than these, and what is true of the coal-owners is true of other employers, shipowners, farmers, and others. It is all

  2031
  because there is a prejudicial feeling in the House against working men. If you want this scheme to be successful the contributions must be less, and the unemployment allowance must be more. It is mockery to give 15s. a week. How can you expect people to live on that? In 1886 when I began my twelve months out of work we could get bacon at 4d. a lb., meat at 6d. a lb., and sugar at 1¼d. a lb. To-day sugar is 7d. or 8d. a lb., eatable bacon 2s. or 2s. 6d. a lb., and mutton 2s. 8d. a lb. Things are altogether different to-day. I do not blame the Minister of Labour, but I blame the Government. The curse of unemployment lies at the door of the Government. In September last, when the Government said that no more coal was to be exported, that was the beginning of the slump and of the down grade. The hon. Member for Dartford spoke about coal being sold in London at £5 a ton. Who gets the difference in the price between the small sum that is paid to the coal hewer in Northumberland and the price per ton paid in London?
  I hope that this House will not pass the Bill. If I wanted the Coalition Government to fall I should say that I hope the House will pass the Bill, because it means their doom. The writing is on the wall. In every constituency, and I have been in several addressing unemployed men, I know the feeling. You may call them communists and lawbreakers, but they do not break the law. A Communist is supposed to be a man who breaks the law and sets fire to things. They have not done that yet. They behave like men. I hope the Minister of Labour will take heed of what we say on this subject. I mean what I say, and what I say is born of experience. When 15s. a week is offered to my fellow-men I know that they will use un-Parliamentary language which I am not allowed to use in this House. I hope that the Whips will be taken off by the Government when we come to a Division on the Bill, and that the House will reject it.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Without any disrespect to the hon. Member who has just spoken, who always improves every time he speaks, I very much regret that the House was so empty when the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) was speaking. The speech of the hon. Member for Dartford was one of
  2032
  the most remarkable speeches we have had in this House. It came straight from the theatre of war, from the unemployed and the suffering poor in this country. How anyone can vote for this Bill after what the hon. Member told us—every word of which I believe was absolutely true—I cannot understand. The Government ought to take the Whips off for the Third Reading of the Bill. If the Bill is defeated they will have to continue paying 20s. a week for men and 15s. a week for women, and a very good thing too. That is the very least we can offer to the unemployed, who are unemployed through no fault of their own. The Government, in their most optimistic frame of mind about unemployment, expect an average unemployment of 1,250,000 up till July next year. They cheerfully expect that. If we are going to have 1,250,000 unemployed for the next 14 months it means that we are not going to regain our markets, that we shall not restore our trade, that the revenue will be down, and that this country will be face to face with real financial disaster. It means that although Europe is requiring articles of all kinds, textiles, boots, and all kinds of manufactured goods, we shall not be able to supply them, and if we cannot so adjust our arrangements that we can supply those wants it will be a very poor look-out for the financial recovery of this country. Do the Government know the opinion of the financiers in the City of London, the heads of the Stock Exchange, of the great banks, of the great accepting houses? Do the Government take these gentlemen into consultation? These gentlemen are most alarmed about the future of our trade and of our financial prospects.
  Apart from the results of the coal stoppage, the unemployment in the country to-day is due to the general slump in trade which had set in before the coal stoppage. Hon. Members on this side blame the Government to a great extent. I agree that the Government's foreign policy has ruined, temporarily at any rate, the trade of the country. But what alarms me is the fact that the Government apparently have no remedy for unemployment except the policy of drift and doles.
  Sir C. CORY: What is your remedy?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: While men are unemployed through no fault of their own, we cannot see their

  2033
  wives and children starving. We have got to help them out, but the lack of any other cure for the situation fills me with the greatest alarm at the present moment. I do not think that I should be in order in saying at any length what would be my remedy, but first we have got to do everything we can to restore trade instead of passing the ridiculous Bill which we are taking to-day. Secondly, we have got to recast many of our international arrangements under the Peace Treaties and aim at a policy of peace and not of continuous war and friction as in Upper Silesia. Third, we have got to work out a much greater scheme of international credits to get Europe started again. Along those lines we shall look for a final cure. Meantime it is absurd and criminal to reduce the benefit to people who cannot help these things and who are out of employment through no fault of their own. I would humbly suggest to Members of the Labour party that they should devote their minds to this great problem. So far I have seen little enough in all the speeches of leaders of all parties throughout the country of real remedies for the present lack of employment.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to convey that the Labour party have no constructive policy on this question?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No, but in the speeches of the leaders of all the parties I see little enough which deals with this critical matter. The problem that faces us is a devastated Europe, while we have warehouses in this country overstocked with goods of all kinds which cannot be sold. Whoever can solve that problem and persuade the people of this country as to the solution will be deserving of the gratitude of all his fellow countrymen. But it is the Government who are most to blame for the present position. It is not for the Opposition to provide a policy. We can only point out the weak points in the Government policy. I think that the best way to help would be to turn out the Government but if we cannot do that we can make suggestions. Meantime I am going to vote against this Bill.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: In supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), I wish to repudiate the suggestion which
  2034
  seems to be made in one or two of the speeches that we on these Benches can only look to the paying out of doles as the only method of dealing with this problem of unemployment. I would suggest that if other sections of the House had endeavoured to apply their minds to finding some solution of this problem as the Labour party have done, and submitted it for consideration as we have done, possibly out of the various contributions some solution might have been found. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) seems to be ignorant of what the Labour party have done in regard to suggestions for the solution of the problem of unemployment. From these Benches we have repeatedly put before the House proposals which we claim if followed would prevent the unemployment from developing, and would diminish it at any given moment, and ultimately would carry us to a moment of prosperity when it could be reduced to an absolute minimum.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to be misrepresented. I criticised the heads of all parties for not applying themselves to the solution of this problem. I know that the Labour party have brought forward certain solutions, but they have not pressed them.
  Mr. SMITH: As far as this House affords opportunities, we have repeatedly pressed them, and we are entitled to claim that it is the failure on the part of the Government to adopt these suggestions that is responsible for the present position. Those of us who are minorities in this Chamber have no power to initiate schemes or policies which might contribute towards a solution of this problem. We can only make suggestions. We can point the way which we believe to be right, and we believe firmly that had the suggestions, which we have made continuously in this House, and by deputations which have waited on Ministers following the great national congresses and conferences held in different parts of the country, been adopted, the position of this country would have been much better. But we have got to face the situation as it is to-day. We can only hope that the time is not far distant when this Government will have passed out of office and provided an opportunity for some other body

  2035
  that is more competent to deal with these questions.
  This afternoon, in answer to a question, one of the Ministers said that certain natives of India should receive some punishment for breaking certain contracts, and I could not help wondering what punishment would be meted out to this particular Government for the breaches of pledges and contracts of which they have been guilty since they have been in office. In this Bill we have a breach of contracts and pledges, not only in the sense of the reduced benefit and increased contributions, in themselves a mockery of the men and women who are unemployed, but in the fact that the facilities which were, granted in the original Act are being withdrawn, facilities that would have enabled industries to provide some more practical way of dealing with this question. My complaint against the Government in regard to this Bill is that they do not seem to know what their policy is five minutes at a time.
  Only a few months ago we had a Measure to deal with unemployment, and the policy was, that if in any particular industry the circumstances were such as would enable them to bring in a better scheme whereby, possibly, better benefits could be given, it should be adopted. I am inclined to think that the Government themselves realised the possibilities in that direction, because in any special scheme which might be constituted under that the allowance from the Government instead of 2d. was only three-tenths of a penny, which implied that they realised that a special scheme could be more economically worked than the ordinary scheme under the Act itself. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary told us that that is an impossible position, because all the good risks would be taken away and the bad ones would be left. I do not think many of us will dispute that that particular point of view is one of considerable substance, but our complaint against the Government is that in face of the knowledge of that fact they put in the original Act Clause 18, which makes it possible for industries to evolve special schemes of their own, and now under this Bill the Government provide that that shall not apply unless a notice to issue an Order had been published by the 8th June.
  2036
  I belong to an industry which has been working for some months on a special scheme, an industry which has been quoted by the Government as, in some respects, as a model. We have had conciliation machinery for many years, so efficient in its application that, in an industry which was concerned with the production of boots for the forces of all the Allies, there was not a single stoppage of work during all the years of the War. The understanding between the two sides is complete. Then the right hon. Gentleman knows that in another direction, so far as training disabled soldiers is concerned, it has produced a record. Yet this industry is now being cut off entirely from any possibility of putting into operation a scheme that is drafted and is complete in practically every respect. What possibility have the Government left to people outside of having any confidence in constitutional procedure while this game is being played by those in authority at present?
  If the Government want to say that it is a wrong policy to take all the good risks out, some of us are not prepared to argue against that. If we are to have a complete scheme with all the unemployed in—the very principle of insurance possibly means that the good risks have got to help out the bad risks—we will not complain if that is to be the policy. What we do complain of is, you say that we can contract out, that we can have our special scheme. We apply ourselves to the task. It is not an easy task. It requires many hours of study and collaboration between the two sides. Now that we have done it we are told, because of a technical point, because we were not able to have our notice published on the 8th June, we are ruled out for a period of years. This kind of thing discredits constitutional procedure. In regard to this special problem my regret is that the Government have perpetuated this difficulty by Clause 5 of the Bill We on these benches want to do the best we can for the men out of work. We wish, if possible, to do away with unemployment insurance altogether. Some of us hope that the time will ultimately come when we shall be able to do it by a better organised system of society than unfortunately we have got at present. But apart from the difficulty which I have already emphasised, this Bill reduces the benefit at this particular moment when

  2037
  there is a greater amount of distress than there has ever been before.
  It has been stated in this House that the working classes are not thrifty. After six months of trade depression, during which time men and women have been out of work, what explanation can be given of the fact that thousands have not been reduced to an actual state of starvation? Is not the explanation that, during the years when they were earning good wages they were thrifty and accumulated savings? Of course, working people are thrifty, and are willing and anxious to help themselves. They do not ask for these unemployment benefits to be paid to them, but for employment at which they can earn wages. The system prevents them from getting employment. Those who are the unfortunate victims of trade depression ought not to be penalised as they are being penalised by this Bill, and ought not to have their benefit reduced to 15s. a week at a time when all their reserves have gone and the benefit will be their sole income. The House will be well advised to reject the Measure and to urge the Government to deal with the problem in a more effective and efficient way. I very much regret, as one who has had some association with the preparation of a special scheme, that after months of action we have reachsd the present position. In future the difficulty will be greater in getting employers to collaborate with their workers if, after they have prepared their schemes, they are not to be allowed to put them into operation. I ask the Minister whether it is yet too late for something to be done in the matter. If nothing is done, having regard to all that is contained in the Bill and to the fact that it does not help in any practical way those who are out of work, I say it is not worth while to place the Bill on the Statute Book.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Debate has revealed two channels of thought—a great and human need and the financial necessities of the day. I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour would say that his view combines two policies, the needs of the individual consistent with the safeguarding of State finance. But I think the House before voting will ask itself whether the provisions of the Bill will secure the object in view, whether its provisions are so drawn that the benefits
  2038
  of 15s. and 12s. per week respectively will be forthcoming for the period stated in the Bill. Before addressing myself to that main consideration may I make a preliminary observation? Throughout the various stages of this Bill question after question has been asked of the Minister regarding certain Financial Clauses in the Bill. I suggest that on such a Bill, involving the expenditure of public money, intricate in its applications, the House of Commons will be well advised to address itself to a detailed consideration of the subject. The basis of this Bill is contained in the White Paper: There the Minister lays down the policy that the unemployment for the period under review would be 10 per cent. If that estimate is excessive he will have budgeted for a surplus, and if it is exceeded there will be a deficit. What experience has the House on this subject? Take the unemployment figures for several years before the War. I find that the average unemployment in the skilled trades, covering some 800,000 workmen, over a long period of years was 5·3 per cent. That figure covered over 800,000 workers in the most skilled trades of the country, skilled men on whom the prosperity of the country depends, in trades where there was a limitation of apprentices. This Bill covers about 10,750,000 workers.
  What will be the percentage of unemployment among 10,750,000 workers in an abnormal time after a great war? The highest ranges of unemployment before the War were in the two years 1908 and 1909. During those years the average level of unemployment was 7·8 and 7·7. Again, I give the figures only for the skilled trades. The Minister of Labour bases this Bill upon a mean 10 per cent. unemployment during the next two years. If you take into consideration the fact that the mean level of unemployment for many years before the War was as high as 5·3 per cent., and that that figure was based on returns from skilled trades where the number of apprentices is limited, I suggest to the House that the Minister is over-sanguine and that once more, as in February last, his Estimate will be found not to stand the test of time. The reason for this Measure being introduced is that the hopes which the right hon. Gentleman held out in March cannot be fulfilled. If my analysis of the situation is at all accurate and if my figures are at all within the range of

  2039
  possibility, it appears to me that he will be forced to come and ask for further powers in order to continue payment of a benefit of 15s. a week. The Minister is budgeting for a certain deficit at a certain time. I hold that that deficit will be larger than he anticipates and that he will be forced to borrow further large sums of money. The benefits he offers under the Bill are too high for the contributions, or the contributions are too email for the benefits given. The right hon. Gentleman has held out to millions of workers hopes which experience has overthrown. 3,000,000 people to-day are drawing 20s. a week. They are not in close touch with the economic necessities of the time; they are not as fully cognisant as hon. Members of the true position of national finance. In asking the House to pass a Measure based upon 10 per cent. of unemployment for the next two years the Minister is asking the House to adopt a policy which experience will show to be unsound.
  Having come to these conclusions the question I ask myself is, how should one vote? If one votes for the Measure, one is voting for a Measure which has been introduced because of Government policy during recent months, and indirectly one is voting for the support of that policy. On the other hand, if one votes against the Bill, one will be met, perhaps, with the taunt that one is voting against husbanding the financial resources of the nation. I am prepared to face that taunt, because I believe the Bill is not part of a balanced policy. The Government should come to the House with a complete policy based on a reduction in all services.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPENCER: I want to say a few words in reference to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). The hon. Member takes up the attitude in this House of Judas Iscariot with regard to the breaking of the alabaster box of ointment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, Judas Iscariot said it might have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. The hon. Member for Mossley takes up that position with regard to many of these things. It does not matter whether it is the Labour party or the Government. Whatever they have said or done is wrong and something else ought to have been done. He comes here and lectures the Labour party and other sections with
  2040
  a supercilious patronage that we resent. We like a man to fight. I appreciate any man who honestly fights the Labour party and its principles. What we resent strongly is patronage and lecturing from any section or Member. With regard to the Bill, I have been present throughout the discussions at all stages, and I do not remember a Bill in regard to which fewer concessions have been made by the Government. The Labour party put a number of Amendments on the Paper, but both in Committee and on the Report stage the Minister of Labour has had, so he said, blankly to refuse to accede to any point we have put forward. He has done so very largely on two grounds. The first ground, and it is the ground upon which he has taken his chief stand, is the ground of solvency. He will not move in the direction indicated by our Amendments, because what he is aiming at is the solvency of the scheme. I understood him to say, if he could get over this abnormal period and come to deal with a permanent army of unemployed of about 500,000, that he hoped to be solvent somewhere about 1923. I think in that he is taking up a very unwise position. Had he given more consideration to the claims of the workmen from a humanitarian point of view, he would not be so keen on achieving solvency any sooner than 1924 or 1925. If I understand his figures aright, this scheme will give an annual return of about £36,000,000 per annum—that is, taking the contributions of the three parties to it. If he has to deal with an army of unemployed, permanently numbering about 500,000, that will not exhaust more than £18,000,000 or £20,000,000.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: What about the second year?
  Mr. SPENCER: My point is that if you have 500,000 unemployed it will leave a very great margin of money each year—anywhere from £10,000,000 to £20,000,000—and this the right hon. Gentleman could use for the liquidation of his debt. I think he could with safety to his scheme have made his debt greater. As a matter of fact, he said that if he went to the 18s. and 15s. benefits which we asked for, he would be putting off the day of solvency from 1923 until 1924. That is not a very lengthy period. Surely, if that is all involved in the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves, he might very easily accede to our request. After

  2041
  all, this is the main point with us. Whatever Amendments we proposed aimed at one definite object—to get more money for those who will be called upon to suffer. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to see things in their proper perspective. His picture of the situation is so painted that a mythical figure termed "Solvency" appears in the foreground, and human sorrow is put remotely into the background. He is unable to see sorrow for solvency. Just as Queen Mary said that if her heart was looked into after she died the word "Calais" would be found written upon it, so if the right hon. Gentleman were by any misfortune to pass away on the Front Bench and we were to have a post-mortem examination upon him, we should find the word "solvency" written upon his heart. He has become so obsessed with the idea of solvency that ii has assumed undue proportions and is preventing him from appreciating the suffering which exists in the country. The right hon. Gentleman has based opposition to our Amendments upon another and a fallacious ground. He has said that if he gives this money it will tend to extend unemployment and increase prices, because every attempt to inflate credit will increase prices. I say that is not true. It is not a necessary economic fact unless your demand has come within measurable reach of the supply. At present there is a disparity, and the right hon. Gentleman could have inflated our credits without prices going up one iota. We are suffering in this country because the banks, unwisely, deflated the credit of this country too rapidly, with the consequence that there was an immediate contraction of trade. If it had been done more steadily there would not be the abnormal unemployment which we have to deal with now.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I feel conscious the House is anxious to come to a decision, but, unlike the majority of hon. Members present, I happen to have sat through the whole of the Debate and I promise those who have done the same not to detain them for more than a few minutes. I should like to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. R. Smith) and by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) that the Government even now should reconsider Clause 5, which withholds the consent of the Minister from special schemes. It
  2042
  was my privilege to sit on a Departmental Committee dealing with the question of employment exchanges, and incidentally with the questions of unemployment generally and of special schemes in particular. One of the recommendations made by the majority of that Committee was that the Government should give every consideration and facility to the formation of these special schemes for contracting out. They realised that it was impossible for the whole of industry to contract out, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has, interjected, you cannot take out the whole of the good risks and leave only the bad risks, but the scheme which the Minister submitted in his Bill of March made provision for a much greater amount of contracting out than he has yet sanctioned. I submit this Clause is going to retard very considerably indeed the further progress of the movement in favour of industry bearing its own burdens. In connection with these schemes, such as that of the boot and shoe trade, which has been referred to, and other schemes which we had before us at the Departmental Committee, a large amount of time has been given by employers and employed to the working out of the details. It will discourage further efforts on those lines if at this juncture the Minister withdraws his sanction from schemes already made. Not only may these schemes be worked more economically, but, in addition to providing unemployment benefit, they also provide a real incentive for an industry to avoid unemployment by endeavouring to spread its work over the whole period of a year or a series of years, so that the amount of unemployment is reduced to the lowest possible figure. At the present time there is no special interest in an industry to reduce the amount of unemployment, because the employer knows that when he requires extra hands he has only to go to the employment exchange or the market, but if he knows that it is a cost and a charge on his own industry if he has more unemployment to provide for, then he has a direct incentive to keep down the amount of unemployment.
  One realises that there are limitations to the possibilities of these schemes. I disagree with the hon. Member for Wood Green that where you have unemploy-

  2043
  ment of 1 per cent. only, it should be exempt from the larger contribution required from those industries with 10 per cent. unemployment. The whole basis of insurance is that the strong should bear the burdens of the weak. At the same time, I do not think there is any conflict between the idea of sharing risks and that of contracting out. Let those who contract out have the advantage of their smaller amount of unemployment, but also let them pay proportionately more to the general pool, so that those who are left in shall not have to bear a bigger burden than they are or-
  dinarily forced to bear. I hope the Minister will not wreck the prospects of the special schemes for contracting out, and also the prospects of industry, where it can, bearing its own burdens, by refusing his assent and closing the door on these schemes. I hope that even now, when the Bill goes to another place, that responding to the appeals made to him, he may see his way to modify this Clause so that the future of employment may be better safeguarded.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 81.

  Division No. 202.]

  AYES.

  [6.12 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Kidd, James

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Archer-Shoe, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Armstrong, H. B.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Evans, Ernest

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

  Atkey, A. R.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Lorden, John William

  Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

  Forrest, Walter

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Macleod, J. Mackintosh

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gardner, Ernest

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Gould, James C.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Martin, A. E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

  Mason, Robert

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Greer, Harry

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

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

  Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Morris, Richard

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Morrison, Hugh

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

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

  Haslam, Lewis

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Campbell, J. D. G.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Casey, T. W.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

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

  Cputley, Henry Strother

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

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

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

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

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

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Cheyne, Sir William Watson

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Houston, Robert Patterson

  Parker, James

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

  Coote, Colin Relth (Isle of Ely)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cope, Major William

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

  Perring, William George

  Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

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

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Pratt, John William

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Raper, A. Baldwin

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

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

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

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

  Stevens, Marshall

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Reid, D. D.

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Renwick, Sir George

  Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

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

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Winterton, Earl

  Rodger, A. K.

  Taylor, J.

  Wise, Frederick

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Younger, Sir George

  Simm, M. T.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  McCurdy.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayward, Evan

  Robertson, John

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

  Seddon, J. A.

  Briant, Frank

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cairns, John

  Irving, Dan

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jesson, C.

  Spencer, George A.

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spoor, B. G.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

  Swan, J. E.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Lawson, John James

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Lunn, William

  Waterson, A. E.

  Galbraith, Samuel

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

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Gillis, William

  Matthews, David

  Wignall, James

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Myers, Thomas

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Wintringham, Thomas

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

  O'Grady, James

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

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hallas, Eldred

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Halls, Walter

  Rendall, Athelstan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T.

  Griffiths

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  HOUSING BILL
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  HOUSING BILL

    CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of Section 41 of 9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 35.)
    (1) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make regulations prescribing the conditions subject to which repayments are to be made by the London County Council under Section forty-one of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, to the councils of metropolitan boroughs in respect of any losses incurred by those
    2046
    councils in carrying out schemes to which Section seven of that Act applies"
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out Sub-section (1), and insert a new Sub-section:
    "(1) The London County Council shall, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, repay to the council of a metropolitan borough any loss which may be incurred by that council in carrying out a scheme to which Section seven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, applies, and any payments so made by the London County Council shall be deemed to have been made as part of the expenses incurred by them in carrying out a scheme to which that Section applies."
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    2047
    This is a purely drafting Amendment, and I understand it is agreed by the borough councils as meeting their views better than the original Sub-section.
    Mr. LORDEN: The borough councils are very much concerned that their powers are being whittled away under this Amendment. The Minister of Health has stated that it is necessary to make regulations to bring them into line with the other councils in the country. The fear of the borough councils is that the London County Council will have a power which was never intended by the Bill, and provided they do not have that power, the borough councils will not be injured in any way, nor their powers taken away.

    SCHEDULE.

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter

    Short title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    9 & Geo. 5. c. 35.

    The Housing, Town Planning &c., Act, 1919.

    In Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section twenty-eight the words "at a rate not exceeding five pounds per centum "per annum."

    Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph beginning "9 & 10 Geo. V, c. 35," after the word "annum," insert the words "and Sub-section (2) of Section forty-one."
    Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on the first Amendment.

    HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [22nd June] on consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee).
    HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
      CLAUSE 1.—(10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 71.)
      Section two of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1920, shall have effect as though for

      CLAUSE 11.—(Short Title, Extent, and Repeal.)
      (1) This Act may be cited as the Housing Act, 1921.
      (4) The enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (4), leave out the word "Second."
      Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      This is a purely a formal, drafting Amendment, as there is only one Schedule now to the Bill.
      two years there were therein substituted the period following (that is to say):—

      (a) In the case of any house in respect of which a loan has been or is being made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under Section nine of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, or assistance by way of loan or by way of sale at cost price has been or is being provided by the said Board under paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section four or Sub-section (4) of Section five of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, the period of three years and six months; and

      (b) In the case of any other house the period of two years and six months.

      Amendment proposed: In paragraph (a) to leave out the words "under Section nine of the Small Landowners (Scotland) Act, 1911."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Hope.]
      Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. HOGGE: The House is obviously waiting for the Prime Minister to make

      2049
      a statement on the coal dispute, and the point raised by this Amendment is one which the Scottish Members would like to discuss outside the atmosphere in which we are waiting, but if this Debate cannot be now put off, I must put our case. The point deals with the ex-service man and his position on the land in Scotland. Under the existing Scottish Land Acts there are certain loans which are given to smallholders who are already settled on land, and there are also loans which are given to ex-soldiers as such who have been settled on the land since the original Small Holdings Act came into operation. On the top of that there is the subsidy which was given by the Government in order to aid builders, and on those smallholdings in. Scotland there are obviously buildings which these ex-service men occupy. Under this Amendment we would claim for the ex-service men the benefit of the housing subsidy. If hon. Members who apparently are not interested in the fate of the ex-service men in Scotland were to pay any attention to the conditions under which they are put on the land, they would know that the loans which are given to them at a very advantageous rate cannot be repaid inside either 40 years at the higher rate or 80 years at the other rate. I understand now that the Prime Minister cannot make his statement on the coal settlement before 7 o'clock, so that hon. Members who are not interested in the fate of the ex-service men may now have the opportunity of leaving this discussion if they wish to do so.
      What we want—and I think it is a perfectly fair request—is that in addition to the advantage which every smallholder has in Scotland under the existing Acts, the ex-service men shall have the benefit of the subsidy granted for building. That is the whole point. Upstairs in Committee this Amendment was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Hope) and the Secretary for Scotland promised to consult the Government and see whether or not some arrangement could be made whereby the ex-service man who has been put on to the land, should, in addition to the advantages under the existing laws, get the advantage of the subsidy. The answer given upstairs was that under the existing scheme the ex-service man gets the advantage of a loan borrowed for 18 years. I put the point to the Leader
      2050
      of the House. I do not want him to reply, but I want his sympathy, and this is a real point of substance. No loan which operates for 80 years is going to be of use to the ex-service man, because by that time the man will be either dead or a hundred years old. We want the advantage of this extra assistance which everybody else in the country is getting. This is an Amendment to put the ex-service man into the favourable position we desire. It may be argued it is not, fair to give one man as against another this advantage. Our reply to that is that we had the promise of the Government, and the country that the ex-service man should have special conditions. He is not getting those special conditions.
      The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr Morison): Yes, I think so.
      Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend says, "Oh, yes, he is." We reply that we know that he has a choice of two methods, one of which gives him the same amount of money repayable in a shorter number of years at a higher rate of interest than he would have for the 80 years' loan, but he does not get the housing subsidy. What I am putting forward is the view of the majority of the Scottish Members on both sides of politics. Upstairs in Committee we were unanimous. If the Government had gone to a division in Committee—which we could not do because there was not a quorum—there would have been only one vote on, the Government side, namely, that of the Secretary for Scotland. Everybody else was against the proposal. We were promised consideration between then and the Report stage. In view of the money the Government has set aside, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to deal with this question, and to go to the length of giving the ex-service man settling on the land, in addition to the advantage of the loan, this subsidy which everybody else all over the country can get for housing.
      Mr. MORISON: I am very glad that this question in regard to the position of the ex-service man in Scotland has been raised. I am sure the Secretary for Scotland desires above all things that the ex-service man should receive at least as good consideration as anyone else. I am glad also that my hon. Friend opposite has reinforced the arguments in support of what he con-

      2051
      ceives to be the claims of the ex-service men. The Amendment, however, misrepresents what really is the position of the ex-service men. This Bill does not confer a benefit upon any class of citizens in Scotland. It does not give a subsidy to anyone. It merely extends the period within which certain existing subsidies can be paid. In all respects the effect of the Bill is to conform to the arrangements under which the original subsidy was granted. The Amendment proposed neglects, I think, what is the real situation in regard to the loans which are paid to the smallholders. It is a very technical matter, but I hope I may be able to make the point clear.
      There are two classes of smallholders in Scotland. The existing small landholders was the particular class in a position to benefit by the subsidy under the housing scheme. They could build new houses which complied with the conditions of the Statute and, of course, the subsidy was of assistance to them. On the other hand, in regard to the new small landholders class for whom my hon. Friend has spoken, a great many ex-service men had been settled under the Land Settlement Act, 1919. If I understand accurately the arguments of my hon. Friend I think it was the case of those to be settled in future, that he had in mind. In regard to these new landholders, after the Statute of 1919 was passed a special scheme was prepared in their interests by the Board of Agriculture and published in October, 1919. Under this they receive no subsidies but receive loans on extraordinarily advantageous terms. Moreover they were allowed loans not merely for their houses but for their steadings, farm buildings, and things of that kind, and the rate of interest that was exacted in their case was only 2 per cent. If the proposal is that these men should not be brought under the housing scheme they would be the first to object. In point of practice the 2 per cent. loan scheme is more advantage to the ex-service man than are the terms of the Housing Act. The matter has been carefully calculated and I am sure that that is correct.
      There is this further point to be considered. In the case of the ex-service men who become new small landholders they wish for a house of a substantially different character from the class of
      2052
      houses which is capable of earning subsidy. Not only does the ex-service man who is settled under the Small Landholders Act, 1919, Sec. 7, Sub-section (7), get, in fact, better and more substantial terms, but he gets a scheme which he can make use of, whereas it would not be in the least to his advantage to come within the housing scheme. I wish to make this further comment with regard to the ex-service man, that he obtains his loan upon his farm building and the house, without limit of time, and the scheme goes on as long as the Board of Agriculture has funds. The effect of the Amendment would be to place him under a limit of years contained in. the Bill. If the ex-service man who becomes a smallholder runs a farm the housing benefit would only apply to his house, and not to his steading. The result would be that you would have one bond of 4 per cent. for housing and another of 2 per cent. for the steading—in short, you would have two bonds if you put him under the new scheme.
      From an administrative point of view that is an insuperable objection. Any intelligent ex-service man who considers this choice between the 2 per cent. scheme of the Board of Agriculture and the 4 per cent. housing scheme established by the Board of Health will have no difficulty in seeing that the former is infinitely to be preferred. One thing I should add, which I hope will induce my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. If the Amendment suggests that the ex-service man and not any other should get the advantage of the 2 per cent. loan and the housing subsidy as well, there are two conclusive answers. The first is that you are giving him a particular benefit which no one else in Scotland gets. The second obstacle is this: that the Treasury will not agree to any scheme of the kind. If the housing scheme is to be applied to the ex-service man it must be applied as it is to the rest of Scotland. The ex-service man has his special loan scheme at 2 per cent. and gets this advantage at the expense of the State. My hon. Friend must also remember that the ex-service man gets priority in regard to the choice of land and to that extent he has some advantage. This Bill has been framed exactly in accordance with the housing scheme which was in existence, and the reason you have the limitation of Section (9) in this sub-

      2053
      section is because the housing scheme as such does not apply in the case of the persons who are settled as new smallholders. It was not intended to apply to that case because the new smallholders had better terms. I hope that explanation, and the fact that my hon. Friend knows that the Treasury have the ultimate control of this matter, and refuse to combine the Two Per Cent. Loan with the benefits of the Housing Act, gives a conclusive answer to the Amendment.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether, if he rejects my Amendment, that by legislative action there will be taken away from the ex-service man the right to the advantage of the loan which they already have under the Act of 1919?
      Mr. MORISON: No. If I may explain, it is to their advantage that they should remain under the Board of Agriculture scheme as long as possible.
      Sir J. HOPE: My Amendment would not take away the right by special legislative enactment?
      Mr. MORISON: No, it is perfectly true, it would not bring them within the housing scheme unless a new scheme was prepared to meet their case.
      Sir J. HOPE: Surely, they will, and can, remain under the Act of 1919. If my Amendment be accepted, it comes under Section (1) of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which will give them the subsidy?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Let me be clear. Do I correctly understand that the acceptance of this Amendment will impose a charge upon the Exchequer?
      Mr. HOGGE: I submit that it would not, because there are grants already given by the Treasury for this purpose in Scotland dealing with land settlement. We have already suggested in Committee that if there is no other way of doing it, then the moneys already provided could be used. It is only a question of rearrangement by the Government. The proposal was made upstairs that if the Government had any difficulty about the subsidy being applied to these particular buildings, there was already money provided out of which special arrangements could be made in order to give this advantage to ex-service men. We expected that
      2054
      here in the House the Secretary for Scotland would have said something about that matter. All the Lord Advocate has done is to point out that legislation will be required to make it legal in another way. We say that the money is there and we suggest that it should be used.
      Sir J. HOPE: May I draw attention to the memorandum of the Financial Resolution which provides that out of the £1,650,000, £1,140,000 is to be expended. We are not asking for any extension of this sum, but we are simply dealing with the allocation of it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am not quite clear that this proposal does involve a new charge, and so I do not withdraw it.
      Mr. MORISON: I am afraid the Amendment does not cover the case completely. Perhaps what I am now going to suggest would meet the case of my hon. and gallant Friend. I suggest that we should delete from paragraph (a) the words "section nine of," and that would place the whole housing scheme under Subsection (7) of Section 7 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and that would give to the discharged soldier the option of coming in under the Housing scheme. Paragraph (a) would then read:
      "In the case of any house in respect of which a loan has been or is being made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under the Small Landholders Scotland Act, 1911."
      That is taking away the limitations of Section 9, and it will include Sub-section (7) of Sec. 7 of the Small Landholders Act.
      Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman add the Land Settlement Act, 1919? What he has suggested seems to me would only provide for all smallholders under the Act of 1911.
      Mr. MORISON: There is no power to make loans at all under the Act of 1919, and therefore you would add nothing by inserting that provision. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my proposal will bring these men who have been settled under Section 7 within this Bill.
      Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: That gives the man a choice, but it would not give the man who is now obtaining a loan a chance of obtaining the subsidy, and deducting it from the capital amount of the loan.
      Mr. MORISON: Not if it came under the 2 per cent. loan. All these loans are subject to Treasury sanction, and they will not agree to it along with a loan at 2 per cent.
      Mr. HOGGE: It is very difficult to come to a decision under these circumstances if the Government will not give way in reference to these ex-service men. Under these circumstances I certainly think we ought to accept the Lord Advocate's suggestion, because then he could get the subsidy which would enable him to a large extent to spread the cost over that period.
      Major W. MURRAY: As the original mover of this Amendment, I hope we shall accept the suggestion made by the Lord Advocate, which I think is the best way out of the difficulty, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment, on the Consideration stage, stands in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midlothian (Sir J. Hope), and it is only in his power to ask leave to withdraw it.
      Sir J. HOPE: I understand that what the Lord Advocate has suggested gives ex-service men the right to the loan at the reduced rate, and also the subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!'] In any case, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "Section nine of."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): One of the many activities undertaken by the Greenwich Hospital is the education and maintenance of the daughters of seamen and marines. Out of the total income of the Greenwich Hospital funds amount-
    2056
    ing to £240,000 a year this House votes £4,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund and we very rightly exercise a proper authority over the administration of Greenwich Hospital. In the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1872, it is provided that
    "The amount to be spent under the Section for the education and maintenance of any girl shall not exceed the rate of £20 a year."
    At the present time that certainly is not enough, and the schools concerned have represented to us that they cannot continue this education at that price. All I ask the House to do by this Bill is to remove the limitation of £20. I do not want to place any fixed sum in the Bill because I think the House will agree that if we were to put a maximum it might become the minimum. We expect to be able to do this for £35 a year. This will amount to £1,500, which will be met out of the funds connected with Greenwich Hospital. That is all I am asking the House to do.

    INDIAN DIVORCES (VALIDITY) BILL [Lords].
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

    INDIAN DIVORCES (VALIDITY) BILL [Lords].

      CLAUSE 1.—(Validity of Decrees.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to know exactly what this Clause does. There are only two Clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 reads:
      "Any decree granted under the Act of the Indian Legislature known as the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and confirmed or made absolute under the provisions of that Act, for the dissolution of a marriage the parties to which were at the time of the commencement of the proceedings domiciled in the United Kingdom, and any order made by the Court in relation to any such decree, shall, if the proceedings were commenced before the passing of this Act, be as valid, and he deemed always to "have been as valid, in all respects, as though the parties to the marriage had been domiciled in India."
      I do not know what these words actually mean, but I think we ought not to pass this Clause without some further explanation.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): This Clause is simply to make valid certain decrees granted in India for the dissolution of the marriage of persons domiciled in the United Kingdom. This provision legalises them, and will remove a great hardship in such cases.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I really do not see why this Clause is necessary at all. If this has been going on all these years, why should it be necessary at this time to come forward with such legislation? I do hope that we shall have some further explanation as to the object of this Bill
      Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

      AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

    SUMMER TIME BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have an Amendment to this. I understand that when the Prime Minister is ready to make his long-looked-for statement a Motion for the Adjournment will be made from the Front Bench opposite. I shall be very glad, because I want to hear his statement as much as anybody. In the meantime, I do not see why we should not be allowed to discuss important matters and thus presently and appropriately fill in the time. I have an Amendment which is important. It is a new Clause stating that this Act shall not apply to Ireland. My reasons are, in the first place, that owing to the longitudinal position of Dublin, Ireland already enjoys some half an hour extra summer time as it is. Therefore summer time is not necessary for Ireland. Secondly, this
    2058
    is a matter that may well be left to the Legislatures that have been set up in Ireland. It is purely a domestic matter, and I think the inclusion of Ireland must have been an oversight on the part of the Government. If the Government are prepared to accept my Amendment I shall be very glad. I am quite certain that the Parliament of Northern Ireland would be glad to deal with this matter, and in any case the powers of the military are such that they can impose two hours of summer time if they like, or three hours of summer time. As a matter of fact, they are imposing now a very drastic extra summer time through the imposition of the curfew. Owing to very fortuitous circumstances which have arisen I do not want to say anything that will give rise to controversy about the military rule in Ireland, but military governors have the power to impose summer time to the extent of two or three hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I take it we are on the Report stage.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. and gallant Member had got a little mixed. We are on the Second Reading, and that is a long way off the Report stage.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise. I wish to move that this Bill be read a Second time upon this day three months. I will very briefly explain why I do that. I am now dealing with the question of England, not of Ireland. In principle I object to the War time restrictions being kept on in peace time. There are many people who have benefited by being made to get up earlier than they would otherwise have done. I take it that the Prime Minister, who has just entered the House, does not wish to hear my objections to the Summer Time Bill. Therefore if he will instruct the Leader of the House to move the Adjournment, I will sit down. Perhaps I may be allowed to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I would, appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to meet the convenience of the House and to let us get this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now Adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy.]
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.
    SETTLEMENT TERMS.

      PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): By leave, I trust, the House will permit me to make a statement with reference to the coal dispute.
      Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Adjournment of the House has been moved? Unless the Adjournment of the House has been moved, no one can speak except the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman move the Adjournment of the House?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have had notice from one or two hon. Members already that they wish to say something after the announcement of the Prime Minister, so that I think the best way would be to move the Adjournment of the House.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
      I wish to make a statement as to the conclusion of the negotiations which have taken place between the Miners' Executive and the Mineowners' Association and the Government. I am very glad to be able to say that an agreement has been arrived at. The Miners' Executive have decided to recommend the terms to their constituents, and to ask the miners to return to work on Monday, if, as they are hopeful, the terms be accepted. The demand for the pool has been definitely abandoned—
      Mr. CLYNES: Will they recommend it to the men?
      The PRIME MINISTER: To the men? I believe so. I believe they are going down to recommend it straight to the men, and to invite them to resume work. The demand, for the pool has been definitely abandoned, with all the consequences that entails in the fixation of the wages in the various districts. As the House knows very well, there were two main difficulties, one of them more important, naturally, of a permanent character—the basis upon which the wages in the various coalfields should be permanently fixed. After that had been disposed of, however, we always realised that there was a temporary period which would require very special arrangements, in order to bridge over diffi-
      2060
      culties of a peculiar character which had arisen out of the special conditions of the industry during the War period and during the control period which followed the War.
      Owing to those special circumstances, and to the sacrifices involved, more particularly by the export business, the Government have always informed the House of Commons that, in their judgment, it was necessary for the Treasury to assist the industry during this temporary period to bridge these special difficulties. But we have always made it quite clear that we could not recommend that the House of Commons should vote any money for this purpose unless there were a definite, clear arrangement for a permanent settlement that would ensure a long period of peace in the coalfields of this country. That we have always made a condition.
      I am very glad indeed to say now, not only that an arrangement has been made which I think will ensure peace for a very long period—I do not like to use the word "permanent"—but for a very long period in the coalfields, and not only will it ensure peace, but I think it will ensure peace on a very satisfactory basis.
      The main feature of the permanent settlement is that it fixes a new system for remuneration of the wage earner—a system by which the workman shares with the employer the proceeds of the industry. He thus obtains a direct, and not merely an indirect, interest in the productivity of the industry, and a direct, individual incentive to effort. I believe that no such large and scientific application of the theory of profit-sharing has ever before taken place in the history of any industry in any country, certainly not in this country.
      The main features of the scheme are briefly these: Wages will form a first charge on the industry, and a standard is to be set up below which wages will not fall. That standard, which is 20 per cent. above the pre-War rate of earnings, and which was the subject of much controversy, has now been agreed between the parties as a result of the negotiations of the last two days. The standard wage and the other costs of the industry being satisfied, the owner takes a certain portion of the proceeds.
      It has now been agreed between the parties, as a result of the conversations which took place yesterday and to-day,

      2061
      that for every £100 which the workman receives in respect of his standard wage, the owner shall take £17. If there be further proceeds to be divided, the mine-owner and the workmen take them in the proportion of £83 to the workmen, and £17 to the owner. This system is worked out according to the production of the several districts in the coalfields. These districts have also now been agreed upon between the parties after considerable difficulty, the last obstacle in this respect being removed only about an hour ago.
      Mr. LUNN: What are the districts?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be better if I were to leave these very minute details. It is rather important that the House should get a picture of the settlement as a whole. The actual document will be distributed later on.
      Mr. S. WALSH: As a Parliamentary Paper?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. The next point to which attention should be directed is that the parties are agreed that this settlement shall last until the 30th September, 1922, three months' notice to be given by either party if they wish then to determine it. That brings it up to December, 1922, before it can be terminated. One of the difficulties in connection with the last ballot was that the guarantee of this standard was given only down to 30th June. Now, that guarantee is prolonged as long as the arrangement lasts, and, therefore, ensures us practically 18 months of peace in the coalfields. But I believe that when the workmen see the benefits which they themselves will derive from this arrangement, and when the owners on their part come to understand the advantages of taking the workmen into partnership, we shall attain a condition of harmony which has never before prevailed in the coal industry.
      There is, however, a period immediately in front of us—and so now I come to the temporary arrangement—during which the operation of this arrangement would create very great difficulty in certain important districts of the coalfields. The exporting districts have been very hard hit during the last six months by the almost complete collapse of the export trade; and, in respect of the great contribution which these districts have made to the interests of the country during the
      2062
      War and since they deserve, in our view, special consideration, and we have repeatedly said so in this House. It is sufficient for me to state that if the economic conditions were allowed at once to have full play before the industry had had time to recover, the reduction which would be necessary in South Wales would be 9s. 6d. a day, in Northumberland 6s. 3d., in Cumberland 8s. 7d., in Scotland and Lancashire somewhere about 5s, and in North Wales 6s. 6d. It was accordingly urged by both the owners' and the miners' representatives—the owners taking the lead in bringing pressure to bear on the Government in this respect—that it was necessary to give some assistance in these districts if the pits were to be enabled to start work again.
      I have no doubt that hon. and right hon. Members of this House have read in the papers this morning, and in the papers last night, the appeal that was made to us late last night—in the first place by the owners and afterwards by the miners—that substantial assistance was absolutely necessary if the coal trade was to be started again under present conditions, notably in two or three of the most important coalfields of the country. They represented to us that it was impossible in some of the pits to expect the workmen to resume work unless temporary assistance were granted. We had, as the House knows, a week ago withdrawn our offer of £10,000,000. We had deemed it necessary to give notice that if the miners rejected our terms, the subsidy must be treated as withdrawn. When the parties approached us later with a view to a settlement, the Government had a perfectly free hand in that respect. When negotiations were resumed, we made it quite clear it must not be assumed that the £10,000,000 was available, but that it must be a matter for negotiation and discussion among us.
      I have to state to the House that the facts impressed upon us last night, both by the owners and by the miners, absolutely convinced us that, without Government aid, there could only be a very partial resumption of work in the coalfields at the present time. We accordingly considered the best form in which assistance could be given. We were clearly of opinion that it could not be afforded on the same principles as those on which we had previously made our offer, when we

      2063
      agreed to make a grant of £10,000,000, to be distributed as the miners thought fit for the purpose of assisting the workers in the various districts.
      After considerable discussion, partly last night and again this morning, we arrived at an arrangement whereby we decided that the first reduction in wages should take place in July and should not exceed. 2s. per shift; the next in August, 2s. 6d.; and in September 3s. per shift. Beyond that period the permanent arrangement comes into full operation, and the Government subsidy has no concern with that. We have fixed as the limit of any contribution the sum of £10,000,000. Of course, we shall only pay up to that amount under the deductions which I have- described. In any district in which Government aid is necessary, the owners as a body have agreed to forego for three months the amount of the aggregate profit which would accrue to that district under the profit-sharing scheme which, as the House probably understands, involves the striking of a profit and loss account for that district as a whole. Further, in any district in which a reduction of wages takes place under this settlement, any surplus profits will be foregone during the same period by the owners. In this way there is required less outside assistance than would otherwise be the case.
      Finally, upon these terms I ought to state that a National Board is to be set up, consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the mineowners and miners, and also District Boards of a like character, to which all matters of controversy between the parties will be referred. Both the District Boards and the National Board will have independent Chairmen to be called in, if the parties cannot agree. It is hoped in this way to obtain a settlement of questions which might not otherwise be accomplished. The coalowners accepted these terms. The Executive of the Miners' Federation propose to leave at once for the coalfields, and to recommend these terms to the men.
      I am anxious to say nothing which will add to a very difficult task—how difficult it is the recent ballot will make clear—beyond that the whole success of this scheme depends on the spirit in which it is worked; and that constitutes an additional reason why nothing should be said
      2064
      which will tend to exasperate, irritate or embarrass any of the parties. The settlement is a very great experiment, and I think a very promising one. No such principles have ever before been applied on so great a scale to a great industry.
      Mr. S. WALSH: On any scale.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure. There may be a few small industries, but I am perfectly certain that in no country has a great industry attempted an experiment of this kind, which involves such complete co-operation between employers and workmen, such complete participation in the profits by the men, and such complete participation in the prosperity which they themselves create. I am very hopeful that it may create new relations between Capital and Labour, not merely in this industry, but in all industries. It is necessary in this industry above all, and one reason is that we have had more trouble probably in this industry in recent years than in almost any other industry. There have been two strikes; there have been several threats of strikes.
      Mr. G. BARKER: Lock-outs.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Well, there have been stoppages. There have been two actual stoppages, one of them very prolonged, and the other a serious one, quite recently. There have been several threats of stoppages. So that it is very essential there should be an arrangement which will produce a new spirit in the whole industry. The other reason is that this is the basic industry for almost all industries in the Kingdom, and when anything goes wrong here, it dislocates and disturbs every industry throughout the country. The output per man has been reduced to an alarming extent. All concerned in this industry have their share of responsibility for this, and it is essential that there should be some means, or some new spirit, introduced that shall have the effect of increasing the output. I do not know of a better way of doing it than by interesting all those who are engaged in this great industry in the profits of their own labour and their own investment, whether it be an investment of capital or an investment of toil. In 1914 the wage cost per ton was 6s. 11d.; in March last it was 27s. 9d.—
      Mr. HARTSHORN: Does that include unemployment charges?
      The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will take any other month, he will find that it was an enormous increase. There is no one who has done more to call attention to it than he has, and I am sure there will be no disagreement between us on that point. It is essential, in order to enable the workman to get a good wage; it is essential in order to enable the owner to get a fair profit; it is, above all, essential in order to enable the industries of this country to carry on, to be able to sell coal abroad, to be able to produce the goods which they have to take into the markets of the world to meet other competitors—it is essential that that condition of things should be remedied. I feel very hopeful that that will be the result of an arrangement by which all the parties feel that they are co-partners in this industry, that they have a direct interest in improving the condition of things, that if they do not improve it their wages must be necessarily cut down, that if they do improve it, their wages will go up, but that their wages, as well as the profits of the owners, depend upon improving the condition of things when the output has been reduced to a point where, instead of its costing 6s. 11d. per ton in respect of wages, it cost anything from 25s. to 27s. 9d. in February and March. That is the new element which has been introduced, and, although this conflict has been a very costly one and a very destructive one, and threatened to be a very devastating one to our trade, I believe that, if this new system be worked in a spirit of goodwill, it will more than repay the nation for all the damage which has been inflicted. I believe it will open a new era of co-operation in this industry. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding, there has been a good deal of working at cross-purposes. The industry has suffered, and the nation has suffered. I hope that that now has come definitely to an end. This nation, above all the nations of the world, feels that it is an essential condition of its existence—not merely its prosperity—that there should be peace throughout the world, and, above all, peace in all our industries.
      Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether the effect of the House adjourning as a result of the Prime Minister's Motion would be that the House
      2066
      would agree to the grant of £10,000,000 without further Debate.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is necessary, if the proposal to grant £10,000,000, or up to a maximum of £10,000,000, as described by my right hon. Friend, is challenged, that it should be challenged now, because the miners, who are to proceed to their districts, must know whether the House approves of this policy or not. The only way in which we can indicate that is by taking a vote on the Motion for Adjournment. If it is not challenged, the Motion will be negatived without a Division. If the payment of a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 be challenged, those who are against it must vote in favour of the Motion for the Adjournment, and those who support the proposal of the Government will vote against the Motion for the Adjournment.
      Captain STANLEY WILSON: It was the Prime Minister who moved "That the House do now Adjourn."
      Mr. SPEAKER: May I explain? What usually happens in these cases is that, after the Debate has gone a certain distance, the Government ask leave to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment. If there be objection, even by a single Member, that withdrawal is not allowed. Thereupon the Motion ceases to be a Government Motion, and those Members who do not support the Government will then vote for the Adjournment, while those who support the Government will vote against the Adjournment.
      Mr. ASQUITH: It is obviously impossible that the House should discuss the details of the arrangement which the Prime Minister has announced, until we have before us the White Paper which contains them in full, and I think it would be at this moment extremely inexpedient to run the risk of saying anything which might hinder the accomplishment of the settlement which we all desire. I rise, therefore, simply to say, in the first place, that I am sure it is a source of profound relief, and, indeed, of heartfelt gratification, to the House, as it will be to the country, to see that we are at any rate, as we may hope, within a measurable distance of the speedy termination of this disastrous national dispute. I think, further, without prejudice to any criticisms that may have to be made upon specific points in the temporary arrangement, that

      2067
      we shall hail with satisfaction, as I certainly do, the fact that the owners and the men, as we hope, are going to come to a permanent settlement of their future relations on the basis of profit-sharing. If that were once established as the modus operandi in this, which is the greatest and most fundamental of all our industries, there is no reason why it should not be extended to other departments of production. Many of us have long since thought, and some have said, that in that way will be found the best avenue of escape from the perpetual embroilments which conflicts of labour and capital, so-called, entail. I will only add, as regards the immediate purpose of this Motion, that I think the House will take upon itself a very great responsibility if it refuses the Government the authority they ask to incur expenditure which, I understand, is not in the whole to exceed, though it may not necessarily reach, £10,000,000.
      Mr. CLYNES: I rise to offer a few observations on the announcement of the Prime Minister, and incidentally to express the hope that the recommendation of the miners' leaders—the leaders who have had the responsibility of negotiating this arrangement—will be accepted by the men as the best settlement obtainable in the circumstances which have been reached. The terms cannot be discussed in this House, even when we may get in the White Paper their full details. The members of the Executive of the Miners' Federation will have to explain those terms, and will have to defend, probably, their action in consenting to them. I think that those of us who are associated with mine-workers' interests, and with the interests of organised Labour in this country, might strengthen the appeal of the Miners' Federation Executive by declaring that in our view it will be advisable for the rank and file of the miners to accept them; but I cannot say a word upon the question without expressing my own profound disappointment at the manner in which this subject has been handled by the Government from the very beginning. If, in March of this year, the Government could have—
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have studiously avoided making any comment upon the conduct of this controversy by others, because I did not want to add to any difficulties; but I must warn my right
      2068
      hon. Friend that, if he really is going to attack the Government upon this subject, we are bound in self-defence to reply.
      Mr. CLYNES: I shall not shrink from meeting any reply that the Prime Minister may think it advisable to make.
      The PRIME MINISTER: Does that help?
      Mr. CLYNES: I cannot accept the description which the Prime Minister has applied to what I have said. I thought I was stating the merest commonplace, and I wanted to say seriously what I believe is patent, that if the events of the last three months—
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask my right hon. Friend to remember that I have promised to put the Vote down for Friday, when there will be an opportunity for discussion.
      Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether it is quite clear—I hope it is—that in accepting this suggestion of the Government we do not in any way preclude ourselves from any criticism that any of us may desire to make on the conduct of the Government in reference to this dispute? I do not want to say a word about it at this moment, but I do want to be quite clear that we are not going to shut ourselves out from any future criticism?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Nothing that takes place in the House to-day can in any way derogate from the rights of the Committee of Supply—the Committee of the Whole House which deals with Supply and money—in that respect primarily a superior body to the House itself. The purpose of the present discussion, I understand, is to enable the Government to gather the general sense of the House, so that, if that sense be favourable, they may feel themselves authorised to proceed. But that does not take away the perfect right of the Committee of Supply, on Friday or any other day, to cover the whole of the ground of criticism.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that if this goes through this evening the House gives formal sanction to the Vote of £10,000,000, or do we have a Debate again on Friday to discuss it?
      Mr. SPEAKER: There must be a separate Debate in Committee of Supply for that purpose, but it is customary for the

      2069
      Government to ascertain the general sense of the House, so that they may feel that they have adequate support for the proposal.
      Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: It is absurd. We cannot hold over the miners the offer of the £10,000,000 to get them over their difficulties and vote for that, and then some day later challenge the whole thing again. You have to take your courage in your hands now. If you want the strike to go on it is quite easy. If you want it settled it is quite easy, too.
      Earl WINTERTON: It has nothing to do with the ethics of the case. It is a question of the constitution of the House. You cannot alter the constitution of the House. Everyone is perfectly entitled on Friday to object to the Estimate.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think I have made the position clear. If the Government ask leave to withdraw their Motion for the Adjournment, and it be refused, the House may proceed to a Division, and those who challenge the Government policy can vote. They would still have a further opportunity on the Vote itself for detailed discussion, if they so desire.
      Mr. CLYNES: What we have heard as to a further opportunity for discussing the matter must alter the character of any discussion we may have to-day. I was about to say in regard to the general conduct of the dispute by the Government that I recognise that this is not the moment at which to debate at length the various stages, but I thought I was entitled to express the view which provoked such resentment in some quarters of the House. I put it to the House that the very stubbornness of the fight and the manner in which the miners have starved and suffered is a proof at least of their sense of the justice of their cause. I put further the view that this House has shown itself to be mistaken, and so has the country, on the merits of the dispute by the clamour which was set up and sustained to let the men settle it themselves by ballot, the view being that it was the leaders who were the cause of the stoppage and the cause of its being prolonged, and that if the men had an opportunity to vote they would have accepted the terms that were offered them long ago. Hon. Members really must remember what they say during the course of the dispute when towards the end of it we remind them of what they have
      2070
      said. I have said and repeated in this House that a ballot of the rank and file of the workmen, no matter in what trade, has never yet ended a dispute which would not otherwise have been ended, but on the contrary ballots have very often been the cause of disputes being prolonged. There are certain elementary but really important facts in relation to these disputes which it would be well for hon. Members to fix in their minds. I hope no Member of this House will try to put difficulties in the way of the Government in relation to the real substance of the announcement which has been made as to the £10,000,000. But really it was a clumsy manœuvre at least for the Government to withdraw it at the time and in the manner they did. It would have been more in harmony with the dignity of the Government not to have tried to exert pressure by that proceeding upon the two parties, and particularly upon the men. I shall be interested to hear, when the time comes, really what were the reasons which prompted the Government, at a time of the very direst suffering on the part of the men and women it was known that the leaders were anxious for a settlement and were endeavouring to procure one, to withdraw the £10,000,000.
      I cannot sit down without offering an observation on what is to me an extremely interesting section of the announcement. The settlement has assumed a character which may have a very important bearing—that is, assuming the men accept it and that it succeeds—upon the whole future history and arrangement of terms as between employers and employed. I do not claim to be speaking for all my hon. Friends behind me, but I cannot refrain from expressing at least a personal opinion. I have long held the view that, after terms are settled between employers and employed as to rates of pay and conditions of service, it never could be a bad thing for workmen to make a further bargain by which they would get a share in additional profits, or the margin of profits, which might remain in the industry. The acceptance of that principle and arrangement will never tend to undermine the trade union spirit of the workmen or lessen their sense of solidarity. It is, in my judgment, no barrier at all to the continued advocacy of any general principles which we enter-

      2071
      tain in relation to whatever may be the existing economic order. But I believe, given the spread and establishment generally of that principle of sharing the additional margin of profits, you would have a tendency to greater peace, greater efficiency, and a greater sense of satisfaction as to the right and just thing being done between employers and employed, and I am hopeful to see a development towards that goal of real partnership and a fair sharing of the profits of industry as between employers and employed.
      Any one of us in close touch with the working of the trade union machine in these days in relation to these big disputes can see how defective and how out of date that machine is for the purpose which it seeks to serve. The worst body of men very often, or the men least capable of forming a true judgment of their own interests, are the masses of the workmen themselves, and I would plead for the great masses of the workmen, not merely to have greater faith in their appointed leaders, but to place in their hands the exercise of greater authority and power. [Interruption.] I trust no Member of the House is so satisfied with the events of the last three months that he can now regard this chapter as closed, with the certainty that if no change is advocated in the conditions which have contributed to produce it we will return to such a condition of things perhaps before very long. My effort, such as it is, is a contribution towards the reform and re-arrangement of that machinery of the trade union movement which has so much to do with the settlement of these disputes, and this House might well give a few minutes of its time, when it has the opportunity, probably to save weeks of time spent in the prolongation of disputes or spent sometimes in causing them where otherwise they could be prevented. What I mean is this: Take these miners' leaders—the members of the Executive; they are men who have had no power and no authority; they have not even been able to negotiate, in the sense of discussing in detail terms with the mineowners. It is only within the last day or two that that has been done, and it has been done because they have dared to assume a power not properly conferred upon them. I am glad they have done it.
      Mr. HARTSHORN: I am sorry.
      Mr. CLYNES: And under the pressure of the dire circumstances and conditions in the industry, if they had not assumed this power, the dispute would be drifting on and on, week after week, month after month, until no one would know where it would end. I am glad they have assumed this power, and it will be a good thing for British industry if trusted and competent leaders, who in the nature of things come up closest to the real merits of the difference, and to the real facts in dispute, could be vested with greater authority, instead of being merely told to go and listen to what the employers have to say and then carry a message to some larger body, knowing even less than the members of the executive, and the larger body in turn delegating the question to the masses of men, who know least of all what has happened in connection with these discussions. That is not a very serviceable line for the trade union movement to continue on. Leadership after all is tested by results. We learn by experience. The experience of this dispute has proved that it would be better for the masses of men to vest their trusted leaders, when they have chosen them, with authority to act for them as wisely as they can, and I hope, in addition, to the terms of this settlement, knowing the bearing and effect which the Prime Minister has described, tending to establish and spread a new spirit and principle, the spirit of co-partnership in industry, it will tend also to teach the whole trade union and Labour movement the lesson of the follies of the methods they have pursued, and accordingly increase the authority of the trusted leaders, who have to assume enormous responsibility in the earlier stages, and even in the later stages of these disputes.
      Colonel ASHLEY: I regard the grant of a £10,000,000 subsidy with the very gravest suspicion. It is very easy, of course, to vote public money for the purpose of settling an industrial dispute, and a dispute such as this has created untold havoc in the trade of the country. But I feel as a humble Back Bench Member that when the Government, on their responsibility, ask the House to endorse their policy, we knowing very little of the facts, of which they are fully seised, this House would incur a very grave responsibility if it did not back up this settlement and endeavour

      2073
      to look forward to a happier future in the coal industry and other industries. I think the Government, although it may be necessary, have set a very dangerous-precedent indeed, and other industries may well come to the House in the near future and say, "We are decontrolled. Why should not we have a subsidy the same as the miners?" And when they do come it will be very difficult, in logic, at any rate, for the Government to refuse to give it them.
      Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I do not wane to raise any point or cause any difficulty, but I want to ask two questions which I think are important. The first is, Does the temporary change involve any continuation of control?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No.
      Lieut.-Colonel NALL: If that is not so, does the arrangement, either the temporary one or the proposed permanent one, involve any immediate increase or decrease in the price of coal? Will the Government in their reply say if the proposed temporary figure involves any possible increase or decrease in the price of coal, and whether it is anticipated that a permanent settlement will be arrived at without an increase in the price of coal?
      8.0 P.M.
      The PRIME MINISTER: The temporary arrangement does not involve control at all. I think the answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first question is also the answer to the second. As to what the price of coal will be, the Government have nothing whatever to say. There is no control. It is left to the play of the market. Whether it will come down and to what extent it will come down depends entirely on the market at home and the markets of the world, and production will have a good deal of say in the matter. But we have no say in the matter, and we do not propose to interfere in that respect. The only further observation I would make is this: when we ask the House of Commons to grant up to £10,000,000 of money, any criticism that may be passed upon the Government we shall be very delighted to meet. We are not in the habit of running away from criticism, either of my right hon. Friend or of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil). If he has anything to say, I hope he will be here to say it.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: In spite of that admonitory—
      The PRIME MINISTER: It is defensive.
      Lord R. CECIL: Defensive or offensive? Or both? But apart from that, I suppose the terms will be published in to-morrow's papers, or will they be distributed, because it will be convenient for us to have them in our hands?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): They will be published.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Prime Minister will be here on Friday to listen to some of the criticisms, especially from some of his own faithful supporters below the Gangway. If he could hear some of the things that are said outside the House, inside the Chamber they would do him a world of good.
      Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Knowing something of trade union organisation, I am wondering whether Friday is long enough ahead for such a criticism as is suggested. It is a moral certainty it would be fatal to the ratification of the agreement if an acrimonious discussion as to the attitude of the Government or the attitude of the leaders of the miners or the attitude of the men themselves took place before a final decision is come to. I would venture to suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should make Friday tentative only upon the understanding that the decision is then final for acceptance or rejection, for I can see quite clearly from what has taken place already that we shall be attempting to make an agreement on the one hand, leaving it to the executive of the miners to fight their case as best they can, while we, on the other hand, are doing a positive injury to the success of that settlement.
      Commander BELLAIRS: There is sure to be a real feeling of anxiety on the part of the public as to whether this large subsidy to the mining industry will form a precedent. There is a strike threatened in the engineering trade at the present moment, and I think we should get some declaration that the circumstances under which this subsidy is paid are absolutely exceptional.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am very glad my hon. and gallant Friend has put that question. Perhaps I should have dwelt more upon that aspect of the case. It is because of the very special circumstances of this case that we felt there was a justification for responding to the plea of the masters and the men. Circumstances are very exceptional because of the conditions of the export trade. Huge prices were realised in the export trade, but that sum of money, instead of inuring to the benefit of the particular district where the coal was raised, was distributed throughout the whole industry and had an effect upon the price of coal. We took it into account and reduced the price of home coal in consequence of the profits made. That is a condition of things that we do not find anything corresponding to in any other industry, and I cannot conceive how it can be made a ground for pleading for a subsidy in any other connection. With regard to the other point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), there is, first of all, the difficulty of time. We must get the money as soon as possible, and I think Friday is the latest day on which we can produce the Estimate. I am not inviting provocative-speeches. If they come, then they have got to be dealt with, but I trust that the very pertinent observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend will have an influence upon those who are taking part in that discussion. It is true that Friday is a critical day—
      Mr. G. PARKER: Black Friday!
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, I hope it will be a White Friday. I ask my hon. Friend to take a brighter view than that. As a rule, he is a fairly cheerful soul. It is a time when the miners' leaders will be, I will not say wrestling with their men, but putting the case to their men, and anything which is said in this House may have a very disastrous effect. I shall certainly bear that in mind in any observations I make, and I trust everybody else will have the same sense of responsibility.
      Mr. G. BARNES: On a point of Order. If Friday be included in what you put to-day, will the whole day of Friday be taken up with this matter? I speak as one interested in another matter down for Friday.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is a matter beyond my control.
      Mr. BARNES: If Friday be a Supply Day, can anything else be taken?
      Lord R. CECIL: No.
      Mr. BARNES: If not, can we have another day?
      Major-General SEELY: Before the Government replies, may I respectfully point out to the Prime Minister that, as I am told on these Benches, it is the fact that the decision will be probably come to in many districts on the Saturday and Sunday, and would it not be a most extraordinarily injurious thing to have our Debate on that day when there are very divergent views on the subject although we may be all agreed that a settlement should be made? There may very likely be some bitter things said, and in those circumstances it would surely be much better to have the Debate on Monday. Surely the forms of the House can be stretched to enable us to do that?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position is, we must get the money in order to be able to implement the agreement. In the second place, I came under an obligation to the House, at the request of the House, that this Vote should be put down on the earliest opportunity we had. For those two reasons, I think the Vote must be taken on Friday. But there is a great danger, if we have a discussion on Friday, of things being said that may prejudice the settlement outside, and what I would suggest, if that meets with the approval of the House, would be that the Vote should be taken without discussion on Friday, if hon. Members would agree to that, with a Division if any Member wishes to challenge it, and we can then put down the Vote of the President of the Board of Trade or the Vote of the Secretary for Mines on the Thursday following
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A Supply day?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Friday will not be a Supply Day, but we can put down a Supply Vote to enable the discussion to be taken on the following Thursday.
      Mr. HALLS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that coal

      2077
      merchants, anticipating a settlement would be arrived at as the result of the recent ballot, sent out price lists in which, in a number of cases, the new price for coal was to be at least 6s. more than the previous price? What protection is the community going to get during the period when there is a huge demand for coal?
      Mr. BARNES: May I be assured as to the point I raised? Am I right in assuming Friday will be clear?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We must put this Vote for the mines down as the first Order. I am very sorry, but that must be done. If, as has now apparently been arranged with the assent of those now in the House, the Vote is taken without discussion—
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: No!
      Major-General SEELY: Yes!
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend sees the difficulty of making any arrangement. All I can say is, if the Vote finish before 5 o'clock, we shall proceed with the business in which he is interested, but that must depend on the progress made.
      Mr. BARNES: May I be allowed to make a protest against any such arrangement. It might be, possibly will be, as far as I can gather from the ejaculations on the other side, that the discussion on this Vote will reach 4 o'clock. Are we only going to have one hour for discussing the important question of what the Government is going to do in regard to the Washington Conventions? If so, that is very unsatisfactory to me, and not only to me but to many more outside. I think it is due to the importance of this matter that we should have some assurance that we shall not be fobbed off with one hour, or perhaps two hours. If we cannot have a proper discussion on Friday, we should get another day.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I offered another day for the discussion of the Mines Vote, if the Vote be given us on Friday without discussion. If the House insist on its right to discuss the Vote on Friday, we cannot undertake to provide another day for a second edition of the same discussion. But if there be no discussion on
      2078
      Friday, then my right hon. Friend's subject will come on at once.
      Major-General SEELY: The objection taken on this side is not to giving the Vote on Friday without discussion. As I understand it, it is to taking a Supply day for the discussion.
      Captain W. BENN: Perhaps I might ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that we only have a very limited number of opportunities to discuss important topics in Supply. If we find one of these days devoted to discussing this topic, it will deprive us of opportunities we have anticipated for discussing other matters. Will he correspondingly enlarge the period of Supply, so that we shall have an opportunity of discussing these other matters?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give an undertaking to do that, having regard to the general state of business. I do not say at this stage that I will give any more extra days than the one already promised. I am not refusing to do it, but I cannot see at this stage that I shall be able to do it. I cannot conceive any more important matter for which one of our Supply days could be used than the discussion which has been promised.
      Dr. MURRAY: If the silly Anti-Dumping Bill were withdrawn we should get 10 days in which to discuss this and other matters.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Leader of the House does not help us. We do not want to take away the time given for the debate on the Motion of the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes), but we do object to Thursday of next week being fixed for this debate on the mines and that day being treated as a Supply day.
      Mr. WATERSON: Who are "we"?
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Section to which I have the honour to belong, and we have so far worked harmoniously with the hon. Member's party in regard to these matters of Supply. We object to being deprived of a day for discussing important matters on the Estimates. We feel that we are being jockeyed in this matter, although I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would do that purposely. I do not think that we, are being fairly dealt

      2079
      with. If we are to lose our Supply days we shall have no control over finance.
      Mr. ACLAND: I hope the Leader of the House will not close his mind on this question. He has expressed his opinion now and we cannot usefully carry on this discussion across the Floor of the House; but a constitutional point is involved. The choice of subjects for Supply days rests with the Opposition, and this seems to be a case of the Government fixing what should be taken on a Supply day. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks better of the matter, after consideration, he will give us another Supply day instead of next Thursday.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My difficulty is to get the controlling mind of the Opposition, if I may say so without offence. I thought it was the desire of both sections of the Opposition that no discussion should take place on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I understood that, and I offered next Thursday in place of it. That is what I have done. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [22nd June],
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
    Which Amendment was, after the word "Committee," to insert the words "and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination."—[Captain W. Benn.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. ACLAND: The Leader of the House would shorten the discussion if he could see his way to accept the Amendment, the object of which is to allow the Estimates Committee to consider the form of the Estimates. In our last discussion this question got a little bit confused, not through the fault of the Leader of the House. The question of the form of accounts was brought in, and my right hon. Friend said, quite truly and rightly,
    2080
    that that question had always been a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, and he could not possibly allow the form of accounts to be considered by the Estimates Committee. I accept that absolutely. It has been the constitutional practice when the Treasury wish to alter the form of Estimates, to lay that question also before the Public Accounts Committee, because an alteration in the form of Estimates may alter the form of accounts.
    If something of the kind that is proposed in this Amendment is not inserted, what will be the position? The Estimates Committee, I imagine, may be quite right in saying, "We examined the Estimates, and certain things occurred to us with regard to their better arrangement. We could understand them more clearly if they were arranged in a different form." Sometimes these alterations might necessitate the question of the accounts as well; sometimes they would not. It would be rather absurd that if the Estimates Committee wanted to suggest a modification in the form of Estimates they would have to leave it over until the Treasury consulted the Public Accounts Committee or until members of the Estimates Committee who happened to be members of the Public Accounts Committee raised the matter in the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee have not in my experience considered the form of the Estimates, but they are most jealous as regards the form of the accounts. It is part of the provisions of the Statute that the Treasury is to lay down forms of accounts, but before doing so it has been their custom to consult the Public Accounts Committee. It would be much more convenient if the Estimates Committee wishes to say anything about the form of the Estimates that they should have the right to do so, and thereupon the Public Accounts Committee could be consulted as to whether it would necessitate any modification in the form of accounts and their view taken upon it.
    I consulted the present Comptroller and Auditor-General, without telling him the view of my right hon. Friend. I said: "Do you confirm the statement made in the Debate the other day that, normally, the only Committee which has been consulted hitherto with regard to the form of Estimates has been the Public Accounts Committee?" He said, "Yes. It has

    2081
    been the custom by courtesy for the Treasury in connection with any important modification of Estimates, because it may involve an alteration in the form of accounts, to put the matter before the Public Accounts Committee." I said: "How will that be affected by the Estimates Committee?" He said: "Assuming that there is an Estimates Committee, that would at once be the proper Committee to consult about the form of Estimates, and the proper Committee to originate any modifications in the form of Estimates, and they would get in touch with the Public Accounts Committee if any alteration or modification was necessitated in the form of public accounts." I have had the privilege of talking over the matter with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and evidently the attitude taken by the Government on the last occasion was because the question of accounts was brought in.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has put the case very fairly and cogently. He is perfectly right in the assumption that my opposition to the Amendment on the last occasion arose purely out of my desire not to impinge upon the admitted position and the acknowledged claim of the Public Accounts Committee, and not to have two committees with overlapping powers possibly getting at loggerheads. But since that discussion my hon Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hilton Young) came to see me on the matter. He put very much the same case which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) has put, and I think it is a good case for accepting the Amendment and allowing this Committee the power which it is sought to give by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment. Of course, it must be admitted that in doing so there is a possibility of conflicting reports on the same matter from two committees, and even of a certain clashing of their inquiries and activities, but I should trust the judgment and discretion of the Chairman of the Committee and the good sense of the committees themselves to see that no ill-consequences follow from that. Accordingly, after consultation with my hon. Friend, and fortified by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland), who has himself been a Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and would be jealous of its privileges and position, I withdraw the opposition which
    2082
    I offered the other evening and accept the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out the words "consistent with the policy implied."
    I may point out the very small number of Members who think that this question of the Estimates Committee is wórthy of attention. But for the fact that Standing Orders precluded, I am certain that some hon. Members would have drawn attention to the email number of Members who are present. The memorialists—I think that their number has risen to 185—who have been taking such a touching interest in Government extravagance and expenditure, and most of whom are gentlemen who consistently support that expenditure in the Lobbies, are conspicuous by their absence. As I look round I do not see one of them present, not even the organiser of the protest the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). The Anti-Waste party, even the latest recruits who cause such a fluttering in the Government dovecotes, are absent, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) on the fact that these gentlemen who roared so loudly in Hanover Square and East Herts coo like doves in the House, or betake themselves to the recesses of the Smoke Room when any matter of expenditure comes before us. Emboldened by the result of the last Amendment, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself in a position to accept this. If not, from what I know of one or two Government Departments, the Admiralty in particular, the work of the Estimates Committee will be a farce.
    Take the Admiralty. If the Estimates Committee is set up, and proceeds to examine one of the most extravagant Departments—because it is one of the Departments most immune from public criticism—and proceeds to examine the expenditure on dockyards, it may go into details as to the number of workmen kept, the amount expended on fuel for electric cranes or steam cranes, or the cost of scraping a vessel's hull, but directly it goes into a really important question—it is one which I am most familiar with—the number of dockyards that are being kept up, for example, the case of the dockyards on the East Coast, it will

    2083
    always meet, and quite properly, with the answer, "That is a matter of policy." Therefore, where real economies can be effected the Committee will be written off and unable to recommend anything. It will be able to go into the number of bootlaces a boy should be allowed in a free kit when he joins the Navy, but if it begins to say that the number of boys in a time of peace, with the present financial condition of the country, should be reduced much below what it is at present, it will be told that that is a matter of policy. If the Committee examined the cost of the upkeep of an individual ship, it would be within its rights, but if it questioned the amount of money on building a certain class of vessels, such as, for example, the useless class of sailing sloops which were laid down several years ago, and were scrapped a few years later by Lord Fisher, it would be told, "That is a matter of policy, and you cannot discuss it." I could multiply instances of this sort indefinitely. If these words are not taken out the Admiralty will be able to block all useful examination of expenditure. Everything will be policy, except mere matters of detail, as to which there is the utmost difficulty in pointing out where a reduction of expenditure is possible.
    Then the whole policy of the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the War Office with reference to the Middle East, the retaining of troops in Persia at a great cost at the end of long lines of communication, extending the frontiers of Mesopotamia northwards up to the only defensible frontier, which I am afraid will be found to be the Caspian Sea on the one side or the Mediterranean on the other, will all be debarred if we are to leave these fatal words in the Resolution. The Government may say—I have seen this criticism already made in the "Times" and other journals—that if you allow this Committee to examine policy with reference to expenditure you will make it into a body which will be a rival to the Cabinet itself. That was referred to in his usual charmingly lucid manner by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) when introducing his series of Amendments, and I was hoping to see his name appearing above mine on the Order Paper to-day. I think that that is an unsound criticism of my proposal. This Committee is asked
    2084
    only to recommend, and it is for the Cabinet to invite the House to accede to or reject the proposals of the Committee, and the fact that the Committee may make certain suggestions with regard to policy does not relieve the Cabinet or the House of its obligation with regard to policy at all.
    I cannot see how Ministers can fear that their dignity would be outraged or lowered in any way because their policy is questioned. I think it would be extremely healthy, for example, if the Admiralty officials and War Office officials, and particularly the Foreign Office officials, the members of the permanent staff, who are the real rulers of the country, could be summoned and required to explain policy. You would then get what is needed, a real Committee on Foreign Affairs, on naval policy, and on War Office policy, which could sit in camera if necessary, as at present in the United States and France and other countries. This Committee could be enlarged, if required, and it could cross-examine these permanent officials in a way that the House cannot do. I am certain that the members of it could be trusted to preserve secrets in the public interest, and their recommendations would be so worded as not to give away vital information outside the country.
    Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that on this Amendment I cannot allow myself to be as yielding as on the last. I am rather pained that the Mover of the Amendment should have assumed that I was so unstable as to be likely to back his proposal. The gentlemen whom I asked to be good enough to consult with me as to the form which such an Estimates Committee as this might best take were, with the exception of the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. G. Lambert), unanimously opposed to conferring on a Committee of this kind the right to inquire into policy. And for a good reason. Let me take the first argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that this infringes, not upon the dignity of the Cabinet, which is not concerned in the matter, but upon the responsibility of the Cabinet and the power of the House. I do not think that the House will be willing to have policy decided by a small Committee upstairs instead of its being de-

    2085
    cided here in the House, where any Member can challenge the Minister and receive an answer from the Minister. There is another objection. Since we are setting up this Committee, I hope, though I am not very sanguine about Committees of this kind, that it will prove useful. If it is to be useful it must be a Committee like the Public Accounts Committee, into which party spirit does not enter—a Committee of judges anxious to do the best for the State, putting aside for the time all party considerations. The moment you confer upon the Committee the right to go into and challenge policy it is impossible for the Committee to be of that kind.
    It is impossible that the Government could consent to send questions of policy to a Committee like the Public Accounts Committee, where the chairman is habitually of the opposite party and where the majority is sometimes of the opposite party. Indeed, I would say that in a very short time you would find that as much care would be taken to secure a majority on the Committee as is taken to secure a majority in this House when important questions of policy are discussed. You would in fact change the whole nature of the Committee. You would not get an impartial examination of the Estimates with a view to economy, but you would transfer to the Committee upstairs the kind of discussion which we have habitually on Votes of Supply downstairs, when party issues are raised and party votes are given, and economy is the last thought of any speaker.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We could still have those discussions downstairs.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You would have them upstairs. You do not want a Committee to duplicate the work done downstairs. You want a Committee to do the work that is not done downstairs. Downstairs we are not concerned with policy. Let the work of examining Estimates with a view of securing economy be transferred to the Committee upstairs and let us retain down here the discussion of policy to which the House is habitually addicted.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How about the Estimates never discussed on the Floor of the House because of the Guillotine? The policy of those Estimates might not be discussed from Session to Session.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the main, as the hon. Member knows, the subjects for discussion in Supply are fixed by the Opposition party. I do not think that that can be considered an indefeasible rule when parties are divided as they are now. You must have regard to the subjects which interest the majority of the House. Happily the gentlemen with whom these things are arranged take that into account and are generally able to meet the convenience of the House. In that way, if there be a desire to raise policy on any particular Vote, that Vote is brought before the House. Whether the opportunities of raising questions of policy are adequate or not, I submit that policy must be raised in the House and that to refer questions of policy to this Committee would be to destroy all possibility of the effectiveness of that work for which I am asked to set up the Committee. With the single exception of my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Lambert), who is not able to convert us nor are we able to convert him, that was the opinion of the high and varied authorities whom I asked to assist me in connection with this matter.
    Captain BENN: There is one preliminary remark I have to make and it is a reply to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and so often said, about the House of Commons being responsible for expenditure. I have heard this many times from his lips and it may have been true in the past. He always seems to say: I am the watchdog for economy and I am being pressed by Members to spend money. The Question Paper shows that Members wish to have this and that done involving expenditure, but it would be much truer to say to-day that the House of Commons is the watchdog of economy—to some extent—and that the Government is responsible for having launched out on large questions of policy, involving enormous and unprofitable expenditure of public money. That should be said, because we are always told the House of Commons is responsible for expenditure, whereas really, in present times, the reverse of the statement is true. The second remark I desire to make is this. I do not think it is fair of my right hon. Friend to shelter himself entirely behind the Committee which met in May of this year because he is well aware that there have been two or three other Committees. I do not want to say anything derogatory

    2087
    about the important Committee which met this year, but it was to some extent an informal Committee, and two very important Committees went through this matter earlier. I cannot find any recommendation on the question of policy, but some of the best witnesses, including I think, Sir Charles Harris, pointed out that we could not have a Committee upstairs deciding questions of policy. What my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has in mind, is that if you put in these words you may have a situation arising such as the following. A Member of the Committee may proceed to ask questions of a particular kind from a Departmental witness, or perhaps a Minister. He may ask such a question as: What is the full cost that will fall upon the taxpayer, in consequence of the decision which has been arrived at in regard to Russia? The Member who asks such a question may be pulled up on the terms of reference and told by the Chairman that the Committee is not entitled to inquire into matters of policy. That may be a real difficulty.
    A Committee bound by a narrow interpretation of the terms of reference may not go into matters of the greatest financial importance, but when they have reported to the House or to the Supply Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer may claim to be fortified in asking for a particular sum of money, simply because the estimate has been before the Estimates Committee, and they have made a recommendation thereon. At the same time, despite the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, I cannot agree with him that a Committee upstairs is the proper body to deal with policy. Is the Leader of the House quite sure that the inclusion of these words in the terms of reference could not be utilised by witnesses to avoid answering questions, or in any other way to prevent the inquiry being a proper inquiry? It is quite true that the Floor of the House is the place where public policy should be debated, but the peculiarity about these Debates is that we never know what particular policies are costing. I have not had an opportunity of thanking the Leader of the House for accepting my previous Amendment, and I now wish to say I am grateful to him, and I think it is an important Amendment. I now suggest that if the Committee upstairs can insist on having
    2088
    a full account of all the financial implications of the Government's policy, and present a Report to the House on that, without saying anything as to the merits of the policy, the Supply Committee will be in a much stronger position. The Russian policy is a very good illustration. Nobody ever knew, and no one knows to this day, the full cost to the country of the excursions which resulted from the energy of the Colonial Secretary as regards Russia. The same is true of other things as well.
    If the House of Commons is in earnest in desiring to control and restrict expenditure they must know what the costs of various lines of Government policy are likely to be. That is all I am prepared to ask for. I would support the Amendment on those grounds. If the words are left in, we may find the Estimates Committee an instrument too weak for its purpose; we may find witnesses, and perhaps even Ministers, refusing information which the Estimates Committee ought to have and ought to report to the Supply Committee, on the grounds that the terms of reference prohibit them from inquiring into such matters. If I thought that the acceptance of the Amendment meant that the Estimates Committee was going to go into the merits of every item of policy, then I could not support the Amendment. Would not the Leader of the House consider whether something could not be put into the terms of reference which would enable the Committee to examine fully the financial implications which the Government is responsible for, without going into the merits of the policy? If he would consider such a suggestion, it would meet the case. I would not, however, agree to the delegation of the authority of the House of Commons in matters of policy to the Committee, and I do not think it is necessary, but what the Amendment seeks is that the Committee should be one capable of getting all desired information on the finances of these matters.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may, by the leave of the House, add one word to what I have already said. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) and I are at one as to what the Committee ought not to do. I do not think there is very much difference between us as to what the Committee ought to be able to do. I submit to him that we must have some faith in a Committee of this House

    2089
    and in the Chairman chosen by that Committee. We would be justified in having confidence both in our Committee and in its Chairman. A similar class of question may arise, as sometimes has arisen before, where a witness pleads that it is against public policy that he should answer a particular question or give particular information. I do not think a case has ever happened where that plea was improperly used.
    Captain BENN: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am not speaking of answers affecting the public interest at all, but of answers to questions which are addressed with the object of finding out the cost of certain items of policy.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if he waited longer he would see the relevance of my observations. That is the plea. A witness, wishing to escape from giving evidence, might use it improperly. I do not believe it ever has been used improperly, and I do not think there is any reason to anticipate that witnesses called in this instance will use improperly the plea, "You are now examining public policy; you are entering upon questions of policy." The Committee is entitled, once given a policy, to see whether that policy is being carried out economically or wastefully. That is the power which the hon. and gallant Gentleman really wants them to have. I venture to say that he should see the Committee at work with this reservation before he seeks to leave out the words now in dispute or put any other words in their place. To do so, might be an invitation to the Committee to do that very thing which both he and I agree should be done in the House and not in the Committee.
    Mr. ACLAND: May I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that he should do what has been suggested. Let the Committee have experience and see what they can do under their present references in the direction of finding out the cost of policy and whether or not that policy can be carried out equally thoroughly and rather more cheaply. If we hasten slowly in these matters we shall do well, and we might try it on the present basis for a year or so.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, because, speak-
    2090
    ing as the only Chairman of the Estimates Committee, I should very much deprecate any such power being given to the Committee. I was Chairman of the Estimates Committee during the whole of its existence. The Estimates Committee, like the Public Accounts Committee, was an entirely non-party Committee, composed of Members of the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the Labour party, and the Irish party.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Does not the right t hon. Baronet mean the National Expenditure Committee, and not the Estimates Committee?
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, I was Chairman of both—Chairman of the National Expenditure Committee during this Parliament, and Chairman of the Estimates Committee during the whole of its existence; it never had another Chairman. That Committee, which was absolutely non-party, was one of the best Committees I have ever had the privilege of presiding over, and its work was done, if I may say so, in a thoroughly efficient manner, but once you introduce the question of policy, you will introduce politics and party, and it will be absolutely impossible for any Chairman to keep the Committee in that judicial state which is so necessary. I defy anyone to sit on a Committee on which policy can be discussed and eliminate party feeling. Therefore, at once the utility of the Committee would be destroyed. My second reason is that you would take the responsibility from the shoulders of the Government and put it upon the Committee. Supposing the Committee were to advocate something which a large number of Members thought was wrong, and supposing the Government wanted an excuse to accept that policy, and they said, "We will act upon it because the Committee have decided upon it," at once the responsibility would be taken from the shoulders of the Government and put upon the shoulders of the Committee. I think it would be a fatal mistake, and I sincerely trust the Amendment will not be pressed, or if it is, that the House will reject it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine such of the Esti-

    2091
    mates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of twenty-four Members."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
    9.0 P.M.
    Captain W. BENN: I beg to move, after the word "Members," to add the words, "and shall be assisted by an officer of the House, especially appointed, with the title of Examiner of Estimates."
    I think this is the most important Amendment of all. All these Amendments which I have put down are based upon recommendations of a very important Committee, which went into the whole of this matter, and I have not put a single Amendment on the Paper except in pursuance of one of the recommendations of that Committee, the membership of which comprised some of the most distinguished experts in finance in the House of Commons. We have passed the paragraph which sets up a Committee to examine the Estimates. If such a Committee is to work efficiently, it must have a continuous survey of the expenditure of the Government. It is useless to sit over a few Estimates of one Department, with an officer of that Department, and make a recommendation, and then to sit another time and make another recommendation in regard to another Department, with the assistance of somebody else from that Department. We require a continuous examination, which can only be effectively made if the Committee have the advantage of some officer especially trained and especially in a position to advise them as to any changes in the Estimates or as to any economies which may be possible in them. There is another important thing, and that is that the officer so appointed should be an officer of this House. It could not be anyone whose own salary was borne on the Supply Votes of the Departments, for we should not get the assistance of the necessary independence. The appointment of this officer is essential if the Committee is really to carry out its work properly, and I will quote the words of
    2092
    Mr. Speaker Lowther, than whom we could not have a higher authority, on this point. He says: "An officer corresponding to the Comptroller and Auditor-General is, however, essential." Some hon. Members of that Committee thought the work ought to be undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself, but it was shown clearly in the course of the evidence that that would involve a confusion of offices, which made the proposal quite impossible. That an official of this kind should be appointed to advise the Committee in a continuous survey of the expenditure of the Departments, and that he should be independent of the Departments and a servant of this House, is, I submit, an essential condition of the Committee fulfilling its duties effectively. Therefore, it is with the greatest confidence and with the liveliest hope that the Government will accept the Amendment that I beg leave to move it.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. The Estimates Committee during the time of its existence always felt that their work was hampered by the fact that they had not an official in the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to look into matters for them. We had to find everything out for ourselves. The consequence was that a considerable amount of time was wasted, and a good deal which ought to have come to our notice escaped our attention. I think I notice an hon. Member of the Committee present, and I think he would bear me out in the statement I have just made.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Hear, hear.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Select Committee on National Expenditure was set up in the last Parliament, and was presided over by Sir Herbert Samuel. The question of whether or not an Estimates Committee should be set up was considered by them, and they had a considerable number of witnesses before them, including the then Speaker of the House, and, I think, the present Speaker, and, I think, also the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They all, and the Committee, unanimously came to the conclusion that one of the necessities, should an Estimates Committee be set up—which

    2093
    they strongly recommended—would be that there should be an official somewhat in the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General; that is to say, he should be an officer responsible to the House and not to the Government, and that he should give his whole time to the Committee. That does not mean setting up an expensive Department. It may mean two officers, especially if there is to be a Sub-Committee. Beyond that, for the present, there is no necessity to go. That being the case, what happened? The present Leader of the House, last February, promised the House he would set up an Estimates Committee. He appointed an informal Committee, of which I had the honour of being a member, to consider how the Estimates Committee should be set up, what the reference should be, what its procedure should be, etc. These were the recommendations of the Committee which were passed unanimously. I am quoting now from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th May last. In answer to a question, the Leader of the House said that perhaps the most convenient course would be to circulate a memorandum of the recommendations made by the informal Committee which he invited to assist him in considering the subject, and for whose advice and counsel he was very much obliged. I quote from the memorandum. Recommendation 7 of that Committee reads:
    "7. That there should be attached to the Committee an experienced member of the staff of the House of Commons whose function it would be to prepare material for the Committee's deliberations, and to render advice and assistance to the Committee and the Chairman in particular. Being a servant of the House of Commons this official would occupy an independent position in relation to Ministers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1921, col. 1693, Vol. 141.]
    That was one of the findings agreed to unanimously by the Committee, the present Leader of the House, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being Chairman of the Committee. I thought it was a mistake to limit the selection of this officer to the staff of the House of Commons. I need not go into the reasons, but some other members of the Committee were in favour of the official being a member of the staff of the House, and I therefore gave way. There is nothing of this in the Resolution on the Paper. It is left out altogether. It was the unanimous finding of the Committee. I cannot understand why this proposal
    2094
    was not put into the Resolution. It is important and it is absolutely necessary that it should be there. Unless something of the sort is put in, there is very little use in setting up a Committee. I cannot conceive why the Government should go back upon the finding of the Committee which they themselves set up and that they themselves agree with. I repeat I cannot conceive how it is possible that as this proposal is a proposal which the informal Committee agreed to, and which the Leader of the House himself agreed to, how it has been left out, nor can I believe that it is possible for the Government to object to it.
    Mr. ACLAND: I should like to say a word in support of what has already been said by the right hon. Baronet and my hon. and gallant Friend. The leader of the House has entirely hardened his heart in this matter. We cannot do anything; but I am perfectly certain that the course of events and experience will lead to this Amendment of ours being carried through within a year or two at most. A point made by the right hon. Baronet is a good one. He has quoted the OFFICIAL REPORT of 10th May. Something very different from the recommendations appears to be contemplated in the Resolution now before the House. If the Resolution is passed as it is, there being no mention of any special qualification or special duties for the person attached to this Committee, the Committee will be assisted by one of the clerks of the House. It is not the business of the Clerks of the House to help the Chairman of a Committee at all. It is their business simply to arrange the witnesses, to see that, there shall be a shorthand writer, and arrange that the formal proceedings shall be properly looked to. These are the least part of the Committee's work. The clerks do their duties admirably, but there is not one of them who has ever opened a volume of Estimates, or who has had any experience—so far as finance goes—
    Mr. MacVEAGH: We have a Committee clerk at all the Committees.
    Mr. ACLAND: Or has any concern in matters of financial detail, and so on, with which the Chairman of this Committee will have to concern himself. The Chairman of this Committee may, for instance, say, Let us accept the terms of our reference as laid down, and let us be very careful not to trench upon

    2095
    politics, but let us try to find out why Departments in many respects similar are in some cases more lavishly and in other cases more economically managed. It would not in the ordinary course of business be for the clerk attached to the Committee to help in any some of way by writing to the Departments or making investigations through the officers of the Departments, by arranging a questionnaire to the Departments, or anything of that sort, and it is very difficult, with the best will in the world, for busy Members of the House to engage themselves in that sort of detailed investigation on which really the success of a Committee of this kind must depend. I do not for a moment depreciate the excellent work done by the Estimates Committee when the right hon. Baronet was Chairman of it, and I am quite certain he was really understating the case when he said that they could do nothing that was worth doing without that assistance which he regards as so necessary. I make this point, that unless we can be given an assurance that something definite is going to be done in reference to this recommendation, we have every right to consider that there will only be the ordinary help provided by the attachment of a clerk, which does not carry out the terms of the recommendation, which says:
    "There shall be attached to the Committee an experienced member of the staff of the House of Commons."
    There is not a single Member of the staff of the House of Commons who is experienced at all in this work, and therefore I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to indicate that even if no special examiner has to be appointed ad hoc, at any rate there shall be included in the staff of the House of Commons some person having expert knowledge of these matters. It may not take his whole time, but he should be attached to the Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And if the Committee desire it, he should devote his whole time to that work.
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, he should do that if necessary. That seems to be suggested in the reference, but unless something is done to secure an experienced person the work of the Committee must, to a very large extent, fail of that usefulness which we all hope that it will attain.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment at the present time. The object of this Committee is to examine and investigate estimates of expenditure of the different Departments with a view of economising. This Amendment is not going to bring about any economy when you are proposing to create new officers, because the suggestion made by the Mover of this Amendment is that this officer should be an independent expert, and should be paid so that he would be free and independent to express any view or give any information to the Committee. The right hon. Baronet suggested that the recommendation of the Committee should be carried out that this expert should be selected from the staff of the House of Commons. I sat with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) on the Committee on National Expenditure where we have had these clerks present, but they have been of no use to us, and I pay the hon. Baronet this compliment that what he does not know about the expenditure of the different Departments or the Estimates is not worth knowing.
    I know the clerks cannot teach him anything at all, and with the right hon. Baronet as Chairman or as a Member of the Committee they will be able to carry out their duty far better than if they received any instruction from any expert that might be appointed. On a previous Amendment it was stated that the Committee was in its initial stages, and would have to set to work before they would be able to make any recommendations. I suggest to the right hon. Baronet that the Committee should set to work first of all with the right hon. Baronet's experience and the experience of others who have been in the House of Commons for a large number of years, and I believe they will be able to do their work to the satisfaction of this House without getting any expert knowledge at all. If they find the work is too much and they require experts, that will be the time to come here and ask for this increased expenditure. The first thing the Committee should do is to try and cut down expenditure, and not increase it by appointing this expert. I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment at the present time.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It is a great mistake to think that a small sum expended in saving a great sum is a loss. That point seems to be entirely forgotten.

    2097
    We spend a great deal on the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department, but it is not a large sum compared with the duties he has to perform, and it saves itself many times over, and the actual recovery of moneys in consequence of these services more than pays the actual expenses of that Department. It is not now proposed to set up another Department, but only one official. We do not know what his salary would be, but it probably would not amount to more than £2,000 or £3,000 a year with expenses, and by that expenditure we may be able to save ten or twenty times that amount on the Estimates each year. For that purpose it would be a very small expenditure for a very big profit, in fact, it would be throwing a sprat to catch a whale.
    It would be foolish to say now that we are not going to spend that small sum. It would be like a man in business saying that he could not afford to have ledgers or cash books. I have had experience on the Public Accounts Committee and I lave had previous experience on the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and I am able to appreciate the entire difference in the two ways of working. The two Committees were engaged largely in the same work, that is, overhauling the expenditure of the country, but in the case of the Public Accounts Committee the work comes before us after the accounts have been carefully audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, an expert servant of this House, and we have his report and we proceed straight to the points of importance and exercise our functions to the best possible advantage. On the Select Committee on National Expenditure, in spite of the great ability with which the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) presided over that Committee, I am sure he will admit that it was with the utmost difficulty that we could get really to business there because we had not got an expert official to help us to become familiar with the accounts and documents before we met. We had very valuable members of the staff of this House who did their work admirably. But that was not their work, they were not trained for it, they had not the time for it, it was not to be expected that they should do it. If you appoint an Estimates Committee and give them a trained official, however, who will make a study, say, of the Army. Esti-
    2098
    mates, which will be coming out this year and have come out during the past two or three years in an entirely new form requiring very elaborate study to understand them and still more elaborate study to draw the lessons from them which ought to be drawn as to the comparative expenditure in this and other similar services, if you have an official who can give the time and bring the necessary knowledge for thoroughly mastering Estimates of that sort you may hope to save thereby hundreds of pounds for every pound that it costs you in paying the salary and expenses of that official. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I served for a considerable time on the Estimates Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). I have no hesitation in associating myself cordially with all that he said about the experience of that Committee pointing to the urgent necessity of having an addition in the character suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn). What happened in that Committee? My right hon. Friend devoted great attention and care and an enormous amount of time to the work of the Committee. We had to work, however, in the dark. The Committee would meet, and say, "What Estimates shall we take this time? There was nobody there to collect any information about any Department, or to put any agreed scheme before us. All the Members of the Committee, amateurs themselves as to the working of the Departments, had to fish about to find what the Department was likely to furnish them with most material for the working of the doctrines of economy. That was a most unreasonable thing to expect of any Member of this House, and of any Member of capacity, because anyone of capacity has a great deal to attend to, and cannot give up his whole time to investigate the accounts of a Department. If, however, the Chairman of the Committee had an official whom he could instruct to get information about the Departments and make reports to him, the Chairman would then have some practical proposals to put before his Committee.
    I agree that this official ought to be independent of the Ministry. Some of the greatest difficulties in the investigations on that Committee came from

    2099
    Ministers themselves who objected to investigation into their Departments. We had to get several Cabinet Ministers before the Committee to explain why objections were being taken in their Departments. I think the salary ought to be on the Consolidated Fund and the official ought to occupy a position analagous to that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will adhere to his Amendment. For no other reason than that it is now proposed by the Government that this Committee should have power to divide itself into two parts. No provision whatever is made for the co-ordination of the two Committees when they are at work. Four members will constitute a quorum on each of those Committees. How are you going to work that, unless there is some system of co-ordination, and who is going to do the coordinating? Is a Member of the House to do that work also? Surely the simple and obvious course is to have an official, who will devote his whole time to this work and will be able to supply to these two Committees the information of which the chairman of each will necessarily stand in need.
    I do not know what the objection of the Government is to this Amendment. The only objection I have heard was put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Griffiths), who suggested that this was not the time for creating new salaries. Such an official, however, would save a great amount of his salary in a very short time. He would save it in the working of one Department alone, immediately he got to work on the investigation of the accounts. If there is one thing squandering officials do not like it is going before a House of Commons Committee. If they know they have to go before a Committee they will take care to cut down their expenditure before they come, and they will come prepared to submit economies for the Committee's consideration. You cannot discover these things unless you have an official who will go round the Departments on the instruction of the Chairman or Chairmen. Therefore, on the question of co-ordination alone, the case is abundantly made out for the appointment of an official of this sort.
    Sir G. COLLINS: This Amendment raises the question of the House of Commons and its powers month by month and year by year. If the House is going to
    2100
    exercise any effective and efficient control over finance it is vital that the Committee should have at its disposal one of the best brains in the Civil Service. There is no necessity for any large staff, and I am sure my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) would be the last to ask the House for any large number of officials. The total number required would not exceed ten, probably six would be sufficient.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think two or three.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Two or three.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Two to begin with, at any rate.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Let me submit to the House several wide considerations why I hope the House will adopt this Amendment, even though it is opposed to the wishes of the Government. I had, as the right hon. Baronet will know, considerable experience on the Expenditure Committee until illness laid me aside. If that Committee did any effective work during the War it was because the Sub-Committees had placed at their disposal first-class civil servants—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—
    Sir G. COLLINS: Before attention was called to the number of Members in the House I was directing attention to the vital necessity of an official being attached to this Committee. I was endeavouring to show that if the Expenditure Committee, at any rate during the War, when I was closely occupied with that work, did any effective work it was because the several Sub-Committees had officials attached to them, who, hour by hour, carried out the wishes of the Committees, and went closely into matters.
    What is the object of the Government in withstanding the wishes of the House of Commons in this matter? Let us try and realise what must be in their minds when they refuse this very natural and small request by the House. It is because they are anxious to keep the House of Commons ignorant of the administration of Government offices. The only object the Government can have in withstanding this simple request is that they want the House to be ignorant of what is going on in Government Departments. Vast sums of money are being spent to-day. The

    2101
    taxpayers are being heavily taxed throughout the country, and I submit that the Government have no right to levy taxes on the subjects of this Realm if they deny to this House the power to control expenditure. A little while ago an hon. Member sitting on this Bench representing the Labour party (Mr. Griffiths) spoke against this Amendment. Let me address an appeal to him and his colleagues on this subject. They are anxious that the House of Commons should be supreme. They stand for representative Government in the fullest, freest, and widest sense of the term. I will ask them, Will the House of Commons stand better in the eyes of the electorate if they are unable to go through Department after Department to examine week by week the expenditure which is going on? I put that question in all sincerity. Criticism to be effective must be well directed and must be informed.
    The Government have a large number of first-class civil servants who can prepare statements and clever replies when the Government expenditure is attacked in any Department, and hon. Members who desire to safeguard the public purse will be unduly handicapped if the Government refuse to agree to this simple request which would enable them to render great public service. If hon. Members are willing to attend morning after morning, as many hon. Gentleman have done for years, in order to examine into these matters, surely the Government should take note of the desire that there should be placed at their disposal the small staff they think necessary, and which experience has shown to be necessary, to enable them to conduct an effective examination. The House of Commons ought to take this matter into its own hands, and should insist on its wishes in this respect being given due effect to. The record of the Government on this question is quite in keeping with the experience of this House in 1917. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will recollect a Motion being brought forward to appoint an Expenditure Committee. It was moved on a Friday afternoon in July, 1917, and the Government en-deavoured to side-track it by a very clever move. But the House of Commons of that day was determined to carry the appointment of the Committee. I well recollect how on that particular Friday
    2102
    afternoon just before 5 o'clock two or three hundred Members pressed the matter so strongly that the Government-were forced to give way, the House showing that it was in earnest and was determined to get some grip over public expenditure. By the appointment of that Committee and as a result of the Reports it issued from time to time, although we may not have succeeded in securing any great reduction of expenditure, we did succeed in directing public attention to the fact that millions of public money were being poured out from the public purse. The Anti-Waste party are also trying now to attract public attention to this matter, and I hope they will support us in this Motion.
    Mr. KILEY: Where are they?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I see one hon. Member belonging to that party here.
    Mr. KILEY: And only one!
    Sir G. COLLINS: At any rate, we can-hope for their support, and we can hope, too, that the papers they control will take note of the action of the Government in withstanding this desire of the House to secure control over expenditure. If they will do that, they will certainly do valuable public service, and they will help us to secure the object we have in view, namely, the more efficient and effective administration of public money. I have spoken with some heat on this matter. I feel strongly on it. I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment that if the Government are not prepared to meet us in this matter, the Committee will be of very little use, and the House of Commons would be well advised not to accept the appointment of a Committee on the terms of reference outlined by the Government. There is one other point which I think should be stated in support of this Amendment. By refusing to accept it the Government are seeking to evade the light of publicity. They are seeking to deny to this House power to go into Government Departments to find out how public money is being spent. They are afraid of publicity, and in refusing this Motion they are showing themselves to be supporters of bureaucracy. The amount of money involved in the adoption of the proposal is a mere fraction. At the utmost the salaries of the officials who would have to be appointed would

    2103
    not exceed £6,000, but their appointment would place the members of the Committee in a position to do their work much more effectively. They would be better informed as to what was going on, and they would thereby be encouraged in the work they are doing in the public interest. Those who have spoken against the Amendment on the score of expense should realise that this would be a good investment of public money which would bring in a large return, because it would enable the House of Commons to be informed more fully and more accurately on questions of public finance, and that would be of great benefit to the public service as a whole.
    Mr. KILEY: We are justified in asking whether the Government are justified in setting up this Committee, and, if that be so, one is entitled to ask why they have not thought it necessary that at least one of the numerous Cabinet Ministers whom they have at their disposal should think it worth his while, in an important matter of this kind, to be present on the Government Bench. One might also inquire what has become of that great party of which we have heard so much in the Press lately, and which is known as the Anti-Waste party? I notice that there is one hon. Member present who is prominently connected with that party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sorry if I give him credit for what he does not claim. I certainly thought that he was a leader of that party, and I am sorry if I have done him any injustice. Is this a serious proposition, and is it to be considered in a serious way? It is proposed to set up a Committee to do something to stem what is supposed to be—and I think there is some foundation for the belief—the enormous wastage that is going on at the present time. The Committee is to consist of 24 Members of this House, and they are to devote their time and energies to investigation. It has been my privilege to serve on the Public Accounts Committee. I have devoted a good deal of time to that subject, and I am bound to say that I have found the task a very difficult one indeed. If this Committee is really to be of any use to the House, it must have some assistance.
    What is the procedure in such a case? Hon. Members assemble in a room upstairs, or in one of the Government Departments, and they invite the atten-
    2104
    dance of the financial head of some section. They are then told that that gentleman is at the moment engaged in having his books and accounts overhauled by, let us say, the Treasury auditor, or that he is engaged with the Public Accounts Committee, or that he is wanted at some special Cabinet Committee. The day may arrive when the Committee gets hold of him, and he brings his staff and books. It may be the first, second, third, or fourth investigation into his accounts, all more or less incomplete. Then a number of hon. Members of this House sit round a table, and this gentleman deluges the Members with figures in putting his case before them. Unless that Committee have some skilled investigator at their disposal, I venture to assert that not only their time, but the time and energy of that chief accountant and his staff is wasted. No business firm could conduct its business as the financial head of a Government Department is supposed to manage his, being at the beck and call of any body of people who, without any skilled assistance, can call him and his staff before them. That is one of the reasons why I urge upon the Government, if they are sincere in their desire to appoint this Committee, that they must give the Committee such skilled assistance as will ensure that the time and trouble and expense entailed shall result in something useful, not only to this House, but to the nation at large. Moreover, it is only fair to those hon. Members who give their time to the matter.
    I have devoted, as I have said, a good many hours to this subject, and have always come away with the feeling that I have done so without any satisfactory result. Those of us who have anything to do with these matters know that, unless we have a skilled official at our disposal, we must ourselves go into the Department and endeavour to find some clue. There should be no difficulty in appointing someone to do that, such as one of the numerous Treasury Auditors who go round the Departments, and are able to get at the inside working, and can make suggestions as to the directions in which reform may appear necessary, and advise the Committee beforehand as to the line of investigation that might be pursued. To bring before a number of Members of this House a skilled accountant to play off his skill upon them, with their lack of

    2105
    knowledge of the working of the Department, is not likely to be effective. If the Government desire effective results from this Committee they should take steps to enable it to achieve the object which they and the Committee have in view.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): A body of opinion of exceptional weight, experience, and knowledge has been brought to bear on the discussion of this Amendment, and the nature of the opinions expressed has been very wide in its range. It has ranged from the opinion of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths), who is totally opposed to the Amendment and will support what I shall have to describe as the attitude of the Government, to that of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams), who is prepared to envisage a state of affairs which, although he might not admit or realise it, would inevitably lead to the erection of another office as large and as expensive as that of the office of Exchequer and Audit. I believe that the intentions, both of the Government and of its critics in this matter are absolutely identical, namely, that the Committee should be a success, and should constitute a practical and effective means of exercising a new form of control over public expenditure. We are working towards the same end, though there may be some difference as to the means to be taken to that end and as to the elaboration which is necessary in preparing those means. I doubt whether it be as much as appears at first sight, but let me say this single word in an attempt to put a somewhat different view from that which has been expressed generally by hon. Members of great experience speaking from the opposite Benches.
    I have thought at times, in the course of this discussion, that hon. and right hon. Members were entirely forgetting the existence of the Treasury. Why does the Treasury exist? It exists for the single and sole purpose, in this connection of which we are speaking, of exercising from day to day and all through the year a constant and steady pressure and criticism upon the preparation of Estimates.
    Captain BENN: Why have Estimates Committee?
    Mr. YOUNG: There is a certain consequence in these remarks. That is a very great difference in this way, that, when this Committee meets, no doubt, it will be proposed for its consideration—because, of course, it will be entirely for the Committee to decide its own methods of procedure—that it should have, whenever it requires their presence, sitting, with it, just as the Public Accounts Committee does, representatives of the Treasury who are best qualified to give it such information and assistance as it may desire upon the particular Estimates which it is at that time considering. In that way the Estimates Committee, if it requires it—and I hope it will require it—will be able to have the advantage of the assistance of those officers of the Treasury who have been exercising, throughout the year upon the preparation of the Estimates the forces of economy and control. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain, Benn) asked why have a Committee at all. Have a Committee, of course, for the reason that a Government Department which has striven for economy can-have no better help than a Committee of this House to use in terrorem over any official or force which it suspects of being spendthrift. It is to that, I believe, that all the advocates and supporters of the Committee look as its greatest use, just as we know so well the Public Accounts Committee acts in the same capacity over the region of account keeping post-mortem. It has appeared to me further that there has been a certain misdirection given to the current of criticism by a too close comparison of the future Estimates Committee with the Public Accounts Committee. As I take it, the great difference is that the Public Accounts Committee works postmortem on expenditure after it has been made in the review of accounts. Let me recall the attention of the House to the difference I have already noticed. In that region it has got no Treasury to work for it in the review of the Appropriation Accounts, and therefore it is essential for it to have the Exchequer and Audits Office to do the detailed work.
    10.0 P.M.
    Now let me trace out what I think to be the very logical consequence of this difference between the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee in another direction. Supposing you were to institute an officer such as

    2107
    has been described by some hon. Members who have sketched what they think should be the right sort of officer for the Estimates Committee. It would be impossible for him to perform such functions as those which have been described towards the end of the year after the presentation of Estimates to this House. Time would not avail for elaborate labours such as those which have been described. He must needs exercise them all the year round. He will have to exercise them by interposing his inquiries—I will not use the word interference because it has a derogatory sense, but his inquiries—as between the Treasury and the Department in the preparation of their Estimates throughout the year for reference to the Committee. The result must be that this official, working on behalf of the Committee, must needs divert out of the hands of the administration and the Executive a substantial part of the executive power into the hands of a Committee of this House. Some might be prepared to advocate and to face that consequence. I submit that it would be at any rate a consequence which is very contrary to the principle of sound administration and is quite contrary to any principle, even constitutional principle, which this House has been prepared to contemplate in the past.
    Let me pass from these more general considerations to the more particular questions which were addressed to my right hon. Friend as to the intentions of the Government. The intentions of the Government are exactly to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. An experienced member of the staff of the House of Commons will be allocated to the Committee to assist it. I think some speakers have very much underrated the experience and the particular ability—no one would underrate the general ability—of experienced members available on the staff of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith feared this might result in the officer attached to the Committee not having a sufficient permanence in his position. Certainly, the Government contemplate that the officer so attached to the Committee shall be attached to it with such permanence as is possible in human affairs, so that by the gaining of experience his utility for the work of the Committee may no doubt be increased as time proceeds, and, further, that, in the
    2108
    words of the Recommending Committee, he shall be a senior officer of the House, with status and authority commensurate with the importance of the Committee he will be serving.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will he be whole time?
    Mr. YOUNG: I will deal with that question and with the series of inquiries put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). As I take it, he expressed his apprehension in this manner. He said it may be found that there is no senior member of the staff of the House who is qualified to perform these duties. I believe that fear to be unfounded. Surely it need not be feared that if recommendations are advanced by the Committee as to the species of assistance which it needs from the members of the staff of the House, those representations will be disregarded by the Government. Of course they will not. Of course any recommendation from a Committee of this importance and status as to the species of officers which it requires to serve it must receive the most serious consideration and to it must be given the greatest weight, and I can picture that if it were found necessary by the Committee at some future time, though I do not believe that necessity need be apprehended, to recommend the appointment of someone more qualified, that would be a matter which will of course be taken into consideration as and when the recommendation is received. For these reasons I believe the necessity for this Amendment has not been shown. As between some of those who have spoken in support of it and the views of the Government, the difference is very slight; it may be only a matter of name. In particular, the point was made that the officer to serve this Committee should have the status of an officer appointed by Patent. Let me point out that in so far as a formality of that sort is a serious consideration, and no doubt it is a serious consideration, the officers of this House, serving as they do under the sole control of Mr. Speaker, enjoy a very special independence. I believe when the House takes into consideration that we are dealing here with a ranging inquiry which is totally different to the inquiries conducted by the Public Accounts Committee, they will see that the true analogy for the services rendered by the Comptroller

    2109
    and Auditor-General to the Public Accounts Committee will be the services of Treasury officials, which I hope will be accepted and received by the Estimates Committee. I believe also the House will see that the officer suggested is an officer of such status and experience as will be most adequate to the services of the Committee. This is a question which can be best worked out after the Committee gets into practical working order, and if when it is in practical working order any representations have to be made on behalf of the Committee to the Government that it requires this or that other special assistance, these are recommendations to which the greatest weight will necessarily be attached by the Government.
    Captain BENN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in reply to what the Financial Secretary has said. The real fact is that the House of Commons is struggling to get control of public expenditure. This is not a movement inaugurated by various sections. It is a movement which expresses, although it does not always receive public support by their presence, the opinions of the large majority of this House. We want to get to grips with public expenditure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, you can have the Committee, but its powers, in my judgment, are inadequate. What are you going to give it in the way of some machinery by which it can become an effective examining body? Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say it comes to this, that the Committee is not going to be distinguishable from any other Committee despite the very capable assistance which it receives. I again quote the opinion of Mr. Speaker Lowther, who said that such a Committee must have its own officials for the examining of Estimates. I come to the second part of the argument of the Financial Secretary—a very weak spot in his armour, if I may say so. What are we going to do with this Committee? We are going to give it the full assistance of the Treasury. This is a Committee which is intended to be an additional check to the Treasury. I was surprised to hear the Financial Secretary say the Treasury were very glad it was to be appointed. The Committee is going to be a claque or a chorus to accompany the Treasury on their raids on the profligate expenditure of the Departments. Supposing the Treasury supply the officials, and supposing
    2110
    by some chance the Committee hit upon something where a reduction is possible, can they be supported by the officials of the Treasury? They would be convicting themselves of being careless watchdogs of the public purse. I think the case made by the Secretary to the Treasury is inadequate, and I shall be forced to bring this matter to a Division.
    Colonel GRETTON: The position revealed by this Debate is very interesting. This is a new Committee, and it requires some assistance to prepare the work for the consideration of the Committee. Clearly the official for this Committee must be independent. He must have a status which will ensure that he does not return to any branch of the Civil Service where he may be prejudiced or suffer for his zeal on behalf of the Committee. He must be an entirely independent officer. On the National Expenditure Committee we had most excellent officials. We got a very great deal of assistance from them, but they were, after all, officers who were primarily engaged on the business of the Departments to which they belonged, and they did not give full time or full attention to the work of the National Expenditure Committee. To-night we are asked to consider an Amendment to appoint a full-time official. A very excellent case has been made by the Secretary to the Treasury that a House of Commons official should be appointed. That at any rate has the merit of complete independence of any Government Department. But in addition to that the Secretary to the Treasury admitted that the Committee will require some further assistance, and he made a very interesting statement, which was perfectly true, that the public Departments have a great respect for the Public Accounts Committee, which is an independent body with an independent officer, who do exercise a very real influence over the final making-up of accounts. We want something of the kind here, but the Secretary, to the Treasury proposes nothing of that kind. He suggested by his remarks what is really quite true, that this new Committee might be a kind of a bull in a china shop, and he proposed that it should be led around by a Treasury official. That is exactly what we do not want. We want something independent of the Treasury.
    Mr. YOUNG: I am quite sure my hon. Friend does not wish to give a mis-

    2111
    direction to my observations. I was proposing no directions for the Committee of any sort or kind. It would be wholly and completely, of course, within the power of this Committee, as it is within the power of any other Committee of this House, to determine its own procedure and to determine the assistance it requires. If it requires the assistance of the Treasury, the assistance of the Treasury shall be put at its disposal in every possible way.
    Colonel GRETTON: The last thing I desired was to misrepresent my hon. and gallant Friend, and I accept his explanation. That was not the impression made upon me by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member. The Treasury, of course, will give assistance, but the Treasury should not be the main factor and investigator. We want something independent of the Treasury. The Treasury itself has been the subject of very considerable criticism. It has lost its grip or part of its grip over public expenditure during the War, and it is struggling to re-establish the old control which it did exercise before we embarked upon lavish and largely unnecessary expenditure during the War. We are in a dilemma as to the course we should take. Clearly this Estimates Committee should have power to appoint a competent and experienced accounting officer to give whole-time assistance, to prepare subjects, and suggest lines of investigation. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) suggested a somewhat alarming extension of these functions. He said the Committee might require ten officials. That is setting up a new office and a new little bureaucracy, which is hardly within the intention of the House. If the Committee has the assistance of a competent official of the House of Commons, and a competent accounting officer, who will not be prejudiced in his position in the Civil Service owing to his faithful and competent service to the Committee, it will be fully manned and will have all the assistance it requires. The House would resent the establishment of a new series of salaries and new officers, and if the Amendment means the appointment of more than two officials I shall vote with the Government.
    Colonel Sir J. GREIG: I have an Amendment on the Paper which raises
    2112
    the whole question we have been discussing. My Amendment is to add, at the end of the Amendment now before the House the words
    "but without salary or other emolument and without any additional official or officials to assist him in his duties."
    That is perhaps a rather drastic way of raising the point. The point I want to raise by my Amendment is, what is to be the size of this new office. During ten years' experience in Parliament I. have had some acquaintance with the manner in which officials of the Treasury do their duty. In pre-War times I had the honour of sitting on one Departmental Committee, on which we had at Treasury official, and I can assure hon. Members that he acted very much as a watchdog of public expenditure. Tonight we have had a discussion on the Scottish Housing Bill, the question of a subsidy and a scheme for ex-service men now in operation in Scotland. The point which was taken as an objection against the Government policy, which was embodied in the Bill, was that the Treasury were opposing expenditure, and the whole pressure of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) was against the action of the Treasury, who were acting as the watchdog. What is to be the-exact position of the new official? What is his salary to be, and how many other officials will he have to assist him? If there is a large number to make the work effective you will have divided responsibility and redundant responsibility, and you will have this new officer working with a bureaucracy of officials of his own, and you will have the expense of this new body in addition to the existing expense We have not even an estimate of the additional cost. We have demands constantly from the other side, when there is any little Bill brought in, that there should be a White Paper Estimate. Hon. Members opposite to-night have not suggested any Amendment. They have used vague phrases about one officer being sufficient. What do they mean? What is to be the size of the new Department? How much responsibility are they going to confer on it? If they are going to confer any large responsibility you will have a redundancy of officials working on counter lines, whereas under the present system the Treasury is an ample watchdog of the public interest.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member's proposal on the Paper cannot be taken properly as an Amendment to the present proposal, but it could be moved afterwards, should the House accept the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn).
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Though our procedure may be that which you have indicated, the argument of my hon. Friend who has just spoken is worthy of consideration. Hon. Members are, I think, misleading the House by their analogy of the position of Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the underlying assumption of those who support the Amendment is that the new officer ought to be a new Comptroller and Auditor-General attached to the Estimates Committee. The primary functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General are to examine the accounts of past expenditure and to bring to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee anything which, in the opinion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, calls for comment, any point as to which in their opinion the money has been expended without proper authority, or as to which the intentions of Parliament have not been complied with; and the primary function of the Public Accounts Committee is to examine the accounts in order to see that no money has been expended without authority and that the money has been expended for the purposes which Parliament intended. In the course of time the Public Accounts Committee has, with the consent of the House, somewhat extended its functions, and the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General have expanded in like measure. That is dealing with what I may call dead expenditure, past expenditure. There is no question of policy about it. There is only the question of whether the Government of the day or a Department of the Government has exceeded the authority which Parliament gave to it. How does the Comptroller and Auditor-General get the information for that purpose? What is the staff which he uses for that purpose? What is the cost to the public? My right hon. Friend says the Amendment means one thing and the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) says that he wants ten officers employed by the Committee.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I ventured to come down to business, and eventually reached the figure of six officers. When I spoke of officers I meant two or three first-class civil servants and two or three clerks at £5 a week.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not want to reduce the question to the terms of a Dutch auction, ten, six, and three. Take whatever figure you like, and you see at once that the work is not comparable with that done by the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The staff of the Comptroller costs about £250,000 a year. All the year round he and his officials are working in the Department, auditing and investigating the accounts, making tests of them, and preparing the matter which is the basis of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report. Does anyone wish to support a new Department on that scale? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I agree. I do not believe anybody wishes that. To suggest that the officer of this new Committee with one or two men can do a work comparable with that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is ludicrous. Therefore, that may be dismissed at once from our minds. The work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and of the Public Accounts Committee is work which it is easy for a civil servant to do. The work of ferreting out extravagance in the conduct of Government Departments—if that is the object—is work which it is very difficult to do. To entrust to a civil servant—whether he be in the service of the Treasury or of the House, he is yet a servant of this House and of the public—that kind of work, would be to put the officer in a very invidious position, and one which would make the relation of Government and House and the Civil Service almost an impossible one. On the other hand, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) said, I think with general agreement, that he desired that the person at the service of this Committee shall not be in the direct employment of any Government Department, but shall be in the direct employment of this House. You secure that by the proposal of the Committee over which I preside, that the officer attached to the Committee should be one of the officials of the House. Do you mean he should

    2115
    go into each Department, reading confidential minutes passing between officials and their chiefs? Then I say at once, you and I do not mean the same thing. I think that would be a perfectly intolerable position. That is the opinion of the Committee over which I preside; we did not recommend a proposal of that kind, and on behalf of the Government I cannot accept it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I would remind him we had a discussion upon that very point—and we came to the conclusion, as he says, that this would not do—but we came to another conclusion, that it should be in the power of the Chairman, if he thought it right, to direct any Department to give any information required to the official of the Committee.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite prepared to accept the exact phraseology used by my right hon. Friend.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the memorandum of the findings of the Committee, published in the Official Report of 10th May? Recommendation No. 8 is as follows:
    "That this official should not be empowered to call for information from Government Departments, except on the instructions of the Chairman of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1921, col. 1693, Vol. 141.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, and if that be exactly what my right hon. Friend means, then he and I are at one. I am not disputing that for one moment, but that means that the official will be the servant of the Committee, and the servant of the Chairman of that Committee, as the Clerk to a Committee always is; that he will examine Estimates at the direction of the Committee or the Chairman, submit features which appear to him worthy of examination, and then, at the request of the Chairman, acting for the Committee, seek information from the Departments. It does not mean—I do not mean, and the report of the Committee does not mean—that he is to be turned loose like a ferret, to hunt through all the Departments on his own and produce whatever extracts from the Department papers he thinks fit. That is not possible. He should carry out his duties as defined in the
    2116
    Memorandum published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is what my right hon. Friend and I think, all the other Members of the Committee agreed to. I believe in that way a very useful work will be done.
    I desire to refer to the speech which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I do not think he has ever sat on the Public Accounts Committee. Will he forgive me for saying that, if he had, he would not have made the particular observations about the Treasury, which he made just now. The Treasury has never tried to cover up a scandal.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that I suggested the Treasury would try to cover up a scandal? I made no such suggestion. What I did say was that if the Committee made recommendations, the Treasury should assist them.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not want to quarrel with the hon. and gallant Gentleman or use any words which would offend him at all, but he must permit me to say he shows a complete misapprehension of the attitude of the Treasury in matters of this kind. The Treasury welcomes bona fide assistance in the public interest and without party feeling. The Treasury accepts that help as readily as it will give help to the Committee. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) will bear me out in that. They have themselves from time to time deliberately, through the Auditor-General, brought matters to the notice of the Committee which they thought were subject to reprobation or objection, and they have never adopted the attitude suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that to encourage economy is to confess themselves in fault, and therefore a thing which they cannot do. I cannot help feeling that much of the discussion which has taken place arises from the fact that hon. Gentlemen who discuss these matters have had no experience of administration and no experience of the working of the Public Accounts Committee, which has been the most successful of all our Committees in these matters. I suggest that if hon. Gentlemen would have a little more faith in a Committee of this House and in the Chairman of the Committee, their faith would be justified, and they would find that the Committee does more than they are ready to give it credit for.

    2117
    One further observation. I frankly admit that I was not an advocate of this Committee. I have yielded in this matter to the opinion of this House, and I have proposed a Committee, not chosen because they were supporters of the Government, or were in association with me in that inquiry, but I have taken the form of committee which they recommended unanimously, with the single exception of one instance, which we have already disposed of. When one does that, and one is met with Amendment after Amendment, one cannot help thinking that a gift horse is being looked too carefully in the mouth. If the House do not want the Committee, I beg them to say so. I do not want to force it upon them. I proposed it because I believed it met with the wishes of the House, but I have no desire to carry the Motion if it does not.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A word of reply is called for by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that not only does the House want this Committee, but the House wishes it to be effective, and furthermore, I believe the great mass of our countrymen want this Committee, which is also rather important. When the right hon. Gentleman gibes at us on this side because none of those who have spoken have had administrative experience, I think he was rather unfair, considering that of the Members on this side who have taken part in the discussion, one is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Mr. A. Williams), and the other, the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), is an ex-Chairman of that Committee. I think it was rather an ungracious thing for the right
    hon. Gentleman to say, especially as he was one of those who was responsible for carefully bulldozing those who might have been in opposition to him at the last election. It was one of the most unfair political tricks ever played in this country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the mark.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to us to trust in the Treasury, it is because we feel that the Treasury has, through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman, so largely lost its control that we are anxious to see this Committee set up and made as effective as possible. It is for that very reason, that the Treasury has failed to exercise control on so many matters in the past, and further, because the Treasury itself has become a spending Department. Since the present Prime Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced, for example, the Insurance Act, which led to great expenditure, and the recent speculations of the Treasury in companies like the Cellulose Company, it is very necessary that some extra check should be set up. The Government contemplated a permanent Committee, but we want something a little more definite, and unless the Committee is assisted by some officer of the sort that we suggest, we feel that its work will be ineffective, and we hope that hon. Members will support that point of view.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes. 218.

    Division No. 203.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Glanville, Harold James

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Mr. Kiley and Lieut.-Commander

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

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

    Kenworthy.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Atkey, A. R.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Parker, James

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Cairns, John

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Cape, Thomas

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Casey, T. W.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pratt, John William

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hinds, John

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Purchase, H. G.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

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

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

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

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Remer, J. R.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Cope, Major William

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

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

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rodger, A. K.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Royce, William Stapleton

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

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Edge, Captain William

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Seddon, J, A.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Kidd, James

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Evans, Ernest

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Spoor, B. G.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Lawson, John James

    Stanier, Captain Sir Boville

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

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

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stewart, Gershom

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Swan, J. E.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Taylor, J.

    Forrest, Walter

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lorden, John William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Gee, Captain Robert

    Lunn, William

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wallace, J.

    Gillis, William

    Macleod, J. Mackintosh

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

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Manville, Edward

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Mason, Robert

    Wise, Frederick

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gregory, Holman

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Grundy, T. W.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

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

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Halls, Walter

    Neal, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

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

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Dudley Ward.

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-four Members."
    Sir Frederick Banbury, Major Barnes, Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay, Captain Charles Craig, Captain Viscount Curzon, Mr. Charles Edwards, Major Entwistle, Sir Edgar Jones, Major Christopher Lowther, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Martin, Mr. Mills, Captain Moreing, Major William Murray, Sir Philip Pilditch, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall, Mr. Rose, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, Mr. Waddington, Colonel Sir Robert Williams, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr.
    2120
    Wintringham, and Mr. Hilton Young nominated Members of the Committee.
    Ordered, That Seven be the quorum of the Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee

    2121
    between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "sit as two Committees," and to insert instead thereof the words "appoint one or more Subcommittees."
    That will necessitate the leaving out of the word "two" ["between the two Committees"] and inserting the word "Sub." I understand the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. It is only the recommendation of the informal Committee, which said that in accordance with the procedure that has been adopted in the past in the case of the Committee on National Expenditure there should be one Committee only, but that powers should be given to appoint Sub-Committees.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is the Amendment of the Committee over which I presided, and therefore of the Government. I have no objection to it, provided that the rest of the Resolution is made to read accordingly. That means that not only will the word "Sub" have to be inserted, but in the last paragraph the words "any of the Sub" will have to be substituted for the words "either of the divided." That is a necessary consequence of the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "two Committees" ["between the two Committees"] and insert the word "Sub-committees."
    Leave out the word "each" ["each of which"] and insert the word "any."
    Leave out the words, "each of the two Committees" and insert the words "any of the Sub-committees.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to appoint one or more Sub-Committees, and in that
    2122
    event to apportion the subjects referred to the Committee between the Sub-Committees, any of which shall have the full powers of the undivided Committee; and that Four be the quorum of any of the Sub-Committees.
    Motion made, and Question proposed
    "That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee, or by either of the divided Committees, to the House."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be necessary to substitute the words "any of the Sub-Committees" for the words "either of the divided Committees."
    Captain BENN: I take it, Mr. Speaker, you are not accepting an Amendment which would exclude one that I have on the Paper, and which I would like to move?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You will talk it out then?
    Captain BENN: I do not desire to do that wilfully, but there is a very large number of subjects which have never been discussed. There is the question of the free Vote of the House of Commons on the Reports of the Committee—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already been informed that that is out of order.
    Captain BENN: I am aware, of course, that the whole question can be raised on the Motion for the Adoption of the Resolution as Amended. I am only saying that this is a very big topic, possibly the biggest this House has taken in hand from a financial point of view for a very long time. It is attempting to reconstitute our control over finance. As the Resolution stands it is useless. I am going to move my next Amendment, which is to leave out the word "any" and to insert instead the word "such." As the Motion stands the Committee is bound to report to this House every word taken down in evidence. There are to be Sub-committees It may be extremely desirable that some evidence should not be reported. It is, I believe, the practice of some Committees that the evidence shall not be taken down. If we give this Order to-day, and if the Committee is set up, it is extremely probable that witnesses who come before

    2123
    it, and who might give valuable evidence which would assist this House to cut down expenditure, would be precluded from doing so because they might think it might prejudice their position in some way. If the Leader of the House is inclined to accept the Amendment, I will at once sit down and give him an opportunity of doing so.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
    Captain BENN: Then I shall have to go further into the matter. Hon. Gentlemen pretend to be economists, but when anyone takes upon himself the task of trying to effect some economy—
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
    Ordered, That Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen be discharged from the Committee, and that Mr. Reid be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    IRELAND (PROPOSED CONFERENCE).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any news from Ireland to announce to the House, and whether he has received any reply to either of the communications which he addressed to leaders in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have just received from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, the following telegram:
    "Dear Prime Minister,—With further reference to your communication of the 24th instant, as the result of the decision reached at the meeting of my Cabinet this morning, I am now in a position to reply. In view of the appeal conveyed to us by His Majesty's Gracious Message, on the occasion of the opening of the Northern Parliament, for peace throughout Ireland, we cannot refuse to accept your invitation to a Conference to discuss how best this can be accomplished. I propose to bring with me Mr. H. M. Pollock, Minister of Finance, Mr. J. M. Andrews, Minister of Labour, the right hon. the Marquess of Londonderry, K.G., Minister of Education, and the right hon. E. M. Archdale, Minister of Agriculture. Will you kindly inform me of the place and hour of meeting?—Yours sincerely, JAMES CRAIG."
    I have received no communication from Mr. De Valera up to the present.
    Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.

  IRELAND (TULLAMORE GAOL).
  IRELAND (TULLAMORE GAOL).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  RETIRED PAY AND DISABILITY PENSIONS (OFFICERS).
  RETIRED PAY AND DISABILITY PENSIONS (OFFICERS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  MARESFIELD PARK CAMP.
  MARESFIELD PARK CAMP.
  TRAIN FERRY DEPOT, SOUTHAMPTON.
  TRAIN FERRY DEPOT, SOUTHAMPTON.
  IMPERIAL CABINET (CIVIL AIR COMMUNICATION).
  IMPERIAL CABINET (CIVIL AIR COMMUNICATION).
  INDUSTRIAL SITUATION, GERMANY.
  INDUSTRIAL SITUATION, GERMANY.
  PUBLIC OFFICERS, EAST AFRICA (SALARIES).
  PUBLIC OFFICERS, EAST AFRICA (SALARIES).
  WEST INDIES (POWER ALCOHOL).
  WEST INDIES (POWER ALCOHOL).
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
INDIA.
  CAVALRY OFFICERS.
  CAVALRY OFFICERS.
  BLIND WELFARE.
  BLIND WELFARE.
  RANGOON RICE MARKET.
  RANGOON RICE MARKET.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAYS BILL (CORRESPONDENCE).
  RAILWAYS BILL (CORRESPONDENCE).
  ROADS, SCOTLAND.
  ROADS, SCOTLAND.
  VACCINATION (DEATHS).
  VACCINATION (DEATHS).
  POST OFFICE (EASTERN COMPANY'S CABLES).
  POST OFFICE (EASTERN COMPANY'S CABLES).
  WHEAT AND OATS (SUBSIDY).
  WHEAT AND OATS (SUBSIDY).
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT.
  CONVICTION FOR LARCENY, CAMBRIDGE.
  CONVICTION FOR LARCENY, CAMBRIDGE.
  RUSSIA (SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION).
  RUSSIA (SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I see the noble Earl, the First Commissioner of Works, in his place. May I ask if it will be convenient for him to make a statement as to the future course of business in this House?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I can only make a statement about the next two or three days. I have to inform your Lordships that the Unemployment Insurance Bill is expected to pass through the House of Commons this evening, and the Department concerned, for technical reasons, is very anxious that the Bill should pass into law on Thursday next, upon which date the variations in the amounts to be paid in unemployment benefit mature. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we should take the First and Second Readings of the Unemployment Insurance Bill to-morrow, and the remaining stages on Thursday. In that case it will be necessary for me, or rather for my noble friend, Lord Curzon, to-morrow, to move the consideration of the relevant Standing Orders, in order to allow the two stages to be taken in the same sitting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity yet of studying the Bill, nor do I know what course would be open to your Lordships in regard to it. We receive with proper respect the announcement of the noble Earl, and I think he will allow us to consider what course we shall take, and will give us a few hours before we express any opinion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not suggest that the noble Marquess should express any opinion now, because, as he says, he has not had an opportunity of studying the text of the measure. My noble friend, Lord Clarendon, will explain the measure completely to your Lordships.
808
Meanwhile, I shall give Notice, and your Lordships who desire to discuss the question of procedure, to-morrow, will of course exercise your judgment in doing so.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (OSSETT AND WAKEFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONYNGHAM'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order.)

DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW'S MARRIAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which proposes a slight alteration in the Marriage Law, which is already in force in many portions of the British Empire, in the majority of the States of America 'and in most of the countries of the European Continent What is perhaps more to the point, it is a measure which passed the House of Commons without any opposition and makes its appearance here strengthened and, to some extent, amended by Amendments put in by the representative of the Home Office in the House of Commons. The object of the Bill is simplicity itself: it is to remove the anomaly in the present law which prohibits marriage with a deceased brother's widow, and legalises it in connection with a deceased wife's sister. The first comment which, I think, any impartial person would make upon the proposal is to ask why this anomaly was not dealt with in 1907 when the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill was passed. I am not in the secrets of the promoters of that Bill. I had nothing to do with it, beyond voting for it, when it came here, and I do not know what their motives were, but I presume that they were animated by the usual view that it is desirable to overweight a Bill as little as possible, and to obtain one thing at a time.

809
I will further admit that in 1907 there was very little demand for the Bill, and that that may possibly have had something to do with the omission. But circumstances have now changed, and, as in many other respects, they have changed in consequence of the war. When the war took place many men, when they were called up, left their wives and families in the charge of their brothers. Some of these men were killed, and in many instances an affection developed between the brother in-law and the widow, and many marriages of this kind have taken place I believe that there are a number of cases in connection with the Ministry of Pensions Which are awaiting decision as the result of this Bill. I wish to make it plain that I am not basing the case for this Bill upon the number of people who want it. I am basing it simply and solely upon logic and common sense; and I do not propose to waste the time of the House by entering into any other argument in favour of the Bill. It seems to be perfectly unnecessary, because we heard them all ad nauseam years ago, and everything which can be said on the subject has already been said I will undertake to maintain most confidently that every argument used in favour of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill in 1907 is equally applicable to the Bill of which I am moving the Second Reading this afternoon.
As far as I am concerned— and, I expect, as far as the ordinary person is concerned— I am prepared to rely upon our experience of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act That Act was stubbornly and successfully contested for many years, mainly on the ground that it would destroy the harmony of married life. Is there anybody who will have the courage to get up now and to maintain that the objections that were raised then were well grounded? I would go so far as to say that. I do not believe that any Act of recent years has justified its passing more than the one to which I refer. I will give what is, to my mind, a convincing instance of the truth of what I say. At the present moment there is a perfect orgy of divorce going on; so much so that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has had to devote his attention to it, and octogenarian Judges have been dragged from their retirement to cope with the ever-increasing flood of these cases. I read in the paper to-day the statement that in one year alone, between 1918 and 1919, the numbers had increased by no less than 114 per cent.,
810
and they continue to increase at a still greater ratio. It is a most surprising, and I think a most convincing, fact— or ought to be so— that, so far as. I am able to understand, in not one single instance in which a man has married his deceased wife's sister has he been a party to these proceedings. You could not have any more convincing testimony to the value of the Act than this fact.
The Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has been on the Paper for something like a fortnight, and I was under the fond impression that here, as in the House of Commons, it might be allowed to pass without opposition. But rather to my surprise, and considerably to my consternation, I found, on looking at the Notice Paper this morning, that the most rev. Primate had put down a Motion for its rejection. I deplore his action for several reasons, and I hope he will forgive me if I point out that this is a somewhat inconvenient course to pursue, because the result is that, if you put down a Motion for rejection only on the day on which a Bill is coming on, it is impossible to collect the supporters of the Bill, and, I suppose, it is equally impossible to collect the opponents.
Now, I say with all sincerity, there is no member of this House who has a greater respect for the most rev. Primate than I have. I have not only a personal respect for him, but I am under deep personal obligation to him for invaluable assistance rendered to me, not in connection with matters of this kind, but in other matters in which common justice and humanity are involved. On the present occasion, however, I must confess that he seems to be acting in a manner which is somewhat open to criticism. I rather gather from the most rev Primate that he considers that in embarking upon a measure of this kind we are moving much too quickly, and that we are committing ourselves to most important action without due consideration. The obvious answer to that is that it is now fourteen years since the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill was passed, and here we are merely asked to consider what I can only call a consequential Amendment to that Act.
Here is a Bill which has been through all its stages in the House of Commons without any opposition at all. Does not that show that there can be no real effective feeling in the country against it? There

811
are, I have no doubt, plenty of earnest Churchmen in the House of Commons, just as there are here, and, if there was any genuine opposition to this Bill, that opposition would have shown itself in some form or other. It is not only a question of the Bill having passed through the House of Commons without opposition, but it seems to me that the whole principle has been decided once and for all, not by the House of Commons only, but by Parliament. Both Houses are committed to the principle of this Bill, and it seems to me very doubtful policy on the part of this House to set its face against a moderate proposal of this nature. This House has earned a reputation in recent years for toleration, and for a proper sense of justice, and a sense of proportion I cannot help thinking that, if we were to act in accordance with the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, we should lose some part of that well-earned reputation.
1 have little doubt, although the House is a small one, that there are present here this afternoon some accomplished dialecticians who will have no trouble in proving to themselves, at all events, that there is all the difference in the world between this Bill and the Act of 1907. I cannot speak for other people, but speaking for myself I must candidly admit that arguments of this nature will make no impression upon me whatsoever. However ingenious and eloquent a dialectician may be, even if it be the most rev. Primate himself, nothing will ever convince me— I have not sufficient imagination and, perhaps, I have not sufficient intelligence— that if it is right for a man to marry two sisters it is wrong for a woman to marry two brothers. I am content to leave the question there, and I trust that the House will take the same view of it. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª—(Lord Newton)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had given Notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move, That the Bill be read 2ªthis day six months. His Grace said: My Lords, I ask your Lordships not to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-night I should like, at the outset, to recognise gratefully the kind words used by the noble Lord in regard to myself and to say that I must take blame for not having put this Notice on the Paper at an earlier date. To be
812
quite frank about it, until two or three days ago I thought that it was coming on next week. It was a mistake on my part, and that is all I can say. I do not think the cause that the noble Lord advocates has been damaged by the fact, inasmuch as the difficulty of obtaining members of the House who would support my proposal is obviously as great as the difficulty he would experience in obtaining members to support the Second Reading of his Bill. What I felt was that I should let those outside the House, as well as those inside, know that the proposal is one to which I must take definite exception. I hope, not at any undue length, to give your Lordships the reasons for my attitude.
After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I am still at a loss to know why the Bill has been introduced at this time. He has always the power of interesting the House; he has interested the House now, he has interested me certainly; but he has not in the least convinced me of a real need of the change that he suggests or of any change at present in our Marriage Law, or, if there be need of any change, that this is the particular change that should be singled out to be made. I suppose your Lordships will agree, and indeed any reasonable man in the country who thinks about the matter will agree, that to change the Marriage Law is a most grave thing. There is no part of our ordinary social life as to which it is so important that there should be certainty, continuity and general knowledge, as the Marriage Law. And the chopping about of the Marriage Law and the degrees of consanguinity or affinity within which marriage may be legally celebrated, is not only confusing but detrimental in the highest degree to the kind of attitude which people ought to take and to stability of judgment in a matter on which stability of judgment and simplicity of knowledge are extremely desirable Therefore, lightly to make changes in the table which at present prescribes who may or may not be marriageable is, to my mind, intolerable
A change in the law upon this exceedingly important subject can be justified only on one or more of three conditions. First, it must be made with the utmost deliberation and after the amplest consideration, ventilation and discussion. Next, it must be made with evidence forthcoming of a real wide-spread demand for it. Without such evidence we cannot take the

813
grave step of changing the standing rules as regards those who may or may not be married Then, the change, when made, must fit in with the existing laws. I do do not mean that they must correspond exactly with the existing laws— the very fact of there being a change would be contradictory of that contention— but they must fit in reasonably with the existing laws and must not make them either chaotic or confused.
How does the Bill correspond with any of these three requirements? The noble. Lord says that fourteen years have elapsed since the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act became law and that that is ample time for consideration of the subject. It is ample time, my Lords, and during that time what has happened? Have we been made acquainted during those fourteen years with any pressure for this particular change to be made? The fact that in the course of those years no demand for this Bill has been brought forward in any public way seems to me to tell in an exactly opposite direction to that from which the noble Lord views it. Discussion is essential in this case— I mean at the moment of passing the Bill and not outside the debate in a general way— because of the very thing on which the noble Lord laid stress which, 1 think, is plausible and not real— the supposed identity of this case with the case for marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
The fact that the discussion of this matter is au important thing and may change the views of those who are interested in it, has had curious elucidation during this last month or two A. Bill similar to that of the noble Lord was introduced in the Legislature of South Africa. It was carried on Second Reading by 71 votes against 34. A long discussion took place. The matter was debated up and down the country and in Committee in the South African Parliament, with the result that in the end the Third ff Reading was carried by one vote only. Opinion had changed to that very large extent as the result of having the matter ventilated and discussed. But I have not heard from the noble Lord that there has been full deliberation as to what it is that is precisely wanted here, what we are asked to assent to, whether we should stop there, and why we should stop there. At a later stage of the Bill I should be glad to hear what may have to be said on that, and I hope then, when others who agree
814
with the noble Lord and those who sympathise with myself may be here in larger numbers, we shall have the matter discussed.
It happens to be extremely difficult for Bishops to be present this week. All, or almost all, have to be in London during the fortnight that follows this week, and it is practically impossible for them to come up from the country in the week immediately preceding that fortnight. I do not in the least criticise the noble Lord for that and I take blame to myself for not having noticed until a few days ago that the Bill was coming on this week, but I knew it would not be practicable to have an attendance of Bishops here to-night, and that explains why the Episcopal Bench is not more filled than it is.
The noble Lord has not alluded to some of the questions that would have to be discussed in the matter, if it were thoroughly thrashed out. Several important questions need to be considered. There is an eugenic question involved in this, and also a physiological question. The question of the contrast between the condition of things under the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act and the condition of things under this Bill, if it became law, is an entirely different one, physiologically and eugenically, and it would be desirable to go into that subject at a later stage, if it was thought necessary. It has not been alluded to to-night. What I want to press is that this is a matter which needs a great deal more discussion than it has had It passed through the House of Commons, as the noble Lord said, without opposition, but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, that was due to a kind of accident. It came on late at night, unexpectedly, and not only, as the noble Lord put it, was there no opposition, but there was no discussion. The Bill was not even explained. It simply slipped through by an accident. There were discussions upon some of the points in Committee. I am not in the least prepared to say that the decision of the House would have been, in any circumstances, different from what it was, but the fact that it passed through the House of Commons without opposition must be qualified by a little examination of the circumstances under which there was no opposition.
The real point, however, is this— Is there a popular demand for this Bill? The noble Lord says: "Yes." He may be right,

815
but he has given no evidence, except a general statement that through the pension authorities certain information can be got as to cases arising in consequence of the war. That may be so, but, speaking from such inquiries as I have been able to make, there is no demand for this Bill. We have made some inquiries into the matter through our usual sources, and we are told that there is no demand for it. Many- people say it sounds logical and reasonable, but when you press them further and ask: "Do you know cases in any number where it is wanted?" they are unable to reply that they do. The sources of information to which we have applied tell me that the position is quite different now from what it was before the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act was passed. I have never for a moment denied that there existed for that Act a strong and widespread demand, and, though I think that demand was often misunderstood and its character misrepresented, I admit that there was a demand in many quarters, and that it grew rather than diminished from year to year. I still think the arguments against that Act outweigh those in favour of it, but I am willing to accept it as the deliberate conclusion arrived at, and I do not want to be supposed to be going back upon what was clone then.
What I wish to do is to ask why the promoters of that Bill succeeded at that time. What were the arguments they used? Their arguments were perfectly distinct and definite. It was the separate individual character of the particular case of a woman dying and. desiring that her children should be in the charge of, and looked after by, her sister, which appealed to the House. That was the plea which was urged then, and it is that which prevents this proposal from corresponding in any way or in the slightest degree with the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act. The present proposal can only he said to correspond in a certain degree outwardly to the facts as they existed at the time of the passage of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act. If your Lordships are unfamiliar with the subject I would ask you to read the arguments used when this subject was debated in your Lordships' House on two great occasions, in 1896 and 1907. You will find on each occasion that the plea of those who favoured the Bill was to this effect—" What we are asking for is a wholly exceptional thing. We do not want to change the Marriage Law beyond this.
We want simply to remove a real grievance which occurs in the case of a woman who is unable to leave her children in charge of her sister That is the one thing we want to change, and that is what we are caring for."
I and others, at that time, brought forward the argument that if you once initiated the change you would certainly be asked to go a good deal further. We said, "You will be told, when you have made this change, that you must logically arrange for a marriage with a deceased husband's brother, and probably with other people also." What was the answer? I can refer to the actual speeches, if your Lordships desire it. There was the speech of Lord Dunraven in 1896, and the speech of Lord Loreburn in 1907, in which they emphatically said that the arguments used by myself and other people were pedantic. "You are," they said, "simply going in for the old-fashioned argument about the thin edge of the wedge, and this is not the thin edge of the wedge. Nobody wants to go further. We are asking you to deal with an exceptional case." I challenge contradiction when I say that those were the arguments used.
We reminded them that they would be called upon in the name of logic to go further, and they replied: "You cannot go by logic. We are meeting a crying need. It is misleading, trifling and unfair to say that the other steps that you fear must follow." That was said emphatically when the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill was being debated in Parliament, and it was said by such notable, spokesmen as those to whom I have referred, and by other noble Lords, and by members of the House of Commons. Yet to-night we are told by the noble Lord that he is bringing forward what he calls a consequential Bill. How does that correspond with the arguments that were pressed when the Deceased 'Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill was being debated? And how do we know, if we agree to the present proposal, what may not be the next step that we shall be asked to sanction under the plea that it is consequential upon what we are now doing?
The noble Lord said that the principle for which he is contending has been decided. What principle? The noble Lord said that he presses this Bill on the simple ground of logic. I do not understand in what way he regards the principle as having been conceded or decided which

817
will allow a man to marry his deceased wife's sister or a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother, or to marry a deceased husband's nephew or a man to marry a deceased wife's niece. All these things are not proposed, but many people might say that they are perfectly logical, and are natural consequences of the passing of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill. The point that was brought out again and again in the former debates, and the one upon which I wish to dwell, is that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill was agreed to because there was one person who was really to the fore in this matter, that was the person who was the natural protector, guardian and bringer-up of the little children left by her deceased sister. That is what distinguishes that Act from the present proposal.
If you agree to this Bill, what are we likely to have proposed next? Will it be simply that a person will be able to marry a niece or nephew, or are you to go further and allow a man to marry his stepmother, or his step-daughter, or his daughter-in-law? All these things are allowed in some portions of the world, and if we are to deal with this matter simply on the lines of logic we shall be asked to sanction them. Logic will not help you against those arguments. You must try something other than logic. We made an exception in regard to the deceased wife's sister, against my judgment, but I accept it absolutely and loyally. That exception, made fourteen years ago, does not, however, in the least carry with it the obligation to accept the change that is here proposed.
There are, I think, three consistent, coherent, and logical positions which you may take in this matter The first is that there should be no affinity bar at all; that the bar should be one simply of consanguinity and nothing else. Nobody at present suggests— the noble Lord has not suggested— that the stepmother or daughter-in-law should be included, and I do not suppose anyone at this moment is advocating the sweeping away of the affinity bar altogether. But if you are going to do that you must ask: Why do you draw the particular line across the degrees and say, "Beyond this you must not go"? I have in my mind what was said again and again in the debates to which I have referred. Who wants to marry her deceased husband's brother? Women do not want the right,
818
and, therefore, it is to be granted on logical grounds and not in reply to any demand.
The second position is that consanguinity and affinity are subject to the same rules, as was the case in the Law of the Church and State down to the year 1907, when the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act was passed. The third position, which I perfectly recognise as having been accepted by the country, is that we regard consanguinity and affinity as being subject to the same rules with one definite exception, which was granted for very particular reasons. That position we consented to; there were peculiar reasons for it; and it was a position which was argued with great force. I do not deny it, though I still think it was outweighed by other considerations, and I have loyally accepted the position as one in which we must acquiesce as being the deliberate judgment of the country.
But when we are asked to pass what the noble Lord calls a consequential Bill, we have to ask him to tell us what is the real demand for it; and I challenge him to produce evidence much more ample than he has given us to-day, if we are to be convinced that there is a demand. I am the recipient of constant communications on these and kindred subjects and I do not remember having had a single appeal to me on this matter. It was entirely different in the days of the "deceased wife's sister" agitation. If the noble Lord knows that there is a strong and growing opinion in favour of this Bill he must tell us where it has found public expression, beyond a few letters to the newspapers and the common remark that if you are able to marry a deceased wife's sister you should, logically, be able to marry your deceased brother's widow. It may be a plausible thing to say, but the difference, though not upon the surface, is clear. I press the point that we are now asked to take a very strong step indeed to change the Marriage-table which has now for some Years been allowed to he at rest, and which we were told would continue to be at rest after we had passed the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, fourteen years ago. And we are asked to make this change without any practical evidence before us, in any testable form, of a real and solid demand for it. I believe we should he doing real harm and unsettling the minds of a great many people by tampering with

819
a table which ought to have continuity of tradition and coherence of character if we want our social life to go on smoothly. I hope your Lordships will not read this Bill a second time.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months ").—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I will not detain you very long, but I should like to inform you of the attitude of the Government in relation to this Bill. The question as to whether marriage with a deceased brother's widow should be permitted or not is one which, so far as we are concerned, should be left to the unfettered judgment of Parliament. When this Bill was introduced in another place, Amendments were proposed by the Government in order that the deceased brother's widow should be in exactly the same position, so far as the law of the country is concerned, as the deceased wife's sister. Our view is that if Parliament should see fit to sanction marriage with a deceased brother's widow, it is necessary to maintain the law in regard thereto in exactly the same position as has been laid down in the Deceased Wife's Sister's. Marriage Act.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the most rev. Primate has stated his case, as he always does, with great moderation. The one main difference between him and myself is that he appears to have had no evidence brought before him of the demand for this Bill. To me, on the other hand, people have been coming who are personally interested in the matter, and I have had evidence from a much larger region, with which I will deal later. The Government have left the matter open, and that fact implies that what is asked for in the Bill is merely a civil marriage. There is no suggestion, and the most rev. Primate did not indicate there was any desire, to compel the Church to recognise marriages of a religious character to which it objects.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I deliberately omitted that branch of the subject.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I gathered that the most rev. Primate agrees that this is
820
a civil question and raises a question as to the Civil Law of the land. The difference is this. The most rev. Primate has said that fourteen years ago, when the question arose of the deceased wife's sister, nothing was said then about the deceased brother's widow. There was a reason for that The Bill fourteen years ago was brought forward by a class of people who had a grievance; they were mostly middle-class people. For the rest the grievance had not been formulated in the same articulate fashion; but it is a grievance which has grown up since The reason why it has become definite is this Every working man must have a wife; he cannot keep a servant, and it is rare to find a workman of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age working in his cottage who is not married. There are other classes in which it is otherwise, but the workman living in his cottage must have a wife.
At the time when the war came many married men went out to fight, and left their wives to be maintained and the home to be kept up. In the case of the miners, for instance, in order to assist in keeping up the home they very often took in a lodger, and the lodger was very often the miner's own brother, who contributed to the upkeep and formed part of the household. In many- cases the miner had to join the Army and the brother was left behind. The miner went out to fight and was killed. Then came the question whether the household should go on, and the difficulty was that the household could not go on if the miner's widow and his surviving brother were living together and unmarried. The natural thing was that they should be married. It is that which has rendered the question acute.
When the pension authorities had to deal with the question of pensions, complications arose over this at an early stage. Questions arose which have rendered this matter acute in a sense in which it could not have been acute fourteen years ago. That is how it has come about that the question has become once more a practical one. I agree with the most rev. Primate that in the old days of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill this matter was not discussed, because it had not become acute. But society is always changing, circumstances are always developing, and this has become what it was not before. When you make it a question of principle, there is

821
of course no difference between this principle and the principles that were embodied modo et farma in the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act. It is quite true that you do not want to extend a principle abstractly because it is a general principle, but it is not an abstract extension to extend it so as to meet a particular grievance. There is a large amount of feeling about this Bill. It is felt in the Dominions, where the law is sometimes different, that it is very hard for people, lawfully married under their own law, to come over here and to be under suspicion.
As to the other argument upon which the most rev. Primate just touched, the argument from eugenics, I hold up my hands in the domain of science as well as in the domain of theology. There are a great many superstitions in the domain of science, and this is an idea which has not been brought to the test of the laboratory or of observation. I will venture to say that physiologists— I think we have a distinguished representative of that science in this House— will not say that this question has been submitted to that investigation which alone can throw any light upon the truth or, otherwise of what is suggested. Certainly there is no tenet of physiology, so far as I am aware— and I am acquainted with many physiologists— which accords the least a priori probability to what the most rev. Primate has said. No such principles are established. I know they have been suggested, as many odd doctrines have been suggested in theology, but it remains to be seen whether observation and experiment will prove that they are well founded. There is nothing known at present which could militate in the least against the desirability of passing this Bill; and I would say to the most rev. Primate that, in the interests of the Church and of general opinion, it would be desirable not to press an objection which seems to me to run counter to the feeling of the time, and to give rise to an acute sense of grievance, at any rate among a certain number of people.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I rise for a very brief moment to express the hope that your Lordships will take full advantage, in the direction of forwarding this reform, of the circumstance that for once a Bill has come to us from the Lower House instead of proceeding from this House to another place. We have been bitterly
822
disappointed that lack of leisure or other circumstances have prevented the House of Commons, so far, from proceeding either with the Bill which received so much attention in this House a year ago or with the Bill as amended which left your Lordships' House some weeks ago. Circumstances, however, provide no reason whatever why, when we receive a Bill from the House of Commons, which, in my view, for reasons which I will shortly state, contains a real, though not perhaps a very substantial, measure of reform, we should fail to take advantage of it.
The most rev Primate has carefully explained the reasons which led to the introduction upon the Paper of an Amendment so unfriendly at a stage so late The explanation of the most rev. Primate is, of course, intelligible, and will be accepted by everyone. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill will, none the less, have to ask himself— if, indeed, your. Lordships are willing to give him support— what are the conditions of success which the present period of the session imposes. I very much hope that, while making every conceivable concession in favour of members of the House whose presence here we shall all of us desire, the noble Lord will not hazard the fortunes of this Bill by too long a postponement, having regard to the admitted fact that he is in no way chargeable with any omission to observe the proper methods of Parliamentary business. on the contrary, as I understand the matter, file Motion of the noble Lord has been upon the Paper for about a fortnight, so that in the whole of that period any noble Lord, with a little attention,could have informed himself that a Bill of importance was about to be read a second time in this House, if your Lordships wished, and was about to be read at a period of the session which allows of little unnecessary delay.
Having said so much, I will make an extremely brief observation upon the general character of the arguments which were used by the most rev. Primate. I, like all other members of your Lordships' House, admire the ingenious and persuasive manner in which the most rev. Primate presents his arguments on behalf of any cause which enlists his support; and I must confess that the fact that the effort of the Primate produced so little impression upon my own mind to-day is attributed by me, not to any decline in the most rev. Primate's powers, but to the extremely unpromising nature of the material which,

823
once again, it was his duty to dish up before your Lordships. The most rev. Primate was confronted with an initial difficulty. I forget how many years ago, but I suppose it is some fourteen or sixteen, when the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down and I, on almost the only occasion of our lives, I think, were kept walking through the lobbies of the House of Commons all night long until a summer's dawn in support of the Bill then before the House of Commons. I forget how many statements I listened to in the course of those debates from the friends, in this matter, of the most rev. Primate. The opposition to that Bill, as Lord Haldane will remember, was led by Lord Robert Cecil and several friends of his, and I suppose that they divided, in the course of those discussions, some forty or fifty times, until breakfast time on the morning of which I am speaking.
The most rev. Primate, with a degree of hardihood— if I may use that expression without disrespect of one whose office and personality I revere— has ventured to call attention to the speeches and the prophecies which were made on that occasion by the supporters of the Bill But what of the speeches and the predictions that were made by the most rev Primate and his friends? In what mischiefs was this revolutionary proposal to involve the country? How rapid was the progress down a steep slope, a progress comparable to that of the Gadarene swine, which the morals of this country were about to undergo, if this dangerous and revolutionary proposal were adopted! All night long I listened to that eloquence; no wonder it is branded in my ears, even after this long period. Then the most rev. Primate, whose post-bag was full, be it observed, for years before this debate took place, who was aware that there was that overwhelming—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Very great.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The distinction between "overwhelming" and very great "is, no doubt, important, but it does not affect the course of the argument. The most rev. Primate was aware that there was a very great demand for this change, but he and his friends felt it necessary to resist it, and attempted to give effect to that resistance by a series of the most gloomy predictions that I have ever heard, all of which, so
824
far as I know, have been absolutely falsified by the events of the years which have passed. If that is doubted, and I gather front the attitude of the most rev. Primate that it is doubted, I can only say that the mischievous results of actions alleged to he unmoral can only be traced in this world. I lay little claim to make predictions on unfortunate consequences which do not make themselves manifest during my lifetime upon this world. I can deal only with the outward manifestations of those results which I, as an attentive observer of social developments, have observed I challenge the right rev. Primate to call attention to one single mischief which has followed from this change.
I was interested to see how the most rev Primate could meet a situation which I should have thought was illogical, and which he and his friends must have found most chilling. He meets it by saying that the advocates of the proposals of those days recommended them by stating that their proposals were the limit and end of all that was proposed— that they never proposed such an extension as is involved in the terms of the noble Lord's Motion under discussion. I do not know whether Lord Loreburn or Lord Dunraven said this — I take it from the most rev. Primate that it was said— hut I am utterly unaffected. Who made Lord Dunraven and Lord Loreburn permanent custodians of our ideas of reform? If any noble Lord takes upon himself to make an announcement of this kind purporting to assign an end to reform on the present occasion, I think he in his turn would be guilty of an equal degree of presumption. I do not know and I do not care what further changes are involved in these proposals. They must be examined on their merits. If good, they should be adopted; if bad, rejected. The Primate asks: Is marriage with a stepmother to be permitted? I might perhaps. if I admitted his own argument, suggest that the number of men ambitious of such a union will probably be limited.
When the most rev Primate dwells upon the complete absence of support for these proposals which he thinks he discerns at the present moment, I notice that he said that his letter box brought him no communications Observe the circumstances in which that intimation is communicated to your Lordships. For many years, as I understand the most rev. Primate, he was in the habit of receiving urgent communications from persons who desired that

825
there should be a reform in the law relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The more the communications were that came into the post-box of the most rev. Primate, the more he resisted the proposals. All I can say is that if I were to select the destination of any letter which I proposed to write in support of the present proposals, and if I wanted to find one home from which I thought I might pluck one convert, it is not to Lambeth Palace that I should address myself. cannot help thinking that those circumstances may have seriously diminished the amount of correspondence which the most rev. Primate received on this subject.
The truth is that it is not a question of how many people are to be influenced by this change, if once it is conceded that this change is right. I infer it to be right on the same grounds as those upon which I felt that the reform of fourteen years ago was right. I have heard no argument to-night which would assail the conclusion that if Parliament was right in sanctioning those proposals Parliament would be equally right in sanctioning these. The most rev. Primate referred to the physiological or scientific argument. I possess no claim to speak on such a subject, but I should differ from the suggestion that any delicacy of the subject would make it proper for your Lordships to pass it by lightly I am informed by those who understand these matters that the physiological objection has no foundation at all; but if there be any who take a different view, it is agreed at once that they are entitled to make the case that scientifically there is a physiological objection which did not exist in the other case, and which ought to modify the decision of Parliament in this case. Let that argument be made, and your Lordships will listen to it, and will have no difficulty in reaching a conclusion.
The point which I make is that if there is no difference of principle between these proposals, and those proposals which received the sanction of Parliament so many years ago, how can it be suggested that the numbers of the persons affected ought to be a determining element in our decision? I do not care whether they are a hundred thousand or five thousand. If we are right in our view, and Parliament was right fourteen years ago in its views, those people who are denied this relief, be they few or many, are suffering under a great personal grievance which may destroy
826
the happiness of their whole lives, and it does not lie in the hands of those people who are not supporters of this proposal to use the argument that "You shall not have this change in the law because there are not enough of you." I can understand the argument that this is wrong, and is opposed to the law of morality or of the Church, but I cannot understand any one saying that "because there are not enough of you suffering" you shall not receive this measure of reform.
This House has set a great example in connection with the reform of our Marriage Laws, and we have gained the discriminating praise and gratitude of thousands of citizens of this country, who, although they have not seen the efforts of this House always crowned with success, have yet realised the sincerity and earnestness of the exertions which this House has made. Small as is the measure of reform contained in this Bill, I believe it to be founded upon reasonableness and common sense, and upon a true view alike of humanity and of religion. I urge your. Lordships to support the Motion and give this Bill a Second Reading.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, the subject of marriage is, I imagine, not only the most difficult but in many of its aspects the most repulsive subject which can engage the debates of a great Assembly like this. I never entered into a debate with a more literally open mind than I do to-day. The question of marriage with a deceased husband's brother raises these two questions in my mind. I ask first, as I am bound to ask, Is any principle of sound (which is for me one of Christian) morality, violated? The other question, which follows when that has been satisfactorily answered in the negative, is this: Is it expedient in the interests of the national morals that this particular proposal should pass into law?
With regard to the first, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that I am not prepared to maintain that any principle of Christian or of sound morals is violated. There is no clear, no explicit teaching in the New Testament on the subject which can certainly bind any Christian man. And the canonical legislation was determined by readings of the Levitical law which can no longer be justified, or by a view of Christian marriage which has definitely been repudiated by every reformed Church. And therefore, I, for my own guidance, answer

827
my first and crucial question in the negative. I say that no principle of Christian or sound morality is violated by this proposal.
When, however, I come to the second question, my perplexities begin. Is it expedient, in the interests of national morality, to pass this Bill? If it could be made out, as the most rev. Primate certainly holds that it can, that physiological science offers a valid objection to the unions which it is proposed to legalise by this Bill, I should recognise a valid reason for resisting the proposal. And more, I should consider that I had obtained a very valuable light on the Christian morality in respect of this particular question. This subject of the physiological or eugenic bearings of the question is a new one to most of us. It is a question of the utmost importance. The noble and learned Lord swept it aside with the observation that science also is acquainted with superstitions. But in the region of religion, where superstitions are not unknown, superstitions almost invariably are the exaggerations of some important truth. And the matter which your Lordships' House must most carefully consider is whether, behind the very general impression that there are eugenic or physiological objections to these marriages, there is some core of truth which it would be contrary to the interests of the community for us to ignore.
I think that, speaking generally, it is most important that the Marriage Law— which I assume has now fairly been brought into the melting-pot of revision— when it emerges from the present stage of revision should be clear, should be logical, and should be just. I say this because it is only when the Marriage Law has been cleansed of its existing inequalities, illogicalities, and incidental inequities that I shall he able to exert myself, and people who hold such a position as mine will be able to exert themselves, to rally to its support the conscience of the people, and to be able to create— what is now so lamentably lacking to the Marriage Law— a strong, coherent, coercive public opinion, which shall do far more than any coercive law to restrain the excesses from which we at present suffer.
Now I pass to the very weighty speech of the most rev. Primate. His Grace argued that there is no real need. Well, as far as my own knowledge goes, though it is
828
worth very little in this connection— I do not know why people who have this need should come under my notice— I am disposed to agree with the most rev. Primate rather than with the noble and learned Lord. I believe the demand is in extent infinitesinal. But that does not settle the question, because although a particular demand may be limited in extent, it may have a widely injurious effect on the credit of the Marriage Law. And that is what I suspect may be the case.
The most rev. Primate laid it down that we must fulfil three conditions in our legislation. First, we must only touch the Marriage Law after deliberation; next, we must only do so in deference to a large demand; and, thirdly, we must so legislate as to make our changes congruous with the existing law. I ask your Lordships to apply these three canons of criticism to the proposals before us. I think the deliberation on this particular issue has been inadequate. If I had to vote here and now, I should vote with the supporters of this proposal. But, if I could have my will, I should support the Archbishop in asking for more time to consider it. Where the demand is so limited there is no great public disadvantage in taking more ample time to consider it. In this question of the physiological or eugenic effects which are alleged to follow you have a question raised of the utmost importance, not only to the morality, but to the health of the people. Therefore, again I say you have a very strong reason for taking time in considering the question before you come to a decision upon it.
The most rev. Primate pointed to the fact that these benches, which are commonly occupied by my episcopal brethren, are almost necessarily empty. I confess I should attach more importance to that if I thought my episcopal brethren were open to argument on the subject. But, inasmuch as I have every reason for thinking that their minds are made up, for reasons, however creditable to themselves, which do not come within the scope of our discussion, I think, after all, that the argument is not so very formidable.
Then his Grace asked; with reference to the principle which had been in question in the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill, what principle had been decided. I answer that this principle has been decided— that the old, simple parallelism of affinity and consanguinity can no longer be justified. We have to take

829
every case on its merits, and this is always what I have desired to keep in my mind. These marriage questions are not to be settled easily by postulating some binding principle. Each case has to be considered upon general principles and expediency— the higher expediency. There is a higher expediency which has reference to those general principles which we find in the New Testament.
I am. afraid that my contribution to the debate has been of very little value, but I enter a very earnest plea that we should not hurry the discussion. I am really troubled over the physiological issue. I think it is really a grave one, because I see in making a new morality based upon a vast accumulation of new knowledge, which has been flowing in from many sides during the last century particularly, and in increasing measure every year— knowledge which was not accessible to those who framed the moral law in the past— I see in making this moral law which is to govern the society of the future, that these physiological and eugenic factors are going to be of the greatest importance. Therefore, I ask the House not to hurry the stages by which we come to a decision upon an important, but largely unconsidered, undiscussed, and unknown, factor.
LORD PHILLIMORE; My Lords, I do not suppose that, outside members of the House of Commons, who, I imagine, read their Bills, there were fifty people who knew that this measure was passing through Parliament till after it had passed the Second Reading in the House of Commons, and not many after that. To say that there was any demand for it, that there had been any petitions for it, or any discussion in the papers upon it, is an entire mistake. Not having had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House in 1907, when the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill came before your Lordships on the last occasion, I made it my business when this Bill reached us, to study the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT in both Houses. I read certain speeches, amongst others, from the noble Lord upon the Woolsack, who was then in the other House. There were but three arguments urged in favour of the Bill and but three against it, and they went backwards and forwards.
The three arguments against the Bill were these. First of all, that the union
830
between husband and wife was so great that the logical principle was that the relations of the wife were the relations of the husband. It is best expressed in the passage from the Scottish Catechism, quoted on the last occasion by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but which I am afraid I cannot remember at the moment. The second argument was against any change at all. The third argument was that it was wanted only by a number of people who had already broken the law. What were the three arguments for the Bill? The first one dealt with what Lord Lyndhurst had done and the way in which he had changed the law for the protection of certain noble Lords in the reign of William IV. The second was the argument that the deceased wife's sister was the natural person to come into a workman's house and, it being at that time the fashion to pour as much adulation upon the so-called working classes as possible, that argument had a very telling effect. The third argument was that it was asked for by a great number of people. To do him justice, Lord Newton has discarded that argument to-day and the noble-and learned Lord on the Woolsack has also discarded it. But my impression— I will not speak definitely — is that among the three arguments, that which Mr. F. E. Smith used in the House of Commons was the argument of the large demand. At any rate, that is not an argument which can be urged to-day.
I touch lightly upon the physiological question, because I have no knowledge. But I have a memory. I remember that when these matters were discussed in and before 1907 and one made the very obvious remark, "Well, if you are going to allow the deceased wife's sister, why not the deceased husband's brother?" one was told that there was a distinctly physiological reason for the one and against the other, or against the one and for the other. Of that I know nothing, but I know that when the advocates of the deceased wife's sister were met with the argument "Why do you not admit the deceased husband's brother?" they said that there was a distinct physiological reason against the one which there was not against the other. They may be entirely wrong; I have no knowledge on the subject.
I do know, however, that particularly in your Lordships' House they advocated their measure as a purely exceptional measure dealing with that one relation of

831
affinity and no other. They were taunted with the fact that there was not only the deceased husband's brother, but there was, much more obviously, the deceased wife's niece, and if the deceased wife's sister could be married, why not the deceased wife's niece? It was pointed out that you would get the step-daughter married, and a noble Lord mentioned a case in which a man had professed to marry his step-daughter. Lord Heneage, speaking in the House of Lords, gave this reason why this Bill should not be extended further than to marriage with a deceased wife's sister—
" I should have thought the very simple reason for that was that there had been no wish for it and, therefore, at the present moment it has never been discussed before the country, and I do not believe that any one has any great desire for it."
At the last stage of the measure in this House Lord Tweedmouth, who had charge of the Bill, said this—
" It is an exceptional case and that is the reason why we are pressing this Bill. Of all the marriages coming under the law of affinity nine-tenths belong to this category."
I ask your Lordships to be consistent with the view which not only many individuals but many of your Lordships must have held when you voted in 1907—either do away with affinity altogether and have one principle of consanguinity and consanguinity only, and then take care that you do not follow the Germans in allowing uncles to marry nieces and aunts to marry nephews; or stick to the principle which carried the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill through, that it was to meet the one exceptional ease where a labouring man needed his wife's sister to look after his motherless children. No one can say that the widow of a man wants her brother in the house to help her look after the children.
I do not understand the allusion of the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, to eases of pension. Are the people in question people who have gone through the ceremony of marriage with a deceased husband's brother and are, therefore, excluded from pensions because the union has been immoral?
LORD NEWTON: Yes.
LORD PHILLIMORE: If that is so, and if it is brought as a case of hardship and it is really thought that they acted in ignor
832
ance of the law—which is very difficult to suppose— or that there are extenuating circumstances, let the Ministry make provision for them accordingly. But simply because there may be a few cases of that kind it is an extraordinary thing that your Lordships should be asked, after fourteen years, to make a further change in breaking down the rules of law which have guided and governed Christendom for centuries.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I confess that the speeches to which I have listened in this debate have left me in a state of complete bewilderment. I understood and I greatly enjoyed the speech that was made by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, but I must admit that I have been unable to understand the foundation of some of the other speeches that have been made on the other side. The speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down is an example of what I mean. As I understand it, he objects to this Bill on the ground that it is impossible for anybody to show that there is a large, continuous, and important demand for its passage. I can very well understand that as an argument why the time of Parliament should not be occupied in the introduction of a measure, but I cannot understand it as any argument at all why, when a measure is before the House, it should be rejected.
This Bill is either right or wrong. If it is right, it can make no difference whatever how few are the people who will be benefited by its passage. If it is wrong, it cannot be made right by the largest possible volume of popular opinion. I must own it seemed to me a most extraordinary thing for people like the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, whose austere view of life we all know and appreciate, to suggest for a moment that his opinions are going to be deflected and his judgment changed by the fact that a large number of other people do not share them. Therefore, so far as this question of popular demand is concerned, I really think that it may be removed from our minds. I may add that I agree with what the most rev. Primate said. I do not think that the demand is great, or that a. large number of people are concerned. But to me that is wholly immaterial.
Now that this matter is before us for decision the question is: Ought we or ought we not to approve the Bill? The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of

833
Durham, whose speech I both understood and enjoyed, left me at the end in a state of complete fog. He desired, notwithstanding the important arguments which, as I thought, he advanced in support of the measure, to have further time for its consideration Further time to consider what? The physiological aspect of the matter, as I understand. This physiological aspect appears to be a kind of bogey question introduced into this debate for the purpose of warning people that there is sonic terrible and dangerous social catastrophe by which we may be overtaken if we permit men to do what it was their bounden duty to do throughout the whole of Jewish history —marry the widow of their deceased brother.
What is this physiological bogey? As understand, it is that all female life is capable of being affected by the male element with which it is first united, and that consequently, if a woman has married a man, it may well be that her children, even by another man, may bear the traces of the father of her firstborn. Whether that has any substance, or whether it is a mere illusion, I do not know. But that is at the back of it. And if it be, what is the danger that is anticipated? Supposing it be the fact that; if a man marries his deceased brother's widow it is likely that the children will have a stronger resemblance to his brother than they would be
likely to have if she married a stranger, is there anything very terrible in that? I cannot understand what it is. Is the suggestion that congenital weakness will be increased and multiplied in that way? I do not know why you should assume that there is congenital weakness at all. In the same manner congenital genius might be added to. At the present moment cousins are allowed to marry, and nobody, so far as I know, has ever objected.
I do not think this matter has been fairly faced. The real question is: Is this Bill contrary to any principle upon which we ought to act? The only principle that can be suggested is the one that was most certainly broken down when the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill was passed. I confess that I share with the most rev. Primate some objection to logic, which always appears to me to be a very dreary and uninteresting side. I must say, none the less, that it is impossible for anyone to put his foot on any firm foundation in resisting this Bill when you remember that, in point of fact, the other Bill is now upon the Statute Book. If this matter is going forward, as I understand it, is. I shall certainly support the noble Lord.
On Question, whether the word "now" stand part of the Motion? —
Their Lordships divided: Contents,"55; Not-Contents, 17

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor. )

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain. )

Faringdon, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Sutherland, D.

Churchill, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Wellington, D.

Falkland, V.

Greville, L.

Haldane, V.

Harris, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Hylton, L.

Joicey, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Knutsford, V.

Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

Peel, V.

Merthyr, L.

Ancaster, E.

Methuen, L.

Craven, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)

lveagh, E.

Askwith, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Kimberley, E.

Buck master, L. [Teller.]

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Lindsay, E.

Cawley, L.

Rotherham, L.

Lucan, E.

Charnwood, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Manvers, E.

Clwyd, L.

Southwark, L.

Northbrook, E.

colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Strachie, L.

Strafford, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wyfold, L.

Strange, E.(D. Altholl.)

Elgin, L (E.Elgin and Kincardine.)

Ystwyth, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Morton, E.

Balfour, L.

Selborne, E.

de Mauley, L.

Argyll, D.

Wharneliffe, E.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Salisbury, M.

Finlay, V.

Parmoor, L.

Phillimore, L. [teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chelmsford, L. Bp.

Wigan, L. (E Crawford.)

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (OFFICERS) (No. 2) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, this Bill deals with a simple matter upon which, I believe, there is no controversy. It has passed through all its stages in another place without any difficulty. It is intended to give security of tenure to two classes of public servants—medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, which, I understand, includes also inspectors of nuisances. The Bill is confined to certain of these individuals. It is necessary that some security should be provided under the law to those who occupy important positions, such as senior medical officers of health and senior sanitary inspectors. These men often have difficult duties to perform, and unless they have security of tenure there is a danger, consciously or unconsciously, of their being under some restraint in the performance of their dutes.
Seven years ago, when I was a Minister of the Crown, I received a deputation asking that this security should be provided. I was impressed with the case put forward by representative medical men, and though I cannot speak on behalf of the medical profession—I see that Lord Dawson of Penn is here—I can speak from practical experience, having served on many of these local authorities, and I am satisfied that medical officers have a feeling that in condemning property there is a possibility that their own position may suffer; or the duties which they ought to perform may suffer. There is a danger of their not dealing with slum property and nuisances in the way they should be dealt with from the public health point of view. It is in order to provide security to these public servants that the Bill has been drafted, to help them in the performance of their duties, and so secure a proper and efficient administration of the public health.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª —(Lord Gainford)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord has stated that there is no opposition to the Bill, and so far as the
836
Government are concerned that statement is perfectly correct. We are quite ready to support him in passing the Bill, as did my right hon. friend in the House of Commons. In. its present form it does not substantially alter the position, as in the case of the majority of existing appointments security of tenure already exists.
On Question, Bill read 2ªand committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TITHE ANNUITIES APPORTIONMENT BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dynevor)
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, on that Motion I wish to ask the House, not to-day but on a future occasion. to entertain an Amendment which will have the effect of causing the expenses of apportionment contemplated by this Bill not to fall entirely upon the person who becomes entitled to the annuity. It obviously lays upon him the duty of collecting from a large number of small payers instead of one, and that is a disadvantage to him. Those whom I represent have no wish to stop the passage of this Bill which will free the land from inconvenient charges, but they think it right that those who get the principal benefit should bear the greater part of the expense. I shall place an Amendment on the Paper for Third Reading in that sense. I believe it is one which has been considered by the Ministry and will not be objected to by my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without Amendment.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND ACT, 1912, AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3(according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, this is essentially a Money Bill

837
and in order to safeguard "privilege" it is necessary to move a privilege Amendment. It is, of course, anticipated that the Amendment will not remain in the Bill and that the measure will pass in the terms in which it is now before us. I beg to move that the privilege Amendment be made.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DENTISTS BILL.
Read3ª(according to Order).
Clause 5:
Dental companies.
5—(1) A body corporate may carry on the business of dentistry if—

(a) it carries on no business other than dentistry or some business ancillary to the business of dentistry; and

(b) a majority of the directors and all the operating staff thereof are registered dentists:

Provided that—

(a) a body corporate which was carrying on the business of dentistry before the passing of this Act shall not be disqualified for carrying on the business of dentistry under this section by reason only that it carries on some business other than dentistry or a business ancillary to that business if that other business is a business which the body was lawfully entitled at the commencement of this Act to early on; and

(b) where any director of any body corporate which is carrying on the business of dentistry at the commencement of this Act satisfies the Board within the interim period that he has for any five of the seven years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act been acting as director of any such body corporate, ho shall be entitled to be entered as such a director in a list to be kept by the registrar for the purposes of this section, and if so entered shall be entitled, notwithstanding that he is not a registered dentist, to act as a director but shall not by virtue of being so entered be entitled to practise dentistry.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection 1(b), to leave out "be entitled notwithstanding that he is not a registered dentist, to act as a director," and insert for the purpose of this section be treated
838
as being a registered dentist". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have on the Paper certain amendments to the Bill. They arc all of a drafting character, though they are of some importance from the point of view of clarifying the Bill and making it cohesive. I do not know whether it would be your Lordships' wish that I should explain them in detail; if so, I am quite prepared to do so. Otherwise, perhaps your Lordships will permit them to be moved en bloc
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, leave out from (" shall ") to (" but ") in line 23, and insert (" for the purpose of this section be treated as being a registered dentist ").—(The Earl of Onslow)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 10:
Application of money received and accounts of fees
10— (1) The Board shall, after paying any expenses incurred by the General Council in the execution of their duties under the principal Act and this Act, and any expenses of the Board, including the salary of the registrar, allocate any money received by them whether by way of fees or otherwise to purposes connected with dental education and research or any public purposes connected with the profession of dentistry in such manner as the Board with the approval of the Council may determine.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, leave out (" of the registrar ") and insert (" or remuneration of the registrar and of any other officers of the Board ").—(The Earl of Onslow)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Short title and repeal
18—(1) This Act may be cited as the Dentist. Act, 1921, and shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and this Act and that Act may be cited together as the Dentists Acts, 1878 and 1921.
(2) The enactments set out in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, after (" Schedule ") insert (" and except as otherwise expressly provided therein as from the date of the establishment of the Board under this Act ").—(The Earl of onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:

DENTISTS BILL.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  41 &42 Vict. c. 33.

  The Dentists Act, 1878.

  In section two the words "and 'local registrar' means the registrar appointed by a branch council under the Medical Act, 1858"; section three; section four; section five from "and a person" to the end thereof; subsections (2) and (5) of section eleven; section fifteen; section seventeen as from the date on which the Dental Board is first constituted; section twenty-nine; sections thirty-two and thirty-three; in section thirty-six the words" and to the registrar of the

  Session and Chapter.

  Short title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  Branch Council for that part of the United Kingdom in which the death occurs."

  49 & 50 Vict. c. 48.

  The Medical Act, 1886.

  "Section twenty-six down to "accordingly."

  Amendments moved—
  Page 15, lines 24 and 25, leave out (" section three; section four ") and insert (" as from the date on which the provisions of this Act prohibiting the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons come into operation sections three and four and ")
  Page 15, lines 28 to 30, leave out (" as from the date on which the Dental Board is first constituted ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
  [House adjourned at six o'clock.

LYMING'CON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Southampton Corporation Water
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders in respect of the Petition for the following Bill have not been complied with:
London and North Western Railway (Holyhead Harbour Leasing).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES) BILL.
  THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
    LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
    Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time
COLNE CORPORATION BILL
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 12th of May last and 21st of June discharged, and Bill committed.
SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY, LIMITED (CANAL) BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on 16th and 21st instant discharged, and Bill committed.

EAST SURREY WATER BILL
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill
842
was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 8th and 21st instant discharged, and Bill committed.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
Committee (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Tuesday next.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
CARDIFF GAS BILL.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHAFTESBURY EXTENSION) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons: read 1ªto be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
BATLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ªand referred to the Examiners.
LIMERICK MARKETS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next.
JOHN NEWLAND ENDOWMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  GLASGOW CONFIRMATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read 3ªon Thursday next,