Sitting of 6 December 1922

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

  HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Captain Douglas Hacking—in Levee dress) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:
  "I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Dundee High School Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Glasgow (Tramways, &c.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Head the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Return ordered "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1922 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings of each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each
  1726
  Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved:
  And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1922 have been dealt with."—[Sir J. Baird.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
  1. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended that an official delegation from Egypt be invited to the Lausanne Conference; if so, who will appoint this delegation; and when elections were last held in Egypt?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): If the Egyptian Government express the wish, and are invited to send a delegation to Lausanne, its appointment will rest with them. The elections for the Legislative Assembly were last held in 1913.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has there been any correspondence with the Egyptian Government on the question of an Egyptian delegation to the Lausanne Conference?
  Mr. McNEILL: I do not think there has been any correspondence on the subject.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to give to the House with regard to the progress at Lausanne in reference to the freedom of the Straits?
  Mr. McNEILL: I cannot usefully make any statement as to the discussions actually in progress at the Lausanne Conference.
  Mr. R. PATTINSON: Is it correct, as reported in the Press to-day, that, with regard to this question of the freedom of the Straits, the Allies are not pursuing at present a common policy?
  Mr. McNEILL: I have just said I cannot usefully make any statement with regard to discussions in progress at the Lausanne Conference.

  GREECE.

    BRITISH CORRESPONDENCE.
    Mr. CHARLES BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, after the arrest of M. Gounaris, a representative of the British Legation at Athens demanded of the Greek authorities the return of certain documents, said to be the correspondence between M. Gounaris and British Ministers, which had been seized at the house of the former by the Greek police; and whether the British Legation at any time requested the Greek authorities to return, or withhold from the trial of the accused Ministers, communications between them and British Ministers?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer to both parts of this question is in the negative.

    PRINCE ANDREW (BRITISH CRUISER).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a British cruiser was sent to Greece to give a passage to Prince Andrew of Greece after his trial; by whose orders and for what reason was a warship used for this purpose; and what is the estimated cost of this service?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The vessel was sent by the Admiralty, at the request of His Majesty's Government, as a possible means of saving the lives of Prince and Princess Andrew of Greece which, at the time, were believed to be in jeopardy. The estimated cost is about £1,200.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When this Prince had been tried and sentenced to banishment had not the danger evaporated? Why then was it necessary to use a British cruiser for this purpose at the risk of offending the present Government of Greece, and of estranging the democracy of the country?
    Viscount CURZON: Is not the lady referred to the sister of a distinguished naval officer in our own service?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Would the ship have been sent by the Admiralty had it been the case of two Greek peasants?
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Ought not a sentence of banishment imposed upon a Greek citizen to be carried into operation by the Greek Navy; ought it not to provide the necessary facilities rather than the British Navy sending a boat across?
    Mr. AMERY: I have pointed out in my answer that a boat had already been sent. The reception of Prince and Princess was a matter of courtesy which we, on many occasions, extended to others.

    GERMANY AND RUSSIA.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give his assurance that there is not a secret naval treaty between the German Government and the Russian-Soviet Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 4th December.
    Mr. BECKER: Do I understand from that that the Government do not view with great alarm any such treaty, if in existence?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that arises.

    ELLIS ISLAND (BRITISH EMIGRANTS).
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been directed to the treatment of British emigrants at Ellis Island; and whether he proposes to take action in the matter?
    Mr. McNEILL: This question has received the closest and most continuous consideration from His Majesty's Government for some time past. In the course of the present year alone representations have twice been made on the subject to the United States Government, and two visits of inspection have been carried out, at the invitation of that Government, by members of His Majesty's Embassy at Washington. The last of these was on

    1729
    28th October. The conditions and treatment at Ellis Island are primarily adapted to emigrants of a low standard of cleanliness and conduct, who form the bulk of the arrivals. For persons of any refinement, especially women, subjected to the same treatment it constitutes a Serious hardship, but it appears that the United States Government are unable to keep emigrants of the various nationalities separated while undergoing detention. British subjects proposing to emigrate to the United States would do well to bear these facts in mind.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the fact that the treatment meted out to British emigrants is still unsatisfactory, will the hon. Gentleman pursue his representations to the United States Government on the matter?
    Mr. McNEILL: Those negotiations have been, as I have said, continually proceeding, and are still proceeding.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not far better for British emigrants to go to some section of the British Empire?

    MONTENEGRO.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has appointed a consul or consular agent at Cetinje, in order that the Foreign Office may be fully informed on the condition of Montenegro?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative.

    MALTESE, MOROCCO AND TUNIS.
    Mr. MORELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French authorities in Morocco and Tunis refuse to recognise Maltese settled in those countries as British subjects; and whether Maltese have been conscripted for service in the French Army?
    Mr. McNEILL: The measures taken by the French authorities in Tunis and Morocco (French zone) affecting the nationality of British subjects resident there have formed the subject of prolonged
    1730
    discussions between His Majesty's Government and the French Government, who have recently agreed to refer certain legal points arising out of this dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague. It is believed that no British subjects are at present being conscripted for service in the French Army.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that there are no Maltese or other British subjects serving in the French Armies as conscripts?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have just said it is believed that no British subjects are at present being conscripted for service in the French Army.

    PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the highest sum payable for a visa on a European passport and what is the amount of the lowest?
    Mr. McNEILL: The highest fee charged for British visas to the nationals of any European country is the fee of £2 charged to German citizens for a visa valid for six months. This is a retaliatory charge imposed as the equivalent of the Gorman fee for similar visas to British subjects. The lowest fees are the equivalents of 10 gold francs for ordinary visas, and I gold franc for transit visas which, in accordance with the recommendations of the International Conference held in Paris in October, 1920, are charged to the nationals of all countries except those against which retaliatory charges are in force.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that a good many Continental nations look upon the money obtained by visas as a financial transaction to benefit themselves, instead of it being to keep out undesirable travellers?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have no idea whether that is so or not.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Would it not be very much better for people in this country who want to go abroad to go to places within the Empire?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Hear, hear!

  ROYAL NAVY.

    GENERAL ELECTION (BALLOT PAPERS).
    Sir JOHN SIMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of naval men were prevented from voting at the recent General Election owing to the returning officers for their constituencies not receiving the necessary information from the Admiralty that such men were either serving in home establishments or in ships in home waters, thus preventing returning officers from despatching ballot papers to them; whether a census of such men has been taken by any of the naval authorities; if so, what is the number of such men who were unable to vote in each of any of the several divisions of Portsmouth; and what action he proposes to Take in the matter?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before this question is answered, may I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that the statement in this question is not correct? Is it not a fact—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is for the Minister to say whether it is correct or not.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is not correct.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Mon-sell): Under the naval procedure, accountant officers are required, when a General Election is announced, to furnish returning officers with addresses to which the ballot papers for all naval ratings should be sent unless serving abroad, and telegraphic instructions for this to be done were issued from the Admiralty on the 26th October. From reports received, it appears that about 300 men of the Portsmouth Command were unable to vote in the Central Division of Portsmouth. There were various contributory reasons, but a complete analysis of the reports has not yet been made, and I will communicate further with the right hon. Member when the investigation has been completed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that it is not so much a question of returning officers doing their duty as that the system is wrong? Will the right hon. Gentleman revise the system, or have a new system inaugurated before the next General Election?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: That is being inquired into. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the machinery is entirely new, and has not been properly tested, but I should not like to say that it has broken down until an analysis is made.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any complaints have been made?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: There are a good many contributory causes, and one is that people do not take interest in Elections until they are upon them, and then it is too late.
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, whereby officers and men of His Majesty's forces are entitled to be registered as absent voters for any constituency for which they would have had the necessary qualification but for their service, the procedure laid down in A.F.O. 1,500/1918 and subsequent amendments is adequate to insure that correct information is forwarded from time to lime to the various registration officers to enable them to include naval ratings in the periodically revised registers; whether there is any method other than the annual routine of reporting the next-of-kin to insure that the correct shore address of naval ratings is known and recorded; whether the correct shore address of naval ratings is noted on all service certificates after it is inserted in the September quarter ledger; whether forms S. 1,355a or S. 1,335b are kept corrected with the latest, shore address of naval ratings; what method is adopted and who is responsible that this should be done; and whether it could be arranged for the home ports, which have a large number of absent voters, to have proof copies of the absent voters' register corrected in the depot drafting offices for each periodical revision of the registers and on the declaration of an Election?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The registration of naval voters is based on the completion by each officer and man of the prescribed card (form S. 1335A). Fresh cards are available on board ship and are issued on application when a man desires to change his constituency as the result of alteration of address. Fresh cards are also prepared when regis-

    1733
    tration officers notify changes of address as the result of local canvas. Provision is made for changes of address to be noted on Service Certificates. I may add that in view of the experience gained at the recent General Election the whole question of naval procedure is under consideration.

    NEW CAPITAL SHIPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the orders are given to build the two new capital ships what trades will benefit; how many men will be employed; how much will be spent in wages; how many firms will be concerned: and if he can state approximately what centres of population would principally benefit?
    Mr. AMERY: The following would benefit from the placing of the orders for the two new capital ships:

    Shipyards and allied concerns.

    Engineering establishments.

    Ammunition factories.

    Steel works.

    Mines.

    Railways.

    Shipping.

    During the first three months 4,000 to 5,000 men would be employed. During the first six months an average of 13,000 would be engaged on the work, rising in the second six months to some 29,000 men, and subsequently for a time to 40,000 men. The average number employed over the whole period of construction would be about 21,000. It is expected that somewhere about £10,000,000 would be spent in wages, and it is estimated that during the period of the construction of the ships about 500 firms would be interested to a greater or less degree in providing material to be incorporated in the finished ship. In addition to the two districts in which the ships would be built, workpeople in Government Ordnance Factories, Sheffield, Manchester, Barrow, Glasgow and the Tyne would principally benefit from the contracts.
    Mr. D. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Barrow there are 10,000 men out of work, and will it be possible to ask the Admiralty to place one of these vessels at Barrow?
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 80,000 unemployed in Glasgow, and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If we pursue this matter, we may go on till the evening.
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in placing any orders for naval constructional work, he will make a point of allowing all private yards to tender, and especially those which, forming the main industries of certain towns, are now depressed, with much resultant local unemployment?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: All the private yards in the United Kingdom considered capable of building the ships have been invited to tender for the two battleships which are under consideration. No other important constructional work is contemplated in the near future.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does that apply to everything in respect of naval orders?
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the decision of the Government in regard to the two battleships which the last Parliament decided should be laid down?
    Mr. AMERY: I cannot anticipate the statement which the Prime Minister proposes to make on this subject before the Recess.
    Viscount CURZON: Is a statement to be made to-day in another place, and, if so, will the intentions of the Government be communicated to us?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

    JUTLAND BATTLE (OFFICIAL ACCOUNT).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the official account of the battle of Jutland is to be issued; and whether Lord Jellicoe has agreed to its issue, without alteration, as it was sent to him last June?
    Mr. AMERY: Lord Jellicoe has received the narrative and charts, and will return them, with his comments, at the earliest possible moment. Publication will be arranged as soon as practicable after their return, but, of course, I cannot give any date.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hem. Gentleman give any idea when "the earliest possible moment" is? Is it known that these documents are coming back to this country now—we have waited a long time?
    Mr. AMERY: They have been received, and I hope within a very few weeks the comments will come back to us.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty upon what principles the prize bounty salvage awards in connection with the Battle of Jutland have been fixed; and if he is aware that in some cases some of the men have received as their share only 5s. 1d.; and if he will take action in the matter?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Prize bounty is a special award under Section 42 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, which is granted to the crews of His Majesty's ships present at the capture or destruction of enemy armed vessels. The award is fixed at £5 for each member of the crew of the enemy vessel taken or destroyed, and the claim has to be proved in the Prize Court. In the Battle of Jutland the enemy ships sunk carried 4,537 persons, and the award made was £22,685, which amount, after payment of the expenses of the claim, was distributed on the usual scale amongst the 61,654 officers and men present in His Majesty's ships. The share of an able seaman worked out at 5s. 1d., the smallness of the share being due to the very large number of persons among whom the award was divided.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the extraordinary delay in payment of prize money to Samuel Coaley, of Kirkdale, Liverpool, and also to the Department concerned in not answering six letters relating to this case, including a registered letter, and a letter from a magistrate writing on the man's behalf; and can he make any statement on the subject?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I much regret the delay in the payment of Mr. Coaley's claim, which was due to the Office record of his service being missing when his application was received. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that,
    1736
    although every precaution is taken, it is impossible to ensure that a few papers are not mislaid out of the many thousands that are constantly in circulation. I also regret any inconvenience or anxiety which has been caused to Mr. Coaley in connection with this matter.
    Mr. ROSE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what period can be placed or will be placed on the final disbursement of prize money, and can he give the House any idea when they are going to get rid of this liability altogether?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    WARRANT WRITFRS.
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why warrant writers have been withdrawn from the complements of capital ships; who have taken their places; and whether the withdrawal is a permanent or temporary measure?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The decision to withdraw the warrant writers and replace them by chief writers is in consequence of a reorganisation of accountant duties and complements generally, and the withdrawal is permanent.

    MESSES (LICENSED BARS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is expected that approval will be given to the repeated request of the chief and petty officers of the Royal Navy to be granted a fully licensed bar in their messes, the same as their equivalent ranks have in the Army and Air Force; and whether he is aware that considerable feeling exists amongst the chief and petty officers at the continued delay with which this reasonable request is being treated?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The request for a fully licensed bar was refused in Fleet Order 888 of the 31st March last. The requests of the Welfare Conference, 1922, which include a reference to this matter, are being dealt with as rapidly as circumstances admit.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (LABOURERS' WAGES).
    Mr. NICHOLasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the wage paid to adult labourers in

    1737
    the Royal Dockyard at Plymouth, including all bonuses, is 41s. per week; and, seeing that this does not constitute an adequate living wage for the breadwinner of a family under present conditions, is he prepared to increase this wage substantially?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The minimum rate of wages paid to labourers in His Majesty's Dockyard at Devonport is as stated by the hon. Member. The rate compares with 37s. 6d. paid in the commercial industries with which the dockyards are commonly compared, and it is not proposed to increase it.
    Mr. NICHOL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a living wage? Is he going to take the standard set up by private enterprise as the national idea of what a living wage should be?

    DOMINION ASSISTANCE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister what, if any, decisions have been arrived at with regard to the assistance to be given by the Dominions to the Royal Navy?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The question of naval defence was discussed at the Imperial meetings, June

    Country.

    If Washington Treaty is ratified.

    If Washington Treaty is not ratified.

    U.S.A.

    …

    18 Battleships.

    20 Battleships, Dreadnought.

    2 Battleships, building.

    6 Battleships, Pre-Dreadnought.

    9 Battleships, Building.

    4 Battle Cruisers building.

    2 Battle Cruisers which are now being converted into Aircraft carriers.

    TOTAL

    20 Capital Ships.

    TOTAL

    41 Capital Ships.

    Japan

    …

    6 Battleships.

    7 Battleships, Dreadnought.

    4 Battle Cruisers.

    4 Battleships, Pre-Dreadnought.

    4 Battle Cruisers.

    2 Battleships building.

    2 Battle Cruisers building.

    2 Battleships projected.

    2 Battle Cruisers projected.

    TOTAL

    10 Capital Ships.

    TOTAL

    23 Capital Ships.

    Great Britain

    18 Battleships.

    18 Battleships.

    4 Battle Cruisers.

    5 Battle Cruisers.

    TOTAL

    22 Capital Ships.

    TOTAL

    23 Capital Ships.

    to August, 1921, and the resolution was adopted as published in Cmd. 1474, page 6. The effect of this resolution was to defer detailed recommendations until after the Washington Conference. The discussions are proceeding, but have not yet arrived at a stage at which it is desirable to make any statement.

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS (WASHINGTON TREATY).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the relative strength of the navies of the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain, in capital ships, when the Washington Treaty is ratified, and if it is not ratified, respectively?
    Mr. AMERY: As the full reply must be given in tabular form, I will, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may, however, state at once that if the Washington Treaty be ratified, the United States of America will have 20 capital ships of fighting value, Japan 10, and Great Britain 22. If the Washington Treaty be not ratified, the United States will have 41 capital ships of fighting value, Japan 23, and Great Britain 23.
    The reply in tabular form is as follows:
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the relative strength of the navies of the United States, Japan, and the British Empire in capital ships designed to embody the lessons learnt in the battle of Jutland, if the Washington Treaty is ratified and if the Washington Treaty is not ratified?
    Mr. AMERY: If the Washington Treaty be ratified, the United States of America will have three such capital ships completed and two building; Japan two completed, and Great Britain one, the "Hood," which, however, only partially embodies the lessons learnt in the Battle of Jutland. If the Washington Treaty be not ratified, the United States of America will have three such capital ships completed and 13 building, exclusive of two battle cruisers now being converted into aircraft carriers; Japan will have two completed, four building, and four projected; and Great Britain one completed, namely, the "Hood," to which I have already referred.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do the Admiralty consider that the only basis of naval strength is the capital ship, and if that is so, should they not make it clear to the House?
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of his answer, that the One-Power standard, approved by this House and the country, is being satisfactorily maintained?
    Mr. AMERY: The capital ship is not the only standard, but it is the main standard of comparison agreed upon at Washington. If the terms of the Agreement at Washington are carried out, I trust we shall, at least, maintain the One-Power standard.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the reply of the Government of the United States of America in the matter of capital ships; and whether he has any further statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. AMERY: I have seen in the Press the statements purporting to have been made by the United States State and Navy Departments on the subject of scrapping capital ships. I have nothing to add to the statement already made by the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to
    1740
    the Noble and Gallant Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) on 29th November.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Washington Treaty restricts the building of cruisers; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of utilising the Royal dockyards for this purpose?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. When it is decided to build cruisers I am sure that the Board of Admiralty will give most favourable consideration to the Royal dockyards which are capable of constructing the ships proposed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the matter will be considered?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    ADMIRALTY (ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL'S BRANCH).
    Mr. CASSELSasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that disabled ex-service men employed in the Accountant-General's branch of the Admiralty are being dismissed on the 30th of December, while sound ex-service men are being retained in the employment of the same branch; and, seeing that this course is contrary to the recommendation of the Lytton Committee that disabled ex-service men should be given priority of retention over other ex-service personnel, will he inquire further into this question?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Report of the Lytton Committee recommended that ex-service men should be discharged in the following order:

    1. Home service.

    2. Overseas.

    3. Disabled.

    All the men referred to are home service men, and, as such, are being discharged before overseas men or overseas disabled men. It is the Admiralty practice to consider the cases of men disabled at home on their merits, taking into consideration whether the disability is directly attributable to service. This procedure, together with the discharge of

    1741
    these particular men, has the concurrence of the authorised representatives of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. I may add that it is open to these men to appeal through the ordinary official channels or through their own organisation, but they have not yet done so.

    UNEMPLOYMENT.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of ex-service men drawing unemployment benefit; and what percentage of that number are disabled?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Montague Barlow): At 23rd October there were 414,810 ex-service men on the live registers of Employment Exchanges, of whom 64,968 or 15·7 per cent, were classified as disabled, that is, in receipt of a disability pension. I have no reason to suppose that at the present time any considerable number of these are not in receipt of unemployment benefit, but exact figures are not available.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the obstacles placed by the Pensions and Health Ministries in the way of the discharge of ex-service men and other inmates of asylums in instances where it cannot be proved against the patients that they are dangerous and unfit to be at large, he will take measures for the institution of an appeal court, not connected with the lunacy or pensions administrations, to which inmates would be entitled to present their applications for freedom in accordance with the rights, at present held in abeyance which are guaranteed to them by the emancipating provisions of the existing Lunacy Acts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): No obstacles are placed by the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Health in the way of the discharge of ex-service men and other inmates of asylums. This is not a matter in which either Department intervenes. Ex-service patients who have been accepted by the Ministry of Pensions and classified as service patients are upon the footing of private patients, and can be discharged under the provisions of Section 72 of the Lunacy Act, unless a certificate is given by the medical officer
    1742
    of the institution to the effect that the patient is dangerous and unfit to be at large. Other patients can only be discharged by the visiting committee, in whose discretion the matter rests. The remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    TRAINING.
    Captain BERKELEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in any unemployment relief schemes which he may bring forward, there will be adequate provision for giving training to ex-service men who, by reason of their youth when they joined the Colours, have had no opportunity of learning trades or crafts?
    Sir M. BARLOW: There is a preference given to ex-service men in selection for employment on relief schemes; but. I fear that the nature of the schemes is such that they cannot include provision for the training of the men referred to in a skilled occupation.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (BENEFIT).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any Report from the Committee appointed by his predecessor to consider what steps could be taken to remove the disability at present placed upon the innocent victims of an industrial dispute from receiving unemployment benefit when thrown out of work through a dispute to which they are in no way parties?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers have not yet submitted a Report.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to expedite a Report in order that this grievance may be dealt with this Session?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The matter is a difficult, one. It is in the hands of a Committee, and I shall give them every facility in my power. I hope a decision will be arrived at without delay.

    EXCHANGES.
    Major Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Labour if he has, or can procure, any records to show the percentage

    1743
    of those registered on the Employment Exchanges in the last two years or 18 months who have been found permanent employment; if he has received any representations within that time from any local authorities condemning or praising the Employment Exchanges; and, if so, how many, and which, places?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Statistics on this point are not available and could not be compiled without great labour. I may say, however, that there is no reason to suppose that employment found through the Employment Exchanges is any less permanent than that normally obtaining in the particular occupation concerned. I am not aware of any case in which, within the period in question, a local authority has made representations to the Department either praising or condemning the Employment Exchanges.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister o? Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the criticism from all quarters as to the present, under-staffing of the Employment Exchanges, which is resulting in the overworking of the staff and vexatious delays to persons who have to resort to the Exchanges; and whether he will institute a thorough inquiry into the question?
    Sir M. BARLOW: In the interests of economy a very careful watch is kept on the staffing of the Exchanges, and little margin can be allowed for special emergencies, but I have no reason to suppose that the Exchange staffs are not generally adequate. In these circumstances I do not think a general inquiry would serve any useful purpose, but if particulars of any specific cases of alleged under-staffing can be supplied I shall be glad to inquire into them.
    Mr. SITCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of unemployed men dealt with in each office?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I should require notice of that question.

    FARM LABOURERS.
    Mr. EMLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Labour the number of farm labourers at present unemployed in this country; and, in view of these labourers being ineligible for unemployment benefits, what steps are being taken to remove this anomaly?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The number of farm labourers registered ax Employment Exchanges on 6th November was 3,461, but this number does not represent the total amount of unemployment among this class of workers, with regard to which I would refer the hon. Member to the general estimate given on 4th December in reply to the hon. Member for East Grinstead. As regards unemployment benefit, I am not aware of any general desire on the part of the agricultural industry to be included in the Unemployment Insurance Scheme.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he is aware that where local rates are between 20s. and 30s. in the £ the granting of temporary loans for short periods ranging from six months to five years affords no real relief; and, pending the decision of the Government as to special grants to necessitous areas, will he sanction the extension of these loan periods to at least 10 or 15 years in order that industry may have an opportunity of recovery with as little hindrance as possible from the burden of exorbitant rates?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend is unable to accept the suggestion conveyed in the earlier part of this question. In dealing with applications for sanction to borrowing, every care is taken, as regards both the amount and (within the statutory maximum of 10 years) the period of the loans, to afford the maximum of assistance to the local authority.
    Mr. THOMSON: I desire to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory reply, I shall raise this question on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in order that the subject may be discussed before we rise.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what rate of interest is being charged by the Government on loans granted to these necessitous areas?

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALLasked the Minister of Labour whether able-bodied spinsters are allowed to draw unemployment benefit whilst vacancies in domestic

    1745
    service are available; and what steps are taken to prevent women and girls drawing benefit after refusing a situation?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Benefit is only paid to women who are normally employed otherwise than in private domestic service. Further, such women who are suitable for, and who refuse, domestic service are not granted benefit. In administering these rules the Exchanges can, of course, only act upon the facts as ascertained by them; but I may point out that in dealing with uncovenanted benefit the local employment committees commonly require applicants to show what efforts they have made to find employment, and in a number of cases benefit has been refused on the general ground that the applicants could, if they chose, obtain employment in domestic service.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House that these women cannot be taken into domestic service unless they are trained? [HON. MEMBRHS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members knew anything about it, they would know that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now giving information.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is there any evidence of truth in these continual libels on a decent body of citizens?
    Mr. W. THORNE: If domestic service were made more humane, would not more girls go into it?

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED, GLASGOW.
    NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that hundreds of men in Glasgow who are unemployed are having their claims to unemployment benefit under the fourth special period disallowed on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment; whether he is aware that the great depression in trade makes it impossible for those men to find employment; and whether he will give instructions to the local employment committees who are issuing such decisions to reconsider those cases with a view to having those men paid the uncovenanted benefit to which the Act entitles them;
    (2) whether he is aware that hundreds of men in Glasgow are having their claims to unemployment benefit during the fourth
    1746
    special period disallowed by the local employment committees; that no reason is given on the U.I. 503 form which is sent to those men; and whether he will cause the employment committees who have considered those cases to give reasons why those claims have been disallowed, so that the men may have knowledge of what decision they should appeal against?
    Sir M. BARLOW: It is a condition for the receipt of uncovenanted benefit, which is what I gather the hon. Member is referring to, that applicants must prove that they are genuinely seeking whole-time employment. The local committee, which deals with the applications, is fully conversant with local industrial conditions, and I am satisfied, as the result of local inquiry, that the committee does not refuse to recommend benefit unless it is convinced, after personal interview, that the above condition is not fulfilled. Uncovenanted benefit is, under the Acts, always discretionary. The normal practice is to notify claimants of disallowance and the reason for it by means of a printed form. If the exact ground for disallowance has been omitted in any case, this is exceptional and due to recent pressure of work, and the large number of claims involved. If the hon. Member will bring any cases of this kind to my notice, I will see that the ground for disallowance is furnished.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these individuals who are refused unemployment benefit on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment, are compelled to go to the foreman of their works for a statement that they have been in actual employment? Is it not the case that the Employment Exchanges were started with the object of finding employment for people who are unemployed, and if they cannot do it, how can the unemployed people be expected to succeed? Are they not, under these circumstances, entitled to the benefit?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why do not Ministers answer questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I think, made a speech rather than asked a question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: As the Minister replied to two questions at once, I was compelled to combine my supplementary

    1747
    questions to the two. I was doing that, and not making a speech.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that P. Johnstone, 35, Main Street, Govan, has claimed unemployment benefit during the fourth special period, and has been refused on the ground that he did not prove to the satisfaction of the local employment committee that he was normally employed in an insurable occupation; that the local committee also state that his rights to covenanted benefit, namely, benefit on contributions paid, have meantime been exhausted; whether he can state how a man, whose rights to covenanted benefit, which can only be secured by being employed in an insurable occupation, can be ruled out of benefit on the ground that he is not in an insurable occupation; and whether, in view of the contradictory decisions of this committee, he will cause further inquiry to be made with a view-to the benefit under the fourth special period being paid to this man?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I have made inquiries and find that according to the records of the Department no contributions have ever been paid in respect of this applicant. The question of benefit in respect of contributions has, therefore, never arisen. The man received 44 weeks of uncovenanted benefit, however, up to April of this year. His claim has been considered on more than one occasion since that date, but has been rejected by the Committee. The applicant was not, I am informed, able to prove any employment since 1915. I see no reason to interfere with the recommendation of the Committee in this case.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Do not the Committee admit that this man had a right to covenanted benefit which could only be obtained by paying insurance contributions, although the right had been exhausted? Does not that dispose of the statement that he was not normally employed in an insurable occupation?

    JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.
    Mr. C. WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Joint Industrial Conference of 1919 having been able to produce an unanimous Report on wages and hours, he will, with
    1748
    a view to convincing the public that the Government is in earnest in regard to unemployment, and thereby allaying discontent, consider whether, between the time the House rises and re-assembles, a similar joint industrial council can get together to consider the causes of unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served at the present time by setting up a special body to investigate such a wide and controversial subject, as the causes of unemployment

    ZINC AND LEAD MINERS.
    Mr. COLLISONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the whole of the workers who were engaged in the zinc and lead mines of this country are still unemployed; whether he is aware that this is due to the 10 years' contract with the Australian Government; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of treating the miners of this industry as favourably as they are treating the Australian miners?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the condition of the zinc and lead mining industry in this country, but I do not think it can be properly ascribed to the contract to which the hon. Member refers. The hon. Member will find the whole position with regard to this contract very fully dealt with in Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson's speech on the Board of Trade Vote on 21st February last.

    JUVENTILES, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of juveniles in Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, and Monmouthshire who are registered at local Employment Exchanges as unemployed?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The number of boys and girls under 18 on the Live Registers of Employment Exchanges in the counties mentioned at 27th November were as follow:

    Glamorganshire

    1,461

    Carmarthenshire

    90

    Monmouthshire

    571

    Mr. JONES: In view of the fact that the coal industry in South Wales is in such a deplorable condition, and that there are now no openings for juveniles in these three counties, will the Government take some steps to secure new callings for the juveniles?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The whole question of juvenile employment is, as I have stated to the House once or twice during the last two or three days, under active consideration.
    Mr. HARDIE: Having regard to the conditions which prevail in industrial centres—in Glasgow, for instance—under which large numbers of boys and girls from the age of 14 upwards cannot find employment, have the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues under consideration a system of technical education for these children during the day?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Another Minister would have to answer that question.

    TEST WORK.
    Mr. C. ROBERTSasked whether, when a board of guardians, by arrangement with the local authority and under a scheme submitted to the Ministry of Health, employs men on test work, which requires unskilled labour and is of substantial public utility in the area, for the purpose of testing the suitability of applicants for relief, and grants them relief out of rates not exceeding the amount of relief granted to men not undergoing the labour test, such men are entitled to receive unemployment benefit in addition to the relief granted, or whether the Minister of Health declines to sanction such schemes?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The question whether unemployment benefit is payable in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member depends on the circumstances of each case. The final decision rests with the Umpire, who has laid down certain of the relevant considerations in two recent decisions, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is prepared, as far as possible, to sanction such schemes so far as payment of outdoor relief is concerned, but his sanction does not apply to the payment of unemployment benefit, which depends on the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

    BUILDING TRADES.
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of skilled men in the building trades now registered as unemployed; and if he will state, allowing for the usual proportion of unskilled to skilled men, the approximate total number of unemployed men in the building trades immediately available for the construction of houses?
    Sir M. BARLOW: At 20th November the Employment Exchange registers included 56,502 building trade operatives in skilled occupations, and 74,406 in unskilled occupations. The number who could be effectively employed at once on building houses cannot be stated, as so much would depend on such factors as the geographical distribution of the men and their grouping in the various skilled occupations. It must be borne in mind that in certain of the skilled branches of the building industry there is no large number of unemployed labour—in fact, rather the reverse.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week, in answer to a question, he said that there were only 5,000 bricklayers out of employment?
    Sir M. BARLOW: That point is covered by the last part of my answer.

    EDMONTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    Mr. ROBERT MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that the maintenance of 160 unemployed marchers has cost the Edmonton Board of Guardians up to the present £500; and whether he intends to make a grant from Government funds towards such costs?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend is aware that this board of guardians has incurred expenditure in the relief of some of these men. There are no funds at his disposal out of which such a grant as is suggested could be made.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Member aware that many boards of guardians are in a similar position, and is he aware that Members on this side of the House believe that if the Prime Minister would receive a deputation from the unem-

    1751
    ployed all this expenditure would be avoided?
    Mr. HARDIE: If the Minister has no money to meet a claim like this, where did the money come from to take a Prince from Greece?

    OUGHTIBRIDGE AND WOKRALL.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Oughtibridge and Worrall there are 150 unemployed who have twice a week to attend the Labour Exchange either at the Corn Exchange, Sheffield, a distance of six miles, or at Stocksbridge, a distance of five miles; whether he is aware that a number of the older men are unable to walk these distances and have to pay 2s. 4d. per week in travelling expenses; and whether, in view of the number affected, he can see his way to make some alternative arrangement whereby it will be unnecessary to travel these distances?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am considering whether some arrangement can be made to reduce the number of attendances in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member, and I will communicate with him as soon as I have completed my inquiries.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, the total number of persons in receipt of old age pensions, the number and respective value of such pensions, and the total expenditure incurred, including administrative expenses?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The total number of old age pensioners in Great Britain at 31st March last was 858,497, namely, 800,308 at 10s weekly, 23.35S at 8s. weekly, 14,924 at 6s weekly, 796 at 5s. weekly, 11,432 at 4s. weekly, 112 at 3s. weekly, 6,005 at 2s. weekly, and 1,562 at 1s. weekly. The estimated expenditure in 1922–23 is £22,565,000 for cost of pensions, and £860,270 for cost of administration (including expenses of local pensions committees), a total of £23,425,270.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In assessing the pension of ex-Lords High Chancellor, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account any incomes they receive?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not here arise.

    MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
    Mr. DAVID WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, how many mothers and expectant mothers and babies under one year old were supplied with milk or milk foods from local health authorities in Wales during the past 12 months; and how many, if any, were proceeded against for making false declarations of inability to pay or otherwise abusing the provisions of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. No case has been reported to the Welsh Board of Health in which such proceedings as are mentioned in the second part of the question have been taken.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Minister of Health, whether any protests have been received from Coventry against the proposal of the local authority to stop the sale of dried milk to nursing mothers, although the local authority has made a profit on the sale, and to close the maternity home for necessitous mothers; and whether he will make representations to the local authority as to the inadvisability of taking this action?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but my right hon. Friend is in communication with the town council in regard to their proposals for curtailing their expenditure upon the maternity and child welfare service.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL SERVICE).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he has at any time received complaints from any quarter that the medical service provided under the State Health Insurance scheme is inadequate or inefficient; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to improve this service?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Insurance Committees are required to investigate all specific complaints of failure on the part of insurance practitioners to carry out their obligations. Reports of all these investigations are forwarded to the Ministry of Health and, where necessary, disciplinary action is taken. The question how far the service could be improved without unduly increasing the cost is under consideration in connection with the revision of the present agreement as to the capitation fee which expires at the end of next year.

  HOUSING.

    OVERCROWDING.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, what action the Government is prepared to take to remedy the present evils of overcrowding, in view of the failure of the late Government's housing schemes and. of the efforts of private enterprise to supply the houses needed to meet the shortage which has been in existence since the Armistice?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The Government have the whole question of housing policy under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement with regard to it.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will make some announcement on this question before the House rises?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will ask my right hon. Friend whether that is possible. The whole question is under consideration at the present time.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this question has been under consideration for the last 50 years?

    LEVER BROTHERS, PORT SUNLIGHT.
    Mr. R. DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour as representing the Ministry of Health whether he is aware that Messrs. Lever Brothers, soap manufacturers, have provided house accommodation for one-fourth of their workpeople employed at Port Sunlight, and that there is a long waiting list of employés desirous of housing accommodation in that township; that several long-service employés
    1754
    of Messrs. Lever Brothers who have been tenants of the firm in the neighbourhood have received notices to quit their homes because they have severed their connection with the firm; that no alternative accommodation has been provided by Messrs. Lever Brothers for them: and, in view of the position of those workpeople, whether he will take steps to see that legal provision is made to compel employers who are owners of cottage property to provide alternative accommodation in such cases?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend is aware that the firm referred to have erected houses for their employés, but he has no information on the further points referred to in the question. He does not think that legislation on the lines suggested will be practicable.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to this problem if I bring before him specific cases of tyranny upon tenants by Messrs. Lever Brothers?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will be very glad to receive any such information.
    Mr. DAVIES: He shall have it.

    PEABODY BUILDINGS, BUCKINGHAM GATE.
    Brigadier-General NICHOLSONasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that large blocks of tenements, known as the Peabody Buildings, Buckingham Gate, in the City of Westminster, are now standing vacant; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent these tenements being pulled down at a time when the shortage of houses in London is so acute?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend has any power to intervene. He is informed, however, that the Peabody Dwellings at Buckingham Gate, which have been sold, were out of date; that a modern building has been erected by the Peabody Trustees in Westminster for the purpose of rehousing the late occupants of the Buckingham Gate Dwellings; and that this building would not have been erected but for the arranged sale of the Buckingham Gate site.

    BUILDING MATERIAL (CHALK).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in France during the War many persons were engaged in the opening up of chalk quarries and preparing the chalk by specially mixing with cement in a manner suitable for road-making and house-building; and whether, in view of the fact that by this means remunerative employment could be found for many unskilled men, he will consider the advisability of making the experiment in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Cotonel ASHLEY): I have been asked to answer this question. The use of block chalk for road foundations is familiar, but I am not acquainted with any application to road-making of the mixture described by the hon. Member. If he will supply me with further details, I will gladly have investigations made.

    MINISTRIES OF HEALTH AND LABOUE.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALLasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, what is the annual cost of his public information Department; how many officials, including supervisory, part-time, and clerical staff, are connected with it; and whether this post-War Department will be abolished, as in the case of the Ministry of Labour?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The staff engaged upon the work to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers consists, and has consisted since the 1st April last, of one whole-time and one part-time officer. The annual salaries (including bonus) of these officers amount to £1,525. My right hon. Friend has the question of the continuance of the whole-time post under consideration.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure, it is intended to effect economy in administration by amalgamating the Ministries of Health and Labour, and renaming such Ministry the Ministry of Home Affairs?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot usefully add anything to the answer
    1756
    which I gave on the 30th November to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Sir H. Cory).

    CENSUS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, when the Census Returns will be completed and published?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It is expected that the publication of Census Reports for all counties will be completed in the course of next year.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (INFANTS).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to proceed this Session with the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; and, if so, whether provisions will be made in the Bill for an alteration in the code of Regulations for elementary schools to secure that children under six shall not be excluded from school on the ground that there is lack of accommodation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the rest of the question does not therefore arise.

    ASSIZE CIRCUITS.
    Mr. D. SOMERVILLEasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to permit this House to discuss the proposed changes in holding the assizes in the provinces before any definite action is taken thereon: and whether he is aware of the differences of opinion on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) on the 30th of last month. Until the Committee which has been appointed to consider the question has reported, it is not possible to say what changes, if any, will be proposed in the system, and whether it will be necessary to discuss the matter in this House. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    MASTER IN LUNACY.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of thoroughly reliable investigation into the welfare of the certified insane, whose pecuniary interests are committed to the care of a single Master in Lunacy, who is blind and dependent for his knowledge of facts upon the services of his clerk, he will institute an inquiry into the fitness of the Master for the discharge of his duties and the desirability of substituting as the holder of this office some other barrister or Master of high standing not so incapacitated?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. This question refers to a most zealous and efficient public servant, and I regret that it should have been asked. I think it right, however, that the House should know that some months ago (long before this question appeared upon the Paper), the Master in Lunacy intimated his desire to retire from the public service at the end of the present year.

    SUPFLKMENTAEY ESTIMATES.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the, Prime Minister, in view of the present unsatisfactory procedure of requesting this House to approve of Supplementary Estimates after the-money has been spent, if he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to examine alternate methods of procedure applicable in all cases other than those of national emergency?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think a Committee to consider procedure would assist the hon. and gallant Member's object, with which I am in entire sympathy. Estimates cannot be exceeded without Parliamentary authority except in urgent cases by limited and temporary advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and it is in all cases the duty of the executive to obtain Parliamentary authority at the earliest possible moment if an excess on the original provision for the year is in sight. It is precisely for this reason that certain Supplementary Estimates have been presented now.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind as to the desirability of setting up an effective Estimates Committee of this House to deal with subjects of this kind?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to carry out the excellent statement which he has just made?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly.

    RIVER LEE (POLLUTION).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir RAYMOND GREENEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in arranging for relief works during the winter to give employment, he will consider the importance of improving the arrangements for sewage disposal in the upper reaches of the River Lee, the polluted condition of which has long been a serious menace to the- health of the people of Hackney;
    (2) whether any attempt has been made to call the attention of the local authorities in Edmonton, Tottenham, Enfield, and other districts on the upper reaches of the River Lee, to the polluted condition in which the water of the Lee reaches Hackney; whether he can state if it is yet known which of these districts is responsible; what the remedy is;
    (3) whether the improvements to the Enfield sewage disposal works, for which the scheme was approved last June, have been carried out; and, if not, whether there is any likelihood of their being finished during the winter?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Improvements are required in the sewage works of Enfield and Edmonton, and my right hon. Friend is desirous of having the necessary work put in hand without delay. The Enfield Council have not-started the new works for which approval has been given, stating that they are conferring with Edmonton as regards a joint scheme. My right hon. Friend is pressing the council to proceed with the approved work.
    Mr. BROAD: Will the Department consider the desirability of bringing the whole sewerage system of the Metropolitan area under one authority?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.
    Major CADOGANasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that the River Lee is in so insanitary a condition that the amenities of Hackney

    1759
    Marshes, where some thousands of East End workers seek recreation on Saturday afternoons, are seriously prejudiced; that the reason given for its present condition is that it has not been possible hitherto to decide which local authority is responsible; and whether he will institute inquiries with a view to having the River Lee cleansed, thus providing the unemployed with work which may be of some benefit to the neighbourhood?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend is not aware that the conditions are such as seriously to prejudice the general amenities of Hackney Marshes, but he is in communication with local authorities with a view to securing improvements in their sewage works.

    RATING.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it was officially stated that a Cabinet Committee in 1922 had devoted a large amount of time and thought to the question of improving the present system of rating; and whether Cabinet Committees keep records of proceedings and evidence which will enable this Committee to facilitate the work of the new inquiry now-being conducted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, and arrangements have been made for the Report prepared by the Committee of the late Cabinet and the evidence on which it was based to be made available for the use of the present Government.

    TURKEY (REFUGEES).
    Mr. N. BUXTONasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to finding a temporary asylum and also a permanent settlement for the non-Turkish refugees from Asia Minor and Constantinople, His Majesty's Government will invite the co-operation of the British Dominions in providing the necessary facilities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Inquiries on the subject are being made.
    Mr. BUXTON: Would the Prime Minister forward to the Dominion Governments the Report of His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople on the needs of these refugees?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is being done.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is it not the fact that the Dominions have already taken action in the matter, and decided to contribute a considerable sum for the assistance of these refugees?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure of that.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PERCENTAGE GRANTS).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the large sum of public money which is being spent under the percentage grant system to local authorities, he will say if a committee was appointed by the late Government to report on the percentage payment system; is the committee still in existence: and, if not, is it intended to provide for its re-appointment?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The third part, therefore, does not arise.

    COAL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his reply to the executive committee of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, it is his intention to give an opportunity for a discussion at an early date of the grave situation in which the miners are placed arising from the present conditions in the coal industry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would be impossible, I think, to find time for such a discussion.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the miners, by agreement, during the past two years have submitted to considerable reductions, and that it has had no effect upon the industry worth anything at all, but many of them are starving; and are we to understand that they are only going to be taken seriously when they take such action as is common to many people in desperate circumstances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite aware of all the facts, but it is one thing

    1761
    to say, as I would be quite ready to say, that, in view of the work the miners are doing, their wages are inadequate, and it is another thing to find a method of increasing them.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that the Government can give time to save Prince Andrew from Greece, but cannot give rime to save the starving miners?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter; there are too many questions down.

    PUBLIC MENTAL HOSPITALS.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether he is aware that the Cobb Committee on the Administration of Public Mental Hospitals recommended in their Report issued in 1922, that notices should be placed in the waiting rooms of these institutions to inform friends and relations of patients of the provisions of Section 70 of The Lunacy Act, 1890, empowering them to make application for the discharge of a patient; and, in view of the fact that these provisions are hidden from the public, and that visiting committees have hitherto paid little or no attention to circulars enjoining them to take into consideration the applications of relatives, will he cause the said notices to be posted up in accordance with the recommendation without further delay?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: All asylum authorities have been requested to set out the effect of Section 79 of the Act in the regulations as to visitation which are sent to friends of patients. The Board of Control consider this preferable to putting up a notice in the waiting room.

    SMALL-POX EPIDEMIC.
    Dr. WATTSasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if, in view of the serious epidemic of small-pox, he will take steps to enforce the provisions of the Vaccination Acts; and, having regard to the fact that there are upwards of 3,000,000 unvaccinated children in the country, will he consider the advisability of repealing the conscientious objection clauses of that Act?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend is keeping continuously before him the question of the necessity, or otherwise, of amending the Vaccination Acts, but he is not prepared, at this stage of the present outbreak, to introduce legislation.
    Dr. WATTS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, owing to there having been so few prosecutions, if any, during the last few years, the Vaccination Acts have become practically a dead letter?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman arrange for a statement expressly showing the number of cases in which death has taken place where there has been no vaccination, as compared with those that have been vaccinated?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Mr. HILLasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, how many unvaccinated children under 12 years of age he estimates as living in Poplar; and how many of these have suffered from small-pox recently?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: As explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Dundee on Thursday last, it is not possible to estimate the number of unvaccinated children under 12 years of age now living in this borough. Three unvaccinated children in the borough have contracted small-pox recently, and two of these cases proved fatal.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman refer to the register, which must be signed in each case, to see whether vaccination took place?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a statement showing the origin of the recent outbreak in Poplar, and the report of his chief official in that district?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will convey the request to my right hon. Friend.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite a large number of those who have died are vaccinated adults?
    Major BOYD CARPENTER: I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, how many cases of small-pox have been notified to his Department this year, how many of them have proved fatal, the districts from which they came, with the vaccinal condition and results of the cases in each district, and the vaccinal condition of each fatal case, including any vaccinations that may have been performed during the incubation period of small-pox?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Nine hundred and two cases of small-pox were

    SMALL-POX.—ENGLAND AND WALES DURING THE YEAR 1922 TO 30TH NOVEMBER.

    District.

    Number of Cases.

    Vaccinated.

    Unvaccinated.

    Vaccinated during Incubation Period.

    No. Evidence of Vaccination.

    No information.

    Ashford U.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Barnsley R.

    …

    17

    3

    14

    —

    —

    —

    Barry U.

    …

    4

    3

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Barry P.S.D.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Basford R.

    …

    16

    3

    13

    —

    —

    —

    Belper U.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Belper R.

    …

    48

    5

    34

    6

    —

    3

    Bentley-witb-Arksey U.

    …

    12

    1

    11

    —

    —

    —

    Bermondsey Met. B.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Bethnal Green Met. B.

    …

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    Bexley U.

    …

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Bilston U.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Bingham R.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Blackwell R.

    …

    6

    1

    5

    —

    —

    —

    Bolsover U.

    …

    15

    4

    11

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff P.S.D.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Chadderton U.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Chesterfield B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Clown R.

    …

    9

    4

    4

    —

    1

    —

    Crompton U.

    …

    2

    —

    2

    —

    —

    —

    Darlaston U.

    …

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Dartford U.

    …

    7

    6

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Derby C.B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Doncaster B.

    …

    16

    2

    14

    —

    —

    —

    Durham R.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Eastwood U.

    …

    25

    4

    21

    —

    —

    —

    Eston U.

    …

    11

    1

    8

    —

    —

    2

    Pulham Met. B.

    …

    2

    —

    2

    —

    —

    —

    Golcar U.

    …

    19

    5

    14

    —

    —

    —

    Heanor U

    …

    17

    —

    16

    —

    —

    1

    Hebden Bridge U.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Hucknall U.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Huddersfield C.B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Ilkeston B.

    …

    108

    42

    61

    4

    1

    —

    Kingston-upon-Hull C B.

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    Kiveton Park R.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Lambeth Met. B

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Leeds C.B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Lincoln C.B.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Linthwaite U.

    …

    38

    7

    31

    —

    —

    —

    Liverpool C.B.

    …

    2

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Liverpool P.S.D

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    discovered during the first 11 months of this year, of which 27 have proved fatal. Included in the total are certain cases which were discovered by medical officers of health or by medical officers of the Ministry, and were accordingly not-notified, while other cases which proved to have been incorrectly diagnosed are excluded. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the particulars asked for in the last part of the question.
    Following is the statement promised:

    District.

    Number of Cases.

    Vaccinated.

    Unvaccinated.

    Vaccinated during Incubation Period.

    No Evidence of Vaccination.

    No information.

    Long Eaton U.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Manchester C.B.

    …

    4

    1

    3

    —

    —

    —

    Middlesbrough C.B.

    …

    240

    65

    167

    1

    7

    —

    Middleton B.

    …

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Northwich U.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Nottingham C.B.

    …

    38

    4

    34

    —

    —

    —

    Oldham C.B.

    …

    46

    12

    32

    1

    1

    —

    Poplar Met. B.

    …

    49

    37

    7

    1

    4

    —

    Rotherham C. B.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Royton U.

    …

    4

    2

    2

    —

    —

    —

    Saddleworth U.

    …

    53

    9

    43

    1

    —

    —

    St. Helens C. B.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    St. Pancras Met. B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Shardlow R.

    …

    3

    2

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Southampton C. B.

    …

    3

    1

    2

    —

    —

    —

    Sheffield C. B.

    …

    11

    5

    6

    —

    —

    —

    Slaithwaite U.

    …

    13

    4

    9

    —

    —

    —

    Southall Norwood U.

    …

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Southend-on-Sea C. B.

    …

    2

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Stepney Met. B.

    …

    6

    4

    2

    —

    —

    —

    Swansea P.S.D.

    …

    2

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Todmorden B.

    …

    16

    9

    7

    —

    —

    —

    Wath-on-Dearne U.

    …

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Wast Ham C. B.

    …

    3

    2

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Totals

    …

    902

    271

    596

    13

    16

    6

    FATAL CASES.

    Barry U. D.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Bethnal Green Met. B.

    …

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    Bexley U.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Dartford U.

    …

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Fulham Met. B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Lambeth Met. B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —.

    —

    Middleton B.

    …

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Poplar Met. B.

    …

    16

    10

    4

    —

    2

    —

    St. Pancras Met. B.

    …

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Saddleworth U.

    …

    1

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    West Ham C. B.

    …

    1

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    Totals

    …

    27

    12

    11

    1

    3

    —

    Mr. C. WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state for each decade since 1871 as regards London and the rest of the United Kingdom, respectively, the total number of cases of scarlet fever, of enteric, and of small-pox which have been notified; and what has been the rate of mortality per notification?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot
    supply the full particulars asked for, as notification of these diseases did not become general in this country until 1900, and the tabulation of notifications only commenced in 1911. I will, however, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of notifications and deaths in London and in the remainder of England and Wales for the decennium 1911–1920.
    Following are the particulars:

    NOTIFICATIONS AND DEATHS IN THE DECENNIUM 1911–1920.

    London.

    Remainder of England and Wales.

    Cases Notified.

    Deaths.

    Deaths per 1,000 cases.

    Cases Notified.

    Deaths.

    Deaths per 1,000 cases.

    Scarlet Fever

    138,744

    1,878

    14

    870,169

    14,959

    17

    Enteric Fever

    5,851

    1,008

    172

    60,486

    11,419

    189

    Small-pox

    170

    23

    135

    1,293

    111

    86

    Figures for port sanitary districts are included in the above table, but those for non-civilians are excluded from 1915 onwards, as they could be given only for England and Wales as a whole.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (POLITICAL WORK).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Labour whether the Mr. Parks who was a sub-agent at Seahouses, Northumberland, for the National Liberal candidate during the recent Election is the same Mr. Parks who is in charge of the Employment Exchange business at Sea-houses; whether the Ministry of Labour allows men in their pay to undertake sub-agency or other political paid work at elections or between elections; and what steps will be taken to prevent Mr. Parks combining Government work and party political work at the present time or in future?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The branch offices of the Ministry, of which Seahouses is one, are in charge of part-time officers, who, for obvious reasons cannot personally be made subject to the same restrictions as permanent civil servants with regard to active participation in political matters. It is definitely laid down, however, that the branch offices themselves must not be in any way-associated with any political party. The branch manager at Seahouses is Mr. C. W. Parke, who, I am informed, did not act as sub-agent at the last Election, but was for two years previously hon. secretary of a local political committee which was dissolved before the General Election campaign.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that this gentleman continued his political activities during the Election?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Why should not he?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is not in the public interest that public servants should be taking an active part in politics?
    Mr. R. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to amalgamate the two wings of the Liberal party and avoid these questions?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the order of business on the Order Paper to-day. In replying to the usual question I put to him regarding the order of business, he gave as the first Order the Order under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, relating to gas mantles, and as the second Order the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Bill. It is true I asked him if he would be good enough to put the Second Reading of the Bill on the Paper at such a time as would be convenient to the House for a full discussion, and it is just possible, that, out of courtesy to me, he changed the Order. Therefore I do not complain, but, to avoid any further misunderstanding, I should like to ask him if, in future, when a change be made in the order of business, he would be good enough to see that the Whips are communicated with.
The PRIME MINISTER: I have to admit that a mistake was made in this matter. It was because of the suggestion that the Bill should be, taken at an early hour that the change was made. My hon. Friend, who has not had very much experience as Chief Whip, omitted

1769
to have the announcement made. He, himself, explained to me this morning that he had made that mistake.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In case the first two Orders run to a late hour, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Second Reading of the Importation of Animals Bill, at any rate, after midnight?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should be sorry that a Bill of this importance should
be taken at a very late hour. I hope we may be able to deal with it at a comparatively early hour.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 158.

Division No. 20.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sip James Tynte

Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hopkins, John W. W.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

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

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

Astor, Viscountess

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Houlton, John Plowright

Balrd, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Hudson, Capt. A.

Banks, Mitchell

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hughes, Collingwood

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Edge, Captain Sir William

Hume, G. H.

Becker, Harry

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

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

Ednam, Viscount

Hurd, Percy A.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Elvedon, Viscount

Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)

Berry, Sir George

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

Betterton, Henry B.

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

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

Birchell, Major J. Dearman

Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

Jarrett, G. W. S.

Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)

Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Jephcott, A. R.

Blundell, F. N.

Falcon, Captain Michael

Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Fawkes, Major F. H.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Brass, Captain W.

Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Fildes, Henry

Lamb, J. Q.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

Briggs, Harold

Foreman, Sir Henry

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

Brittain, Sir Harry

Forestier-Walker, L.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Lorden, John William

Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lorimer, H. D.

Bruford, R.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lougher, L.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Furness, G. J.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Gardiner, James

Lumley, L. R.

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

Garland, C. S.

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

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

Gates, Percy

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Butcher, Sir John George

Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J.

Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Button, H. S.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

Cadogan, Major Edward

Gould, James C.

Margesson, H. D. R.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

Mason. Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Cassels, J. D.

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

Mercer, Colonel H.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Gretton, Colonel John

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Grigg, Sir Edward

Molloy, Major L. G. S.

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

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

Molson, Major John Eisdale

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

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Chapman, Sir S.

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

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Clarry, Reginald George

Halstead, Major D.

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Clayton, G. C.

Harrison, F. C.

Murchison, C. K.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Harvey, Major S. E.

Nall, Major Joseph

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Hawke, John Anthony

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

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

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

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Collie, Sir John

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Howett, Sir J. P.

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

Hiley, Sir Ernest

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Paget, T. G.

Parker, Owen (Kettering)

Rounded, Colonel R. F.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wallace, Captain E.

Penny, Frederick George

Russell, William (Bolton)

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

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Peto, Basil E.

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)

Phllipson, H. H.

Sandon, Lord

Wells, S. R.

Pielou, D. P.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Pliditch, Sir Philip

Shepperson, E. W.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

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

Preston, Sir W. R.

Singleton, J. E.

Willey, Arthur

Privett, F. J.

Skelton, A. N.

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

Windsor, Viscount

Ralne, W.

Sparkes, H. W.

Winterton, Earl

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Wise, Frederick

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Steel, Major S. Strang

Wolmer, Viscount

Remer, J. R.

Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon>

Remnant, Sir James

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

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

Reynolds, W. G. W.

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chertsey)

Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Herelord)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

Titchfield, Marquess of

Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

Tubbs, S. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Herriotts, J.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hill, A.

Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

Attlee, C. R.

Hirst, G. H.

Rose, Frank H.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Royce, William Stapleton

Barnes, A.

Hogge, James Myles

Saklatvala, S.

Batey, Joseph

Irving, Dan

Scrymgeour, E.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Sexton, James

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Bonwick, A.

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Bowdier, W. A.

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

Shinwell, Emanuel

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Briant, Frank

JonBs, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Broad, F. A.

Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

Simpson, J. Hope

Bromfield, William

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Sitch, Charles H.

Brotherton, J.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kenyon, Barnet

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Buchanan, G.

Kirkwood, D.

Snell, Harry

Burgess, S.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Snowden, Philip

Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)

Lansbury, George

Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Lawson, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Leach, W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Chapple, W. A.

Lee, F.

Sullivan, J.

Charleton, H. C.

Linfield, F. C.

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

Clarke, Sir E. C.

Lowth, T.

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West>

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Collins, Pat (Walsall)

M'Entee, V. L.

Thornton, M.

Collison, Levi

McLaren, Andrew

Tout, W. J.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Trevelyan, C. P.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

March, S.

Turner, Ben

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

Warns, G. H.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Maxton, James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Duncan, C.

Middleton, G.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Dunnico, H.

Millar, J. D.

Webb, Sidney

Edmonds, G.

Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred Moritz

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Morel, E. D.

Weir, L. M.

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Westwood, J

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Mosley, Oswald

White, Charles F. (Derby. Western)

Falconer, J.

Muir, John W.

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

Foot, Isaac

Murnin, H.

Whiteley, W.

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

Wignall, James

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

Newbold, J. T. W.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Nichol, Robert

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grundy, T. W.

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

Paling, W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Phillipps, Vivian

Wintringham, Margaret

Hancock, John George

Ponsonby, Arthur

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

Harbord, Arthur

Pringle, W. M. R.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hardle, George D.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Harney, E. A.

Riley, Ben

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Ritson, J.

Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.

Hayday, Arthur

Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TRADE FACILITIES AND LOANS GUARANTEE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  4.0 P.M.
  I do not propose, having regard to the fact that this Bill was explained in some detail and debated in the small hours of yesterday morning, to repeat what I said to the House on the Committee Stage of the Financial Resolution. I will content myself with reminding the House that this is a Bill of three parts. Each part deals with a matter of some urgency, and they all have this in common that, if successful in their working, they will lead to the creation and improvement of trade in this country, an object which must be very near to the hearts of Members on all sides of the House. I have to show, before the general Debate begins, that this Bill carries into effect the provisions of the Financial Resolution debated and passed within the last two days.
  Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the continuation of the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, its prolongation for another year to 9th November, 1923, and the placing at the disposal of the Government for that second period the same sum as was placed during the first period, namely £25,000,000, to be devoted to the aid of industry by guaranteeing loans made for the purpose of bringing orders into this country. The second Sub-section of Clause 1, which gives a reference to the Act of last year, in addition to extending the period, provides for the laying upon the Table of the House of reports of transactions under the Act for each year, so that the House may have full confidence in what is done by the Committee to which schemes are to be submitted for examination and approval.
  I promised on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution to say something about the matter embodied in Sub-section (3), which contains a proposal to give power to make a charge sufficient to cover the expenses of administration. I
  1832
  pointed out that the administrative expenses, particularly so-called, were very small. The chief expenditure in connection with the work of this Committee is in the legal costs in preparing documents embodying the terms of contract between the Government and the people to whom the facilities are given. It is, of course, impossible to say what these charges may come to. They depend upon the size of the applications, their number, and so forth, but I think I am giving a very safe estimate when I say that so trifling a commission as 2s. 6d. per £100, or ⅛th per cent., will more than cover any expenses which we think may be incurred.
  The second Clause deals with the Austrian Loan. I may just remind the House that the subject of this Clause is the provision of a long loan, or rather the guarantee of a market loan, which it is proposed to raise in order to aid in the stabilisation of Austrian currency and the renaissance of Austrian finance. The amount of 650,000,000 gold crowns, in English currency, is just about £27,000,000 sterling. I notice in the report of my speech that I was made to say £47,000,000 sterling, and, having regard to the accuracy of the report, I am afraid that I must have made a slip and said £47,000,000 sterling. If I did, I regret it. I knew perfectly well that the sum was £27,000,000 sterling, and I ought not to have made a slip of that kind. The 650,000,000 gold crowns is provided in two amounts of 520,000,000 gold crowns and 130,000,000 gold crowns respectively. The 520,000,000 gold crowns represent the sum considered by the League of Nations, which arranged the terms of this contract, necessary to provide for the anticipated deficit in the Austrian Budget for the next two years, provided that all the measures which will be found specified in the Protocol which has been published are carried out, and I am glad to say that the Austrian Government have sanctioned the legislation necessary for the carrying out of those provisions, and that they have agreed to the appointment of a Controller who will be selected to undertake this great and responsible work. The guarantee of the 520,000,000 gold crowns is a joint one, amounting to 20 per cent. each from Great Britain, France, Italy and Czecho-Slovakia. The remaining 20 per cent. will be undertaken by other countries. Spain, Switzerland, and Belgium have already announced their

  1833
  willingness to participate, and I think there will be no difficulty in getting the small amount remaining taken up.
  The amount of 130,000,000 gold crowns is guaranteed in thirds by Great Britain, France, and Czecho-Slovakia, and the amount is made up of advances which have been made to Austria before this date on the express understanding that they would be repaid out of the proceeds of the first foreign loan which that country might be able to obtain, and it is from that sum that we hope to get repayment of the last £2,250,000 which we advanced to Austria. The second Sub-section of the Clause refers to a matter of which I spoke on the Committee stage of the Resolution, and that is the deposit of securities in the hands of a Commission which would serve as a kind of further Collateral guarantee, if such were found necessary, to implement the guarantee already given when it comes to make arrangements for the floating of the loan. This does not in any way affect the original sum, nor does it in any way increase the obligation of the guarantee. It is purely a technical form to enable something to be done which might make it easier to raise the money. I do not think the next Sub-section requires any comment, and the point of Sub-section (4) is simply this. If, when the loan is issued, the practice be followed of redeeming the loan by annual drawings, it gives power to the Treasury to make similar arrangements for the redemption of any securities which may be deposited as collateral according to the second Subsection.
  The third Clause, which deals with the guarantee of the loan to be raised by the Government of Sudan, was also dealt with yesterday on the Report stage of the Resolution at great length. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) show very clearly the conditions which must be satisfied before the guarantee of this Government will be given, and I think the House will consider that they safeguard the position, so far as such position can be safeguarded. Paragraph (d) gives us power, in the very unlikely event of the Sudan Government defaulting, to charge on the general revenues and assets of the Sudan the repayment to the Treasury of what may be owing, and in the last line it says with
  "interest thereon at such rate as the Treasury may fix."
  1834
  That will give the Treasury power not to accept such a low rate as might be obtained by the loan itself, but such rate as might be considered a proper and fit thing in the circumstances as they arise.
  The fourth Clause, to which I also alluded on the Committee stage of the Resolution, is to make clear a point in the wording of the Overseas Trade Act, which has been in doubt, as to whether the words in that Act which give a specific date as the date up to which guarantees may be given is equally applicable to a general guarantee as well as to a specific one. The fifth Clause is the usual financial Clause making the requisite charge on the Consolidated Fund, and the second section of the Clause instructs the Treasury to lay before the Houses of Parliament statements as to any guarantees given, securities issued, and, in general, to keep Parliament acquainted with what is happening under the terms of this Bill.
  The Bill itself, although short, is one that will be of great service both to this country and to Europe. We have within the three operative Clauses three matters of the very greatest importance dealt with. We have provisions for helping trade, provisions which have been found of the greatest utility during the past year, and which I believe will be found to be of cumulative utility as the year goes on. We have, in the second part, a great attempt made by the League of Nations, under the leadership of Lord Balfour, to settle some of the most difficult financial problems in one of the most distressed parts of Europe. We have in that part connected with Sudan a genuine attempt to render productive a large piece of territory which may be of the greatest use in growing cotton, one of the most necessary products for one of the greatest industries of this country. I am sure, speaking generally, that the Bill will give satisfaction to the House. I am sure that it will pass it, and I hope very much that within a very short time we may see the Bill become law and many operating upon it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: It is perfectly true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that, in the small hours of the morning, this Bill was discussed. The small hours of the morning as a time for discussing a Bill of such great importance are not exactly the best hours

  1835
  to choose. I confess that, whatever enthusiasm I may have for the life of Parliament, I never feel inclined to discuss serious business at a time when every sensible man is sound asleep in bed; but the pressure upon the Government to get this Bill through, in order first of all to supplement its efforts for dealing with unemployment at home, and also in some measure to give Central Europe the chance of recovering itself so that it may become a normal market for British products, is a thing with which I sympathise. I only propose to deal with the first two Clauses of this Bill at present. The first part of the Bill extends the Trade Facilities Act, 1921. If hon. Members will take the trouble to turn up the OFFICIAL REPORT and read the speeches delivered by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, speeches full of the most unbounded optimism, speeches which indicated that, as a result of that Bill, we were to give loans to foreign Governments, to Dominion Governments, and to private enterprise conducted by companies, corporations and individuals, and then turn from that glowing prophesy of what was going to happen to the result set forth in the modest Command Paper which has been circulated giving the actual amounts of the guarantees under the Act, and a list of those to whom the guarantees were given, the Members will see that the large expectations and the generous intentions have been watered down to very small dimensions.
  It is always very dangerous for a Government to subsidise private enterprise. It is amusing to those of us who sit on this side of the House to listen to the occasional lectures and homilies from hon. Members on the other side against the deadly heresy of Socialism, and then, when the homily period is over, to hear these hon. Members asking us to vote State grants for private enterprise which is unable to fulfil its most elementary responsibility. I do not object to hon. Members on the other side becoming tipplers in Socialism. I only warn them that tippling in Socialism is probably a much more dangerous disease than taking the principle for what it is worth, and applying it in a scientific, consistent way, knowing exactly what you are driving at, and what is the value of
  1836
  the experiment in relation to the whole system with which you are experimenting. Let the House take the Command Paper No. 62, giving a statement of the guarantees which the Treasury have stated their willingness to give up to the 31st March, 1922, and they will see a very strange distribution of the guarantees. The Paper shows that £15,000,000 has been guaranteed, and three of the companies which have benefited by the guarantee absorb £13,000,000. On closer examination hon. Members will come to the conclusion that some of those guarantees must really have been useless for the purpose of the Act.
  Will any hon. Member say seriously that a well-known, well-established shipbuilding firm, which has accumulated great reserves during the War, could only finish a ship which had been started by receiving a covering guarantee of £600,000? It is impossible to conceive it. No one who has looked at the balance sheets of this particular company can see any reason for such a guarantee. Nobody who takes the ordinary means of acquainting himself with the ordinary business position of ordinary shipbuilding firms can come to any other conclusion than that this guarantee was unnecessary for the purpose described in the columns of the White Paper setting out the reason why the guarantee was given. Moreover, we get such things as a guarantee of £100,000 for the building and equipment of a new factory for the manufacture of folding boxes at Thatcham.
  Surely the Committee charged with the finance of this Act could have found far better ways of giving the guarantees, and a much greater variety of ways of disposing of their benefits, not merely for the purpose of patching here and patching there, but for the purpose of giving really substantial aid to industries and firms that would respond in a permanent way to whatever benefits might be given to them under the Act. I doubt very much the utility of much that has been done under the Act, and I hope that the Government in asking us to give not only £25,000,000 but £50,000,000 will see to it that the guarantees will be given in a more satisfactory way than has been shown by the various Papers issued giving information as to what has been done under the Act. I admit that on the face of it work has been provided, but the position I take up is that in order to

  1837
  appear to be helping industry and providing work it is not enough to make it merely easy for work to be done that otherwise would have been done, and could easily have been done if the loans were floated in the ordinary market.
  As regards the second part of the Bill, which relates to the Austrian loan, I have very little to say, and what I have to say is in the nature more of a warning to the Government. The political territory now known as Austria is in its present unfortunate position very largely owing to the Allied peace policy. The settlement of its boundaries and the economic conditions imposed on it, the way it was, as it were, thrown up, and left, as a victim, not only to its own internal passion, but a victim to the small States created round about it is altogether the responsibility, and the blame, of the Supreme Council and the united Allies in pursuing the policy which they pursued in Central Europe since 1918. Therefore this House has got a great responsibility. I was very much surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) speaking the other night of this Austrian loan as though we had no responsibility whatever in regard to it, as though it were a mere monetary transaction which we undertook out of charity or a desire to engage in risky financial undertakings in Central Europe. That is not the position.
  This House has got a great responsibility to Austria, a moral obligation to Austria, and in assenting to this Measure, as I am certain it will do, this House is only trying to undo very late in the day mistakes which it made earlier. But I am sure that my right hon. Friend must be aware of the great disquiet in Austria about some of the conditions which have been laid down in the Protocols that are the basis of the second Section of this Bill. The idea is that the Austrian Budget should be made to balance, that the printing of Austrian money should stop, that Austrian finance should at last be put upon a firm foundation. That is a most admirable idea. In order to carry it out it is essential that Austria should be guaranteed, and that there should be a certain amount of control, because Austria already has had loans, and Austria has spent them in such a way as to do itself no permanent substantial good. It is living from day to day and
  1838
  from hand to mouth. When it had money it had a balance in the bank, and it used that balance in order to live to the next day. That sort of thing can go on for ever, and then, in the end, Austria will not be redeemed from debt.
  I welcome this as a serious attempt made by the officials of the League of Nations, in conjunction with Austrian Ministers, to put an end to that. This is a serious attempt made to give Austria the command of a sum of money which she will use, not as income, but in order to lay the foundations of a financial system which will hold together once it has been properly developed. That is good, sound financial and trade policy. In order to do this certain guarantees and certain control had to be taken from Austria. Upon that there has been considerable debate in the Austrian Chamber. May I read an actual sentence from a speech made by one of the most respected and influential members of the Austrian Social Democratic party, Mr. Sachs, whom I am sure the Noble Lord who has done so much for the League of Nations has met? He said:
  "The aim we have set before us is to prevent Austria becoming merely a peasant State"—
  That is a criticism of the guarantees and of control, and he is opposing them on the ground that the effect would be to create an Austrian peasant State. He was speaking on behalf of his political party. The quotation goes on—
  "and to keep it an industrial State, a State of culture and free people. So we shall fight to the end against Austria's bondage under international capital."
  That is the view of a very important political section of the Austrian Parliament. I refer to it not in any way to discourage this proposal, but for exactly the opposite reason. In order that this agreement should go through the Austrian Parliament, a two-thirds majority had to be registered. The party to which the leader I have quoted belongs could have prevented a two-thirds majority, but whilst protesting and dissociating itself from the conditions of the guarantee, he felt that it was so necessary for Austria to get this help that he was prepared, under the very greatest protest, to accept these conditions. The point I want to make is this: May I beg everybody who is going to take upon himself the responsi-

  1839
  bility of carrying through this guarantee, everybody in the League of Nations and in the various Exchequers of the countries that are to join in the guarantee, not to push to unnecessary lengths some of the conditions that Austria has unwillingly accepted? I feel certain that some of those guarantees will not be required to be put into force. I believe that if the impartial Commissioner whom the League of Nations is to appoint, to be resident in the Empire and to take charge of this work, shows good, sound common sense and gets the Austrian Government and the Austrian people with him, if he shows that, as a matter of fact, he is part and parcel of the Austrian Government itself, a colleague amongst colleagues, a well-wisher amongst co-operators, he will have no difficulty whatever in getting Austria whole-heartedly to accept its obligations and to do everything it can to put the guarantee into effect.
  A statement was made by an hon. Friend of mine on this subject. Hon. Members, having to follow the very great uncertainty of political life and stability in Central Europe—an uncertainty which unfortunately exists and will exist for some time—might imagine that one of the aspects of control, as mentioned by an hon. Friend who sits behind me, is that we have taken sovereignty away from Austria. I would assure the House that that is not the case. It is perfectly true that sovereignty may be either a verbal declaration which amounts to nothing, or it may be a substantial operation of political power. Here I make my appeal again. Will the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, will the representatives of the League of Nations, try to carry out the general declarations contained in the Protocol securing Austria in its sovereignty, and carry them out not merely in the letter, but in the spirit and in the substance of the pledge. The first of the Protocols contains a solemn declaration that the signatories
  "will respect the political independence, the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Austria. They will take no step and exact no economic or financial condition which will compromise that independence, and if the occasion arises they will refer the matter to the Council of the League and comply with its decision."
  There is a guarantee of Austrian co-operation. Knowing Austria as I do, I
  1840
  feel the great importance of this. I repeat my appeal that those words should be carried out generously and fully and not merely in a red tape sort of way. The League of Nations has got a magnificent opportunity, one of the greatest opportunities it has ever had, to show not merely its impartiality, but that it has the heart, the knowledge and the will to enter right into the kernel of the Central European problem and to take Austria by the hand, proving not only to Austria, but proving to every country with a grievance in Europe to-day, that the League of Nations stands for something above mere nationalism, stands for something great in the moral and reconstructive life of Europe.
  I have ventured to intervene in the Debate only to raise those two questions. I hope the Bill will very soon become law. I hope that the first Clause will be more fruitful in its results than the parent Act. I hope that the second Clause will be more than merely fruitful. I hope that it will be the beginning of a too-long-delayed reconstruction based upon a totally new conception of our relations with Central Europe, a totally new conception of the League of Nations as a helper in our beneficent purposes in Central Europe. When that is done this Bill, small as it is, will be one of the most beneficent pieces of legislation that this Parliament can enact.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 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 reason for moving this Amendment is my desire that we should obtain further information with regard to the object of the Bill before it becomes law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening remarks, did not touch on one single point about which I desire to ask for special information. It is true that we had a long discussion on the Financial Resolution, but the majority of the speeches delivered on that occasion were not of a very instructive or very useful kind. Doubtless that was because of the time in the morning at which they were delivered. We all appreciate that the special circumstances of the case require novel measures, and treatment perhaps of a far-reaching character, in order to remove world-wide depression. But what we ought most specially to geek is that

  1841
  in every proposal which is made by the Government we are guarding against any possibility of waste. By unduly pledging the credit of the country you may injure the unemployed to such an extent as to outweigh any benefit which will accrue from your action. The first point I wish to make is this: If the State is prepared to take risks I do not think the fact that it is taking risks ought to be used as an argument for encouraging the general public to subscribe to an issue of shares in any of the companies which it may be desired to assist by this means. I am well aware that in order to comply with the Companies Acts it is necessary that it should be stated on the prospectus that the Government is financially interested. At the same time we ought to be perfectly certain that the Government in no way guarantee the financial stability of any of these particular companies, in order that we may protect unsuspecting, potential shareholders from investing their money.
  Another thing ought to be laid down, I do not think that money ought to be advanced or credit given unless there are some tangible assets which give a fair possibility that the State's money is invested wisely. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill exactly the position of the State with regard to interest on these various proposals. Do they in fact become a prior charge on all the profits of any particular company? Supposing you have a company which has got £2,000,000 debentures. The interest on £1,000,000 debentures is guaranteed by the State and the other £1,000,000 debentures have been subscribed by the public. Suppose that the company makes a profit only just sufficient to pay the debenture interest on £1,003,000. Will the State pay the interest on the second £1,000,000? If it does not, observe what happens. The public will be subscribing, thinking that it is subscribing to a first debenture, when it will be really subscribing to a second debenture.
  There is the question of companies which have got no visible assets. Perhaps the House will pardon me if I refer to a Bill which came before this House during the last Parliament. On the face of it it appeared very attractive, especially as it would give a considerable amount of employment. But in my opinion it was a Measure fraught with great danger to
  1842
  any unsuspecting person who put his money into it. It was the Grampians Electricity Bill. It will be recollected that the State guaranteed £2,000,000 debentures. The point I wish to make is that the company had no assets, no single customer. Power stations were to be erected with the help of the Government in the hope that factories on the banks of the Tay would require current. But the company would be in the position of having its power station erected, but with no customers. It would have to agree to whatever terms the factories proposed, because it had incurred great expenditure without any reasonable possibility of being able to sell its product.
  Another point upon which I desire information from the right hon. Gentleman is as to whether any system exists to prevent overlapping of the various schemes. We have Trade Facilities, Export Credits, and the Unemployment Grants. My experience is that these various schemes may be worked in water-tight compartments. There may not be any liaison between one and the other, and in consequence there may be overlapping and waste. I understand a small Cabinet Committee composed of only three members is supposed to co-ordinate these various schemes. These three gentlemen have their own Departments to look after, and I do not think they can go thoroughly into the various proposals put forward. It would be a good plan if the right hon. Gentleman were to invite Members of this House, who are not financially interested in any of these schemes, to assist that small Cabinet Committee in going through the schemes and co-ordinating the work. When the late Government wanted to call in assistance, the chief qualification required appeared to be that the man called in should not be a Member of this House. That is not a great compliment to hon. Members, and if the Government require assistance Members of this House should be invited to give it.
  I understand that when these plans are being considered, the percentage of unemployment in any particular locality or industry is taken into consideration, and special preference is given to what are known as the black spots in the unemployment world—places like Woolwich and Barrow which have received huge populations owing to War conditions, but which have no reasonable prospect of feeling the

  1843
  first effects of a revival of trade. I am inclined to think that system is unsound. By considering the percentage of unemployment and giving work specially in localities where unemployment is very bad, you are merely attracting labour to a place where there is no reasonable prospect of a trade revival. It would be far better to give employment in districts which have a good prospect of success in the future. You are more likely by this means to benefit those whom you wish to benefit in the long run. I know that labour is not fluid in the sense that capital is fluid. It cannot move about, largely owing to the cost of transport and also the shortage of houses. However, that is not a subject with which I will venture to deal to-night. I realise that these black spots have got to be dealt with, and that the men suffering in them have got to be assisted, but I do not think the mere fact that there is overwhelming unemployment in a particular district is a reason for preference being given under this Trade Facilities Bill to that district.
  With regard to Austria, I think the right hon. Gentleman made a slip in the course of his speech. I understood him to say we had joint responsibility with the other countries named. Surely we are only responsible for the amount of our loan, and not jointly responsible with other countries. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of any of our Allies, but I must confess to a certain amount of surprise in finding Italy and France able to guarantee a sum of any kind to any country when they are quite unable to balance their own Budgets. In another respect I am glad, because it shows that there is in one direction, at any rate, unanimity among the Allies. I hope this is a good augury for the conversations which I understand are commencing next Saturday and that unanimity may be attained on the other and greater problem of reparation. As to the Sudan, I took the trouble of looking up the previous Act. I find that in the Act of 1919 we only guaranted interest on the loan of £4,900,000. In this Bill we guarantee principal and interest. In that connection, might I respectfully draw the attention, of the right hon. Gentleman to his financial memorandum. The Government printers have not printed the word "principal" in the way in which one would expect to find it in
  1844
  a Government document. Possibly it was printed at the Harrow works I want to know this about the Sudan loan. I presume it will be paid through Lord Allenby to the Sudan Governmeat. What control will the home authorities have over the manner in which that money is expended? The history of this dam has not been a particularly happy one. I understand that now the business is in the hands of a very capable firm of contractors and probably all will now be well, but we certainly require that some control should be exercised over the completion of this work. It may be said that the points I have put forward are not of sufficient importance to justify a Motion for the rejection of the Bill. May I point out that, owing to the virginity of this House and also the loquacity of so many of its Members on the front benches on both sides, it would be almost impossible for an ordinary person like myself to have any other opportunity of expressing an opinion. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Measure will realise that I am not moving this Amendment in any spirit of hostility, but in the hope that we may have some guarantee, in connection with money provided by the State, that the taxpayer will be protected.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In seconding what is practically the rejection of the Bill, I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, upon his remarkable self-restraint in dealing with this Measure. I am afraid I cannot exercise quite so much self-restraint in dealing with a matter of this sort. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not really go to the bottom of the question. The real trouble underlying a Measure of this sort is that it brings Departments of Government under the suspicion of the commercial classes of the country. Whether that suspicion be justified or not, it is a most disastrous thing to occur under any democratic form of government. We had in the last Parliament a case to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred, the case of the Grampians electricity scheme—a scheme so wildly impracticable, from a technical point of view, that I ventured to describe it on the Floor of this House, as nothing more or less than a ramp. I was taken to task for that description, and perhaps

  1845
  I was not fully understood in my use of that word. "Ramp," to my mind—I believe this is how the City of London would define it—is any public issue of capital which is not expected ever to return any interest whatsoever to those who take up that issue. I think we may say that in the particular instance to which I refer, the term "ramp" was attached to that Measure with full justification. We had a case where public money in very large amounts was to be spent in laying down a great water-driven generating station, and was to be spent in such a way that the output of that station would be so small that, even if the whole output were contracted for at once by customers—not yet existing—even then the interest and sinking fund on she capital outlay would have been so gigantic that it would be quite impossible for the capital ever to give any reasonable return to those who supplied it.
  Surely—if we look at this question from the point of view of economics—the Government in proposing Measures of this sort have never considered whether it is possible to inflate credit in one direction, without restricting it in another. They seem to think—and I am afraid the late Prime Minister was the man who invented this system of economics—that it is perfectly possible when you have pawned your trousers in one pawnshop, to go to another pawnshop and raise money on them again without redeeming them in the first. They think there is such a thing as the "manufacture of credit"—one of those unfortunate cant phrases which have been so disastrous to the taxpayers of this country. They think that it is possible with pen and paper to make credit not already existing, without any further tangible assets to be the basis of that credit. Yet when one comes to consider the matter, if we guarantee issues of capital to the amount of £50,000,000 as this Bill suggests, there is nothing more certain than that we are restricting credit in other directions to that self-same amount. I can quite understand why the Leader of the Labour party gave a sort of modified blessing to this Measure. If any economic rottenness is proposed by a Government in this country, you can always guarantee that the Labour party will approve of it.
  After all, this scheme of credits is exactly what the Labour party has always been putting forward as the true basis of
  1846
  Government and of economics in this country. It is simply a device for enabling people to live on capital instead of living on income. It is only that and nothing more. In other words, this Bill might have been drafted after a careful perusal of that remarkable pamphlet called "Labour and the New Social Order." What we who are engaged in industry in this country object to in this Measure may be stated as follows: The mass of the people engaged in industry, I am glad to say, would have nothing to do with proposals for credits of this sort. We, at any rate, have among us at the present time a considerable number of leaders in industry who really wish to make their own way in industry without sponging on the taxpayer by means of devices of this sort. Unfortunately in recent years there has grown up, simultaneously with the growing up of the dole-taker among the working people, a class of dole-takers among the capitalists of this country also. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Birmingham mostly, and they have them also in Sheffield. A Bill of this sort and credits of this sort do not assist those who have some sort of regard for the future and the good name of the industries of this country, but they do assist those who have no scruples whatever about making profits at the direct expense of the unfortunate taxpayers.
  5.0 P.M
  Again, quite apart from the rotten principle upon which this policy is founded, the actual carrying of it out, as may be seen from the list of credits already provided for, has been almost ludicrous in many respects. Who would dream of guaranteeing quarry companies, if they had any regard whatsoever to the interests of the taxpayers—quarry companies, mining companies, brickworks, and similar industrial concerns, which are the most risky at the present time of any industrial undertakings that there are? Note this too, that the awful warnings the Government have had in the past as to what would occur have passed over them without producing the faintest effect. Let us take one example. There is a very large sum of the taxpayers' money at present invested in a company known as the British Cellulose Company, under very similar conditions to those governing these credits that we are giving to various concerns under this Bill. In that

  1847
  case the taxpayers' money was given, and the security was the whole of the present and future assets of the company, and then, at a late hour one night, we convert what is in effect a first mortgage on the whole assets of the company into preference shares. But that was not the end of it, for after a little bit we give back to the company half the value of those preference shares, and then representatives of the Board of Trade tell us, "The price of these shares has gone up; they are standing at a higher rate than they were before," when the amount of the capital concerned has been reduced by about one-half.
  I cannot help believing that, if this sort of thing is going to become a regular policy of British Governments, we shall gat that most dangerous state of affairs in a democracy, namely, the distrust of Departments of the Government on the part of those who are engaged in industry and commerce in this country. Therefore, even at this late hour, even on the Second Reading of this Bill, I ask the Government really to consider whether it is not possible to give some sort of safeguard to the taxpayer in respect of these credits which we are guaranteeing. Past experience has shown the pernicious nature of this kind of legislation. The British Cellulose Company is only one example out of many, and at the present time, when we who are conducting legitimate industry in this country are finding it desperately hard to make ends meet and to keep our men employed at good rates of wages, it is a little hard that our hard-earned money should be taken from us and devoted to ramps such as some of those to which I have referred.
  Captain BERKELEY: I think it was generally agreed the other night that it was absolutely essential for us to reestablish or revive our European trade in order to make some contributions for meeting the problem of unemployment, and I take it that this Bill is designed partly to carry that into effect. From the point of view of my own constituency—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) will also agree that it is important to him and his constituency—from the point of view of those who are concerned in the lace trade of Nottingham, it seems to me
  1848
  that both Clause 1 and Clause 2 of this Bill are likely to be extremely valuable. One of the great difficulties in that trade has been to carry on in the South American market owing to the uncertain state of things that has prevailed there, and I take it that Clause 1 of the Bill will provide means, asked for by the lace trade of Nottingham, which, if wisely applied, will enable them to meet those difficulties. Clause 2 seems to me to be equally important from their point of view, because one of their principal markets used to be Vienna, and the rehabilitation of Austria is, therefore, a very urgent concern of theirs.
  I propose to deal briefly with the Austrian part of the Bill, because that is the part about which I personally know most—not that I know very much. If I may say so without impertinence, I was very gratified to hear what the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) said on the subject of the League of Nations loan to Austria. In fact, I think I may say that I agreed with everything he said, except when he seemed to me to be giving some authority to the allegation that the scheme was one which would bring about some kind of economic bondage of Austria. I do not think that that is well founded, and I venture to think that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the very Protocol, part of which he read, he will see that so long as the functions of the Commission of Control are carried out in a proper spirit of responsibility to the Council of the League—and we must assume that it will be so—there will be no danger of any such economic bondage. The part of the Protocol to which I refer is this. It consists of a solemn declaration on the part of these various Governments—ours, the French, the Italians, and the Republic of Czecho-Slovakia—not only that they will respect the political independence, the territorial integrity, and the sovereignty of Austria, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but, further, that they will not seek to obtain any special or exclusive economic or financial advantage, calculated directly or indirectly to compromise that independence. Surely, if the principles involved in that declaration are carried out, as we are all in this House entitled to assume they will be carried out by our own Government, it does not seem to me that there

  1849
  is any grave danger of Austria falling under the financial control of international financiers.
  The hon. Gentleman raised another point in this connection. He talked about the question of sovereignty, and he seemed to be afraid that the powers that were being given to this Commission of Control were such that they might be tempted to exercise them in a manner which would prejudice the Austrian sovereignty. As far as my information goes, the provisional League Delegation—which has been in Austria, of course, for some considerable time, and, as I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree, was very largely responsible for arranging the carrying out of the scheme, the Delegation that had to examine and decide upon the practicability of the proposals put forward by the Austrian Government—has always considered that its duty was limited to seeing that the reforms to be made in the Austrian State finances gave the necessary assurance of Budget equilibrium being obtained by 1924, which, as hon. Members who have studied the question will remember, is one of the terms under which it will be possible to make these loans at all, but that they never thought it necessary for them to interfere in the details of the working out of those schemes. They have not put forward programmes of their own; they have merely considered it their duty to examine and advise upon the draft programmes put forward by the Austrian Government itself.
  Something was said in the Debate of a couple of nights ago about the stringency of the terms under which this loan was going to be made to Austria. I should like just to refer to the four terms—there are only four—under which the loans are to be made, and leave it to hon. Members in all parts of the House to decide for themselves whether those terms really are so stringent. In the first place, it was agreed in a perfectly amicable way that the Austrian Government, should frame, in collaboration with the Commissioner-General, a programme of reform calculated to secure Budget equilibrium by the end of 1924. Surely, no serious-minded person, no one who is prepared to consider this question divorced from partisan views, and in the light of business necessities, will contest the absolute necessity of a Budget
  1850
  equilibrium being assured before a great loan of all these millions can be made by one State to another. In the second place, it was suggested that the Austrian Parliament should enact legislation to give to any Government which might happen to be in authority full powers, within the limits of the programme, to take all measures to secure this Budget equilibrium during the period of two years. That, again, seems to me to be a very necessary and a very reasonable provision. It is merely designed to ensure that there will be some continuity of policy in regard to this loan, that it shall not happen that on the morrow, let us say, of the granting of the loan a Government shall go out of power and another Government shall come in and reverse the whole proceedings, bringing them to nothing. I am sure everyone will recognise that that is not at all a stringent provision.
  The third provision was that there should be a Bank of Issue established, and that the issue of uncovered notes by the Austrian Government should cease-That was the only provision with regard to the cessation of the printing of paper money that was made. The Leader of the Opposition referred in passing to the prohibition of the issue of money, but the only prohibition of the issue of money that was implied was the prohibition of the issue of uncovered notes, which issue would only have the effect of still further depreciating the exchange and undoing all the good which the loan proposes to do. That does not seem to me to be a very stringent provision. The final provision was that Treasury Bills should be issued by the Austrian Government, secured partly in connection with the previous loan of the French, Italian and Czecho-Slovakian Governments, and partly-secured on the Tobacco Monopoly and the Customs, and the purpose of these Bills was to cover the deficit on the Budget to the end of the year.
  So much for the question of the stringency of the terms under which the loan was made. I referred to that at such length because the suggestion of stringency was made by an hon. Member of the Labour party, and I only want to convince him that the stringency was not nearly so great as he, I thought, a few nights ago was inclined to suppose. What is the position to-day? The posi-

  1851
  tion is, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that after considerable opposition the necessary two-thirds majority in the Austrian Parliament has been obtained, the Protocols have been ratified, the Bank of Issue is to open in December, the note issue has been stopped, and also, I understand, the inflation and the necessary plain pouvoirs have been enacted in favour of any Government which should succeed the present Government in the next two years; so that everything now is in as favourable a condition for the granting of these loans as we could reasonably expect, taking into consideration the very serious financial position in which Austria has been. I do not suppose it interests the House to know the manner in which these pleins pouvoirs have been secured; but with regard to the Bank of Issue, the capital is to be, so far as I understand, the sum of 30,000,000 gold crowns, 25,000,000 of which are to be kept on deposit in the principal banking capitals of Europe and America. There will be an administrative council, and there is good cover in the way of gold and stable foreign securities. I think that the best indication of the way in which this general scheme of financial rehabilitation of Austria is working is to be found in three facts. The first of these is that, since August of this year, the crown, I think I am right in saying, has been stable. In the second place, I think I am also right in saying that there has been a reduction of prices, especially in October and November; and, in the third place, the deposits in the banks are increasing. I think it is true to say also that the deposits in the savings banks are increasing. Those things being so, I hope that the House will agree that the position in Austria to-day is far more favourable than it has been at any time, certainly within the last year, and, I think, for an even longer period, and that the House will support this loan to Austria most heartily.
  Mr. WISE: I am not antagonistic to this Bill in any way, but there are many points I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The most salient point is: Has he considered carefully Austria as she stands to-day as an economic problem? In the old days of Austria-Hungary you had the second
  1852
  biggest country in Europe. It had a population of about 50,000,000, and now, the new Austria, has come down to a population of 6,000,000 people, of which 2,000,000 live in Vienna. I cannot help thinking that in its present position it is not economically sound. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) seemed to think that Austria is in a favourable position, and has not depreciated in the last 12 months.
  Captain BERKELEY: What I said was that Austria was now in a better position than she had been at any time in the last year, and that since August—I think it was the 26th or so—the crown had remained stable.
  Mr. WISE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member in any way. I do not know whether he ha" watched the inflation in Austria. The crown has not been stable. In pre-War days the loaf was half a crown, and to-day it is 6,000 crowns. The paper money alone is over 3,000 milliards of crowns, and last year it was 90 milliards of crowns. The Vienna exchange to-day is about 330,000 crowns to the £. A year ago, it was 11,500. That does not look as if it is in a favourable position, and, since the Armistice, this country has advanced to Austria £12,200,000, besides which, in the last 12 months, France has advanced to Austria 55,000,000 francs, Italy 70,000,000 lire and Czecho-Slovakia 500,000,000 Czecho crowns. My point is, that although we are suggesting, as European Powers, to advance 650,000,000 gold crowns, it is not sufficient, I believe, to do what we expect it to do, and it is no good going into a proposition like this unless you look at it in a broad and courageous way. Let me refer to the Protocol. A great deal of the money that has been lost in Austria has been upon State industries, and I invite the Labour party to read page 27 of the Protocol to see the amount that has been lost. Taking railways alone, the sum of 124,000,000 gold crowns was lost on their railways, while our railways are paying dividends. Besides that, you have the enormous number of State officials, a large number of whom, I understand, are going to be done away with. Will that help the economic situation in Austria? At the present time, Austria is advancing

  1853
  3,000,000 paper crowns every week on unemployment.
  Mr. SHORT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the railways in this country receive any subsidy from the State?
  Mr. WISE: There is no subsidy. They are paying dividends anyhow. They are not losing money. I was referring to the unemployment in Austria. The total amount which is paid at the present time is 3,000,000 crowns a week, and that will expand. The State officials who are thrown on the markets will all, I suppose, come under the unemployment benefits. The Loan of 650,000,000 gold crowns is not to be an advance in the shape of feeding the children of Austria, or anything of that sort, but for balancing the Budget. An estimate has been made—so far as I know all Austrian Estimates have been wrong up to now—but an estimate has been made two years in advance to balance the Budget of Austria, and it is estimated that at the end of two years the Budget will be balanced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to stabilisation. The Loan will aid stabilisation, but remember the danger of this immense inflation to which I have referred, and one of the most dangerous things is deflation. When deflation sets in, times will be more difficult. There will be more unemployment, and there will be more chaos in. the money market in Vienna.
  What is the security for this loan? The Bill says it is secured by a charge. Is it a first charge? I understand by the Protocol that it is a first charge on the tobacco, but a second charge on the Customs. I do think we should have a first charge, and be certain, although we are taking great risks, that this charge is likely to bring in more or less the interest required on this loan. The "Times" issued a little pamphlet on the Austrian Bond Issue two days ago, and it referred to the fact which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham mentioned about the new bank. Do these 650,000,000 gold crowns go in subscribing to this bank? I notice that it states the interest is 9 per cent. If we are guaranteeing these bonds, are we going to pay 9 per cent.? It would be taken up readily even in this country. In this pamphlet it refers to 9 per cent., and I do think we should know something as to the interest which
  1854
  is going to be charged if we, as a country, are guaranteeing the loan.
  I should also like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Austria is helping herself? Has she had an internal loan? The Member for Central Nottingham referred to the deposits. Of course, the deposits are up. They are up by inflation. In Germany you have the deposits bigger than ever they were because of inflation. That is just an economic problem. I should also like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is on this Committee of Control? We had a very able adviser in Vienna, Sir William Goode, I should like to know if he is attached to the Committee. We have to realise that this is a big proposition. We have either got to do it properly or not at all. We have got to realise that every country in Europe except Czecho-Slovakia and Finland are importing more than they are exporting. What will be the position in a year's time if that goes on? I should like to refer to the American Ambassador's speech made, I think, on Monday. He says:
  "The whole world is confronted with absolute peril, and unless this economic problem is put in a fair way towards solution at the meeting of the Allied Premiers, I do not know what is going to save the Continent of Europe from its wreckage."
  These are grave words, and we have to remember them before we advance our taxpayers' money, we have got to see that we are not throwing these golden crowns into a great sunken well.
  My solution is divided into four points. No. 1 is that we should be satisfied that at the end of two years the Budget will be balanced. I do not think it will. I cannot see that with this inflation there is any chance of it being balanced. Then in respect of No. 2 there are the monopolies such as the tobacco monopoly, which we and other countries are taking as security. Why should they not be handed over to private firms? Why not deal with them as was the tobacco régie in Turkey. We would make far more out of them as private enterprises than we as a State or the Austrians as a State can possibly do.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: And still leave us more unemployed.
  Mr. WISE: My third point is, Austria should endeavour to help herself by

  1855
  raising an internal loan. Some of the deposits might be put into the internal loan. It would help it, and they would possibly get a better rate of interest. My last point is, is there no chance of the United States of America helping us? I do not like the idea of going into this big proposition unless we have the United States helping us in some way. They came into the War, and I myself feel that once they came into the War they ought to come in and help us to save the wreckage of Europe. I think it is only by endeavouring to carry out the four points I have raised that we can get back confidence to Austria, and it is confidence which is required so that we may be able to resume the trade we had in 1914.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The few observations I am going to make are connected with the two main proposals of the. Bill now before us. We are considering at the moment increasing £25,000,000 to £50,000,000 under the Trade Facilities scheme. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how near or far the connection is between that £50,000,000 and finding work for our people, which, apparently, is the intention of the Government. There is nothing, so far as I can see, that will provide the unemployed of this country with work for some time to come in connection with the scheme now under discussion. The other day a good deal was said about finding employment for our people. I want to repeat, so far as I can see, from practically all the schemes outlined by the Government, that hardly any of our own unemployed will be found work under any of the schemes now outlined during the coming winter months.
  I want to make a complaint relative to the Memorandum we, as Members of the House, have received, showing the list of firms who are to secure credits under this scheme. For instance, the location of the firms is not given. I should like to know their addresses; and some of us would be very interested to receive a complete list of the personnel of the directorate of each company. Those details would be very interesting, particularly to those sitting on this side of the House. I want to call the attention of the House to one of the companies to whom credits are to be given in this connection, namely, the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company. This company,
  1856
  apparently, is to be backed up by the State with a sum of £120,000 in connection with the erection of cottages. I know very little, in fact, I know nothing of the other firms included in the list issued for our use; but no more impudent claim was ever made by any firm or company in this country upon the State than that this firm should come to seek assistance from the State to erect cottages, apparently, for their own workpeople. I want to give the House one or two details to prove that statement.
  This firm figured very largely when evidence was given before the Coal Mines Commission in 1919. I want to read a short statement showing the financial position of the firm, and I trust that no Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, will be unmoved on hearing it. The Powell Duffryn Company (so it appears from the statement) had an ordinary share capital in 1919 of £541,000, with £115,000 preference shares. It disclosed profits, after deducting depreciation, Income Tax, Excess Profits Duty, and coal mines excess payments for the 15 years ending 1919 of 5¼ million pounds. These 5¼ millions were the profits made in 15 years on a share capital of a little over half a million, out of which over £3,000,000 were paid out in cash dividends, in addition to which £1,100,000 bonus shares were distributed as free bonus.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is that 5¼ million pounds got by adding together the entire dividends and profits for the 15 years? If so, why calculate in that manner and not on a percentage?
  Mr. DAVIES: Yes, that is so. I want to show how colliery companies take out of the mines so much profits and then come to this House to seek the assistance of the State. I think it is very unfair that shareholders who do not live in the district at all, who never go near the coalfields, who live in the seaside resorts of this country and in other nice places, who live in comfort and luxury, should take in 15 years 5¼ million pounds out of one single company with probably six to ten coal pits, and then come to the Government seeking assistance to build cottages for their workpeople! There never was a bigger scandal, a more audacious claim, or a more impudent request ever made by any group of people in this country. I hope

  1857
  that the House will condemn them. Let me point out exactly what it means, and I hope my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Lyle-Samuel) will follow this point showing how the profits work out. A chartered accountant stated in regard to this company—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is perfectly in order in producing arguments why this company should not participate in the scheme, and T think he will be in order in reviewing its operations generally, but not in the quotations which he seems about to make.
  Mr. DAVIES: I think I have said sufficient to convince hon. Members at any rate that companies of this kind should not secure financial support from the State. They should rather use the profits they have received to erect cottages for their workpeople. I think something else ought to be said. The last Government had, and I presume the present Government will have, a housing policy. I fail to understand why the Government should admit any claim for a credit of £120,000 for employers to erect cottages for their workpeople. I placed a question upon the Order Paper to-day asking the Minister of Health if he could do something to prevent the tyranny of Lever Brothers in connection with the cottage property they hold. Employers who erect cottages for their workpeople as tenants very often take advantage of the workpeople to dismiss them as tenants, because they sever their connection with them as employés.
  I have yet to learn that companies ought to be financed at all in this way. I find that in 1895 there were 16,928 companies registered in this country with a paid-up capital of £962,000; and in spite of the greatest war the world has ever seen, in spite of the destruction of capital all over the world, yet in 1918 the number of registered companies had increased to 59,855 with a paid-up capital at that date of £2,532,000,000. In spite of all that, we get a wealthy colliery company like the one I have mentioned, which has made huge profits, which is now, I understand, making decent profits, coming to the Government and asking for £120,000 to help them to erect cottages for their workpeople. I protest against that sort of thing happening in connection with the nation's finances. I want to ask
  1858
  why does the Government grant facilities so easily to erect cottages to private capitalists when they are so very, very keen in preventing local authorities building houses?
  I want to say, too, that so far as I understand the finances set forth in the documents which have been placed before us to-day, it would have been more honourable and better for the community, it would have been cleaner work altogether, to grant—if you like—£20,000,000, or the whole £25,000,000 we are to-day setting aside, to the local authorities to build cottages for the people, to lay out road schemes, to build schools, and to provide work in that way for the unemployed. It is absolutely dishonourable for the Government to set aside State moneys for private capitalist firms who have made huge profits out of the community and still are making profits.
  I pass for a moment or two to the loan to Austria. I do not oppose this loan. I think it is the best feature in the Bill now before us. On grounds of humanity I support it, but I would like to ask one or two questions of the Chancellor of Exchequer. I fail to understand in the printed documents submitted, the difference in the wording on two pages of the White Paper. We are told in one part of the White Paper that a Sub-Committee of the Council of the Allied Powers is asked to nominate without delay the High Commissioner, and then we are informed that the Austrian Government has decided that it will accept the nomination of the League of Nations. I should like the Chancellor to explain to the House how it comes about that in one part of the document the Council of the Allied Powers decides upon a High Commissioner, whereas Austria itself apparently is only willing to accept a nomination made by the League of Nations. The wording is not very clear, and I should like an explanation on the point.
  The House, I think, will understand the significant fact that we are, practically speaking, in lending this sum of money to Austria, determining at the same time the State Budget for the Austrian people. That is what we are doing. In fact we are placing Austria in pawn. Let us see exactly what we are doing, and, if it be correct, as I believe it is, that the Allied Powers, supported by our own Government, are

  1859
  determining the Budget of Austria for several years to come, it is a very strange coincidence that the Budget of Austria compares in every detail with our own. For instance, this is what the landlords are going to pay in Austria under this scheme. Forests and domains, 1,000,000 gold crowns; tobacco, 40,000,000 gold crowns. That, is a significant difference on the receipt side. Take the expenditure side and see how that again corresponds in its character with our own expenditure. The public debt and interest on war loans in Austria will receive 52,000,000 gold crowns, whilst pensions, health services and education services will receive, not 52,000,000, but 23,000,000 gold crowns. We believe on these benches that the social services of a country ought to have first call, and that the people who have lent money for wars ought to have their quota reduced as soon as possible. Nevertheless, I wish to protest against placing Austria in the position that her social services will be less expensive and, therefore, less efficient, than services in connection with the public debt and the army.
  I am greatly disappointed with the Government's attitude towards unemployment, because, after all, this Bill is brought forward ostensibly to increase trade, to facilitate commerce, and to provide work for our people. It is an astounding fact that our people are poorer to-day than ever they were, and, unfortunately, the rich of the country are richer than they ever were before. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let me put it in this way. A question was asked in this House not long ago as to the number of persons in this country who were in receipt of £5,000 and over per annum in 1914, and how many were in that category after the War. May I point out that, in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of our people gave their lives and their blood in that war, the number of persons receiving £5,000 a year and over at the end of the War was three times the number it was in 1914.
  This Bill may possibly do something to alleviate unemployment; and so far as we on these benches are concerned, we say that these advances to Austria, trade facilities, and housing and similar schemes will be of no avail unless they really assist the problem of unemployment. We still hold,
  1860
  on these benches, that when a man is unable to find work and is willing to work, it is the duty of the State to maintain him in decency.
  Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I do not in any way desire to underrate the part of the Bill as to Austria which has been referred to by the hon. Member, but for a few minutes I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at another point which arises out of the discussion. I have listened with interest to what the last speaker has said about the inefficiency of palliatives; the question is what can be done to help unemployment effectively under this Bill. I suppose we ought to keep in mind that this Measure is intended as part of the Government scheme for the alleviation of the unemployment problem. From that point of view, I would ask the House to allow me to make a suggestion which is a continuation of the suggestions made by the Seconder of the Amendment. I felt a little in an awkward position after hearing the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, because they appeared to be a little, ill-matched. The Seconder appeared to have a root-and-branch objection to the whole Bill, which I should have imagined would have found a much better expression in connection with the Acts of 1920 and 1921, when the Bill was originally brought forward. So far as my economic studies have gone, the general principle which the Seconder has put forward with regard to the granting of one1 credit preventing another it is not the result which I have arrived at. On the other hand the speech of the Mover of the Amendment was directed towards the more practical issue as to how the Act should be administered, whether it had been administered effectively in the past, and how it could be improved. I gathered, however, that he was decidedly in favour of the Bill as it stands, and that he did not desire the rejection of the Bill. I also gathered that what he wanted, which is what I and other hon. Members desire, is to be assured upon various points connected with the administration.
  One thing desired by the hon. Member was that there should be no undue encouragement to private investors arising out of the Government guarantee, and that there should be, as a general rule, tangible assets with respect to credits and any advances we make. That is a very

  1861
  sound thing, although we must remember that if we are too meticulous in requiring assets of a certain character, and only touch in regard to these credit operations gilt-edged securities, we shall not be fulfilling in its entirety the object for which the Bill was brought in. Those are the suggestions made with regard to the administrative principle of the Trade Facilities part of the Bill which has, I am glad to say, been put into operation in my own constituency, but I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say something with regard to the operation and the administration of the last part of the Bill which has not yet been referred to, and that is Overseas Credits. In connection with the Trade Facilities part of the Bill, we have received from time to time a good deal of information. Statements have been made as to how many credits have been offered and taken up, and how far those guarantees have been used. From those Papers we gather that out of the £25,000,000 which the Government was authorised to use in this way, £22,500,000 has been used.
  I want to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us any similar information with regard to the working of the Overseas Trade credits, the part of the Bill which is directed immediately to fostering our overseas trade. As far as I know up to the present, no information at all has been supplied in this connection. I do not want to go into this matter at length, but perhaps I may use as an illustration the instance brought closely under my notice in connection with a visit some of us paid to South America during the last recess, a subject which has already been referred to. I should like to point out that our trade with those great countries of South America which have in the past been such excellent markets for British trade, and for the employment of British working men, was very seriously reduced during the War. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the credit system set up by this Bill has been used and to what extent to correct this in those great markets.
  During the War we last, quite naturally, almost the whole of the trade we did in those markets, and immediately after the War efforts were made to regain that trade. Unfortunately some of our
  1862
  competitors were better placed and they got there before us, with the result that our trade in South America has not replaced itself into anything like the position it was in before the War. Some of the causes of that have no connection with the operation of this Bill and I only refer to them in passing. The bad rate of exchange and the preferences which the Brazilian Government has given to some of our competitors have had an exceedingly bad effect upon us. But what I want to point out is that our principal competitor in those markets has had it more within her power since the War to finance trading operations there, and the consequence is that whilst our trade has only recovered to the extent of two-thirds, the trade of the nation in question, which has been financing trading operations freely, has doubled compared with what it was before the War. Finance is more than ever essential to Trade.
  6.0 P.M.
  I hope that this Bill will be passed. I should like to draw the attention of the supporters of this Amendment to the fact that if it is not carried, not only will the subjects dealt with in the first part be prevented from coming into operation, but also the overseas credit part of the Measure, against which there has not been a single criticism. Whilst I think it is hardly necessary to urge the House to reject the Amendment and pass the Bill, I think it may be of some use if I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us the information I have asked for. These old markets of ours are capable of almost indefinite expansion, because, to speak of two of them only, they concern something like 40 millions of people, very largely with European needs, whose scale of civilisation is rising very rapidly and deserve our making the greatest efforts to retain. It is because of that fact that I have interposed in the Debate to say a word in support of this Bill, particularly the overseas credit part. I have asked these questions in order that public attention and the attention of the House may be better directed to these great markets of ours, which are so important considered in connection with the question of unemployment, a subject which fills all our minds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on these points. The information I received to-day was that we

  1863
  had already, through the operation of the overseas credits part of the Act, been able to give credits to the extent of nearly £10,000,000 to the Argentine, Brazil, Chile and Ecuador. I do not say that the whole of that sum is being made practical use of at present. Operations have only just begun. Moat of these credits are in connection with great engineering works, and I believe that the credits given under this part of the Bill to those British traders who are the agents of British industry and the British working man overseas are going to help towards solving the problem of unemployment even during the coming winter. What I am anxious about is that, having regard to the general feeling which has become obvious in this House during the Debate, that this question of unemployment is not a temporary one, but is more or less permanent, the Government should give us the information I have asked for, and take advantage of every proper opportunity to maintain operations under this portion of the Act, so that our markets in different parts of the world may benefit, and at the same time unemployment be relieved.
  Mr. HERBERT FISHER: We have listened to a series of very interesting speeches on this Bill. Some of them, including the his interesting one, have been framed in terms of approval; others have been frankly hostile, while others have been inspired by a spirit of friendly and temperate criticism. But I have listened in vain for an adequate expression of the importance of the League of Nations' settlement of the Austrian question, and of the great and distinguished part which was taken in connection with that settlement by our representative on the League—Lord Balfour. We all profess to desire the reconstruction of Europe. Many vain and fantastic schemes have been put forward from time to time by well-meaning and eminent persons for the attainment of that end, but here we have a well-considered scheme framed by practical statesmen under circumstances of great difficulty, which promises to achieve what all other efforts have failed to achieve—the reconstruction and the elevation of a country far sunk in financial trouble and perplexity. I listened to the eloquent speech by the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay Mac-
  1864
  Donald) with great interest. The hon. Gentleman seemed to show indications of a feeling that the financial settlement of Austria was a matter of great European importance and interest. He said, and others have said it before him, that the British Government were now taking steps to undo the evil which has been done by the Treaties. The hon. Gentleman took the view, and it is a common enough view, that it was a great mistake to dis-sever the Austrian Empire. I think most historical students would have desired, at any rate, to see the economic unity of the old Austrian State preserved. Most historical and economic students would have desired to see some kind of federal arrangement for the old Austro-Hun-garian State on lines such as were devised by Smerling in 1860, which gave adequate weight to the Slavonic element as against the German and Magyar elements. The fact remains that the passionate spirit of nationalism among the Thecks, the Slavas and the Southern Slavs, was so strong that statesmen, even if they had desired to do what was philosophically, economically and historically sound, would have been quite incapable of effecting it.
  We have to face the facts as they are. We are now confronted with a small Austrian Republic about double the population of Switzerland and containing potentialities of wealth more than double those of Switerland. Austria is the great banking centre in that part of Europe. It is a great railway centre. It has rich resources in its water power. It has mineral resources, and it has, outside Vienna, an industrious and capable population. I spoke to many Austrians and Swiss when I was at Geneva on the question of the future of Austria. The Swiss observers have a very sound judgment on the economic potentialities of their neighbours, and they take a sanguine view of the economic possibilities of the Austrian Republic, even with its present contracted frontier. The position of Austria would be entirely hopeless, however, without the assistance of some such foreign loan as is provided for in the Bill before the House. The hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) asked why Austria could not raise an internal loan. That, I am sure, is quite impossible, but at the same time Austria has her Customs and her tobacco, and her revenue from those sources, which has been calculated at £4,000,000, should be

  1865
  sufficient for the service of the debt. Then there are industrial resources in Austria which can be readily developed as soon as the currency is stabilised. The problem, therefore, before the League of Nations was, in the first instance, to get the interested Powers to express a willingness to guarantee a loan sufficient to enable the Austrian Government to balance its Budget. That, however, was not enough, for, as the hon. Member for Ilford said in the course of his interesting speech, we have already sunk a good deal of money in Austria without getting any return, and that, no doubt, is a highly discouraging circumstance.
  Let it be observed, however, that the money contributed to Austria hitherto has been furnished for the purpose of nourishing her starving population, and has not had any direct reference to the reconstruction of the economic power of the Republic. Further, we have to remember that the Austrian Government has, by reason of its weakness, been driven to- a number of uneconomic expedients. Austria has a large body of civil servants to support, because, at the end of the War, the civil servants from every part of the Empire flocked into Vienna and called upon the Government to employ them. Then again the army in Austria, being recruited from the lowest elements of the Viennese population, is reputed to be unreliable. The Government is afraid of street riots and is constantly being compelled to take steps which its sober judgment knows to be thoroughly disastrous. One has further to realise that in Austria you have a population, ranging from the modern to the mediaeval, with a sharpness of contrast almost unparalleled. You have a peasantry which is perhaps the most conservative in the world. On the other hand you have in the towns and in the villages an artisan population filled with all the new ideas upon political and economic reconstruction. The result is that unless you have a Coalition Government in Austria, representing on the one hand the conservative peasantry and on the other hand the artisans, it is difficult to secure the conduct of business-on a wise and economic footing. In order, therefore, to secure the restoration of Austria, it was absolutely necessary to create some form of Coalition Government. I had many conversations with the Austrian
  1866
  Foreign Minister, who said in effect: "We cannot do the sensible thing even if we want to, and what is required is someone in Vienna who will tell us that if we do not behave sensibly we shall not get any money." That argument, he suggested, would appeal to the Austrians and enable the Government to do their duty.
  Of course, it was very difficult, first, to arrange for a loan and, secondly, to arrange for a form of financial control which would be acceptable, not only to Austria, but also to the various Powers who imagine that they have some kind of political or economic claim on Austria. It was a very delicate task. I know that Lord Balfour has received well merited praise from many quarters of the civilised world for the splendid work which he did at the Washington Conference. Having seen his work at Geneva very closely and knowing the difficulties with which he was confronted, I think that he had here a task of even greater perplexity. I venture to say that anyone with powers less conspicuous than Lord Balfour's could not have brought the matter to so successful an issue. When you consider the jealousies, when you consider the aversion even to guaranteeing a shillingsworth of loan to a country with a recent financial record like that of Austria, when you consider the difficulties of establishing and commending to the Austrian people a reasonable plan of guarantee, you can obtain some measure of the great difficulty of the task which confronted the British delegate Lord Balfour was the Chairman of the Committee of the Council which carried through the whole business. Without his driving power the matter would never have been carried out, and I have risen in order that I might put before the House the claim which Lord Balfour has in this connection, not only to the recognition and gratitude of his, own country, but to the recognition and gratitude of all good Europeans, and, indeed, of all good citizens all over the world, who here see what I believe to be unique in the annals of mankind—a body of nations combining together after a great war to relieve and reconstitute one of the nations they have conquered.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is in favour of advancing certain moneys to Austria, and his reasons are

  1867
  that Austria has been engaged in uneconomic enterprises during the last two or three years, that we have already lent considerable sums of money to Austria, and that Austria, as I understand, has had or is about to have a Coalition Government. All of these reasons seem to me to be very good reasons why we should not lend any more money to Austria. What is the position of the taxpayer at the present moment—I mean the taxpayer in England, from whose pocket this money will have to come which is to be advanced to Austria? The position of the taxpayer in this country is by no manner of means good, and, if the loan to Austria has to be advocated on business principles, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has shown any very good grounds for making such a loan. In considering the question whether we are to reconstitute nations whom we have conquered, ought we not to ask ourselves whether we can afford to do these things? After all, what has put us in this position? We have been put in this position because Germany and Austria declared war upon us, or, rather, took action which compelled us to go to war. [Interruption.] Does any hon. Member who has studied even the history of the last six or seven years doubt that? If it had not been for the action of Germany, and the support given to Germany by Austria, we should not have been in the position in which we are to-day. We should probably have been at peace with all the world, we should not have had a debt of £7,000,000,000, and many of us who have lost their relatives would not be in that position now.
  In these circumstances, is it very wise to be so extremely charitable, especially if we are going to lose the money? I would much prefer to let Austria suffer for her own acts, and not deplete our impoverished resources any further by advancing this money. An hon. Member, I think for a Welsh constituency, spoke just now from the Labour Benches. I do not see him in the House at the moment, and here I would venture, very humbly, to say that the modern practice of an hon. Member getting up and making a speech and then immediately leaving the House, is not what used to be done in earlier years. I think that, if an hon. Member makes a speech, he ought to stay, if only for a short time, to listen
  1868
  to the criticisms that may be made upon it. The hon. Member to whom I am referring was, apparently, very angry because the Government had lent money to the Powell Duffryn Company, and his reason for being angry was that the company was a prosperous one. But that is the very reason why you should lend them money. You do not want to lend money to people who are going bankrupt, but rather to lend it on good security to someone who will be in a position to repay it. Apparently the hon. Member is angry with the Government for having exercised a little wise discretion, which I hope they will continue to do. Apparently he would rather they lent our money—because it is our money, it is the taxpayers' money—to an impecunious firm who, when the time came, would be unable to repay it. That is the first statement of the hon. Member with which I venture to disagree. He next read out some figures with regard to the incidence of the payment which was to be made by Austria in respect of interest on this loan; and, as I understood it—I am not quite sure that I recollect the exact figures—he said that the amount paid in interest would be £52,000,000, whereas the amount paid for social services would be only £25,000,000. He said that, if he himself were carrying out this transaction, the amount spent on social services would come first, and the interest on the debt last. Who on earth would lend money on those terms? I am certain that the Labour party would not lend their own money on those terms.
  I should now like to say a word or two with regard to the question whether or not it is advisable to increase the Trade Facilities loan from £25,000,000 to £50,000,000. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), whom also I do not see in the House. He said that there were two reasons against the advisability of this increase. His first reason is that it creates communications between the Government Department and business people. That is a bad thing. Human nature being what it is, it is not a good thing that the Government should have it in their power to pick out A or B and say: "I will lend to you, B, money to carry on your business; but I will not lend it to A." The House will, of course, understand that I do not say for a moment that anything wrong has occurred

  1869
  or will occur with the present Government, but this sort of thing might occur. It has occurred in other countries, and, if this method of the Government subsidising private industry is continued, then I am very much afraid that something of the sort might occur. Again, are we quite certain that the Government, in choosing people to whom they are going to lend the money, will choose people who are financially sound? My experience in business is that if you are financially sound, and if it is good business to lend you money, you can go to any of the banks and get the money. If it is good business to lend the money, the person who wants to borrow it can generally get it. If it is not good business for a bank to lend the money, it is not good business for the taxpayer to lend it. I was very much against this proposal in the first instance, and I am certainly not in favour of increasing the amount.
  We are told that this is done in order to relieve unemployment. It was stated yesterday by an hon. Member that unemployment is likely to be with us for some time. I do not venture any opinion on that, but I hope it is not the case. I hope that unemployment will cease quickly. There does, however, seem to be a general opinion among people who should know, that this unemployment is not going to cease, and, if that is so, are we doing any good by doing this sort of thing? Are we not merely opening the door to another loan of £25,000,000 or £50,000,000, and, if so, where is it going to stop? If we make this increase from £25,000,000 to £50,000,000 now, is it going to be the last? If it is really going to do away with unemployment, I should not be against it, but if it is merely to be a palliative, which may lead to the evils which I have mentioned, and will not make a permanent end of unemployment, I think the Government would be wise to reconsider their policy.
  Lord STANLEY: It is with very great misgivings that I rise in this Debate to take my part for the first time in the proceedings of the House. I only do so in the hope that the House will extend to me the tolerance and kindness that it usually does show to Members making their maiden efforts. Clause 3 of this Bill raises a matter which is of the very
  1870
  greatest interest and importance to all Members, and especially to all Lancashire Members, who are interested in the cotton industry, and who wish to do what they can to ensure a regular supply of raw material, so that the mills of Lancashire shall never be stopped for want of it. The House is probably aware that in former years America has been able to supply us with as much raw cotton as we have been able to use; but, during the last year or two, this supply has decreased very rapidly. In the first place, America is using more and more of her own raw material for her own purposes; and, secondly, and perhaps to an even greater extent, the American crops have been attacked by a most virulent pest, for which no remedy has up to the present been found. Whatever the causes may be, the shortage is very serious, and as soon as trade gets properly settled again, and the whole of the spindles of Lancashire are working full time, this shortage will be found to be acute. We have, therefore, now to look about m other parts of the world to find new fields to replace the old one.
  The possibility of this danger of a shortage was realised in Lancashire about 20 years ago, and an association was formed there, the money for which was subscribed both by employers and employed. That association, which was known as the British Cotton Growing Association, has only one aim in view. It has no idea of making a profit. It simply wishes to ensure that Lancashire shall get a regular supply of raw cotton so as to keep her mills working. At the same time they wish to ensure that the native cotton grower shall receive fair treatment. They realise that unless he has confidence the whole of our scheme will be ruined. Hon. Members opposite have told us that private enterprise has not been ready to embark on the rather treacherous seas of cotton growing. This is far from the case. This is private enterprise at its very best, where employers and employed are agreed together. They have taken the initiative as private enterprise always does. They have taken risks which are essential when you are dealing with these new undertakings. And it is only now, when practically the whole of the spade work has been done, that they are appealing to the Government for assistance.

  1871
  Under the auspices of this Cotton Growing Association, cotton is grown in practically all countries in Africa—Natal, Tanganyika, Uganda, Egypt and in the Sudan. Of all these the Sudan is far the most important. The others will be of assistance to us and we shall get a certain amount of raw cotton from them, but it is from the Sudan alone that we shall be able to get really large quantities, and from all the reports of the experts it is safe to assume that the Sudan is capable in time of filling the place which America has always filled in the past. It has been stated during the Debate that part of the land of the Sudan has become less productive because the soil has got stale. I do not think that is the fact. In fact all the experts say the soil of the Sudan is the best possible for cotton growing and it is there alone where you can grow the best types of cotton—that is long staple cotton. This is really a matter of life and death for Lancashire. We are bound to have the very fiercest competition in the future from India and Japan in the cheaper counts of cotton and the future of our Lancashire cotton industry lies in the finer counts, and it is in the Sudan alone where this long staple cotton can be grown in sufficient quantities to keep our Lancashire industry going. This necessity is realised by members of all parties. In July last a deputation went to the Foreign Office on the subject to see what could be done for the development and irrigation of the Sudan. It was led by the Leader of the Independent Liberal party, and two of the speakers were the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and the present Secretary of State for War, three minds which in all other matters are extremely divergent in their views, but on this one occasion at any rate they had one single thought. That goes a great way to prove the strength of our case. Another argument which has been used against this guarantee was that it is better to spend the money on schemes for unemployment. I do not think that is an argument which has been very carefully thought out. In the first place, it is very probable that this loan of £3,500,000 will never be called on. On the other hand, although it is only doing very little directly for unemployment at present, it is a very real and a very sound insurance against unemploy-
  1872
  ment in the cotton industry in the future. There is no doubt at all that if this scheme fails it will not be long before many mills in Lancashire will have to shut down for good and all because there will not be enough raw material to keep them going. I do not think for a moment that the scheme will fail. I think it is perfectly certain to succeed, and I hope not a single Member in the House will hamper or oppose it in any way, because by doing so they would only be imperilling the future security of thousands of men and women who are engaged in one of the greatest industries of the country. If there is a shortage in our raw material, thousands of them will be thrown out of employment, not temporarily, but for good and all. I very much hope there will be no opposition of any kind to this particular Clause of the Bill.
  Mr. T. SHAW: May I congratulate the Noble Lord on a most successful maiden speech. It comes like a breath of fresh air to a Lancashire man to hear once now and then someone speak about a thing that he knows something about. There is no trade in the country less understood than the textile trade of Lancashire. It was before the War, and I hope it will become again, the largest exporting trade in the country. It is vital to the economic life of the Country, and yet we have a mass of ignorance concerning it, which is simply appalling. If this trade is to be saved for the country, there will have to be either national measures taken or exceptional measures taken in Lancashire itself. The Weevil pest in the States has not been conquered, and there appear to be no signs that it will be conquered. If the ravages of that pest continue, there will be in the very near future the gravest possible danger of a catastrophe happening to this great industry of ours, and I have risen because I particularly want to associate the organised workmen and women of the textile trade with the views which have just been expressed by the Noble Lord. The organised employers and workmen of Lancashire are at one on this matter. Whatever our views may be as to other things, there is no difference in this. We must look to our bread and butter, and we want all the development possible so far as the growing of cotton is concerned.
  The Lancashire working men and women have subscribed over and over

  1873
  again large sums for experiments in the growing of cotton within the Empire. Employers and employed alike have provided these funds, not for the purpose of profit, because they knew that profit was excluded. The sums were spent in order to develop new areas within the Empire and to tempt them to grow cotton by guaranteeing a fair price for what they grew. When the cotton was grown it was put upon the market in the ordinary way, and the only intention of the Lancashire people has been to get cotton grown at a fair price for the grower who grew it And a fair price for the industry that used it. We are now at the parting of the ways. There is the gravest possible danger. I think I can speak both for the organised employers and workers, and they will welcome anything that can be done to obviate what we should consider to be a calamity without measure for the county to which we belong. The Lancashire textile industry has asked very little from Parliament. During the War it was the one great industry which had to suffer all through. Whilst other trades were working overtime with high wages and everything else, the cotton trade was doing badly because we could not get supplies of raw material. We did not badger and pester the Government day in and day out with our unemployment. We built up, with the help of the Government, it is true, what was known as the Cotton Control Board, which took the whole of the responsibility for unemployment and met the cost of it by a levy which was laid on the looms and spindles which were working. We managed our own affairs without the cost of a farthing, so far as I know, to the State, and I think now we are fairly entitled to ask Parliament for the fullest and the most generous possible consideration of the claims that Lancashire makes, both' employers, employed and merchants, for what assistance can be given in what appears to be a grave national emergency.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I wish it were possible for me to support the Amendment, but, having a reasonable regard for consequences, and respecting the obligations to which we are already committed, I shall not be able to do so. I think this Debate has proved that nothing can be more unfortunate for the reputation of this House as a deliberative assembly, for its constitutional traditions and its importance before the world, than
  1874
  that we should be assembled to discuss the relations of the British Treasury to privately-controlled industrial concerns. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it is altogether outside the functions of Government to be financing industrial concerns, to be promoting legislation which relates to particular industries and to be mixing up the general well-being of the Commonwealth with the particular interests of separate industrial enterprises. It is also very unfortunate that we are compelled either to support this Bill or to oppose it, in view of the fact that there are parts of it which we should wish to support and there are also parts which we might oppose. The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down was in the nature of a plea ad miseri-cordiam for a special industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because this House is not assembled for the purpose of considering special industries. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question!"] It ought not to be here assembled for that purpose. If that really is in the minds of hon. Members, the more they pluck up their courage to support the Amendment the better for the future of the House. We are not here to promote any separate industrial interest. If we are, let everyone of us present our case. I could give the name of a firm which I should like to see printed in this Bill where there are, and have been for two years, 2,000 unemployed, who would be very glad of relief. We cannot go on like this. It is not the purpose for which this House assembles. The speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), which was a special appeal with regard to the cotton trade, is the very last sort of appeal to which this House ought to respond. The British taxpayers will have to provide the money under this guarantee, as the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said, the more readily and the more willingly if they are soundly advised, but the more reluctantly if it is an appeal to sentiment to bolster up an industry which is economically incapable of standing upon its own legs. I do not believe that that is the position of the Lancashire cotton trade.
  Through a friend and associate of mine, I have had placed at my disposal expert opinion with regard to the growing of cotton in the Sudan, and I say without hesitation that I am advised, and by those whose judgment and experience is

  1875
  such that one ought to accept it, that the circumstances of the guarantee of this sum that is being found by the Government are; such that no commercial or banking institution would find the money. The money is badly invested. The investment is a bad investment. I know it is dangerous to prophesy, but I say that this is a bad investment, and that the House will know it within the next three years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members will know why if they read the reports as to the soil and the experience over the last 20 years. Let the House remember that this is not a new experiment. The question of growing cotton in Egypt is an old question. All the soils have been tested. In some cases there are 20 feet of mud within a short space of where there is nothing but soil of the lightest character. These business undertakings are not undertakings for which this House ought to be responsible. They are undertakings for which the merchants and bankers of the City of London ought to be responsible.
  I want to support various parts of the Bill, but I have to approve or disapprove of the whole Bill, and by supporting the Government in this matter I have to agree to this extremely ill-advised, unwarranted, unjustifiable, and, as I am putting my reputation; as a prophet to the test, this bad investment, as the House will know it to be within the next three years. I regret these Government investments in industry. One hon. Member pointed out that the history of the Government in the last four years, in regard to industrial investments, was not only an unfortunate one in so far as the Government was concerned in the investment of public money, but that it had been unfortunate for the general community, because when prospectuses were issued and it was stated that the Government were subscribing for large parts of the capital, people thought that an enterprise which was good enough for Government money was good enough for private money. Those people have been sadly disillusioned. If the House will turn back to the debates in the last Parliament, they will recall to their minds the fact that the Government has lost millions of pounds by investment in private enterprise. They have made this House a place where we discuss the value of investments in concerns with
  1876
  which this House has nothing to do. I ask the Government where this principle is to stop. If the principle is to be extended, and if we are to be told that this is the idea of the Government, and that we can come here and barter for our own interests, then I will be an advocate for my own interests in my own constituency, and I will bitterly complain that a big engineering firm in my own area—in which I have no financial interest, but in which I have great political, interest, if we are to bring in political interests, because 2,000 men are out of work—does not appear upon this list, and I will complain that we cannot make our claim and have it supported by the Government. It is utterly wrong—
  Mr. NEWBOLD: Good old political parties!
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If my hon. Friend has his way, there would be nothing for us to discuss, and nothing for us to divide. There would be nothing to charge upon or to receive from. I am not interested in his views. We ought to have from the representative of the Foreign Office or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very clear statement on this matter. We are now playing our part in the League of Nations. We are making this important guarantee, and I am glad we are, but I am sure that the House feels that it is impossible for the League of Nations to function, and impossible for the League of Nations to provide its resources and exercise that authority which we wish it to exercise, unless America is part and parcel, and an active partner in the League of Nations. By the Treaty of Versailles we were committed and we consented to the League of Nations being incorporated as part of the Treaty. We were committed to that to which we might not hav been committed were it not that it w-as part of the price which we all agreed to pay when the President of the United States insisted that the basis of that Treaty was the establishment of the League of Nations. It was then understood that if things did not work out as well as was hoped that, having got the League of Nations as an integral part of the Peace Treaty, the machinery would be established by which to adjust these things.
  America, for reasons which we need not discuss, because they do not concern

  1877
  us, walked away. She left Europe in the position in which Europe stood. She is, in her present position, outside direct concern for or obligation to Europe, but I would like to say, as one who knows America, do not believe that the whole of the American people are not interested in the misfortunes of Europe. Do not believe that because the political situation makes it impossible at the moment for the people of America to do their share that they are, therefore, lacking, and that when the testing time comes we shall not get from America, not merely sympathy, but resources to help to reestablish Europe and the whole world. It is a great misfortune for the world that America is not in the League, and I wonder whether we are right to have made so large a financial contribution at this time, in view of the fact that America is making none. I am not suggesting that we should try to shame America into a generosity which does not belong to her, for that is the last thing that is required. I am not suggesting that we should claim that because of the signature of the American President there rests upon her an obligation which she is not able to exercise, in view of party political considerations, but I am saying that our relations with America ought to be such at all times—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how all this comes within the scope of the Debate.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: What we are asked to do is to support a decision which has been made that we are to be guarantors for a sum of over £6,000,000 of a loan to be raised by the Austrian Government under the authority of a Commissioner-General appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, and I was merely suggesting that we should consider whether or not we ought at this moment to be responsible for so large a sum under the ægis of the League of Nations, in view of the fact that the League of Nations was established with America as an active partner, and that at this moment we are not only not receiving anything in relief of our own burdens of taxation from reparations, although within this fiscal year we have paid 100,000,000 dollars to America in interest, ' and at the same time we are to uphold the dignity and honour of our own signature to the League of Nations.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is ingenious, but too far-fetched.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If that be your decision, Mr. Speaker, I will pass from that aspect of the question, and will merely say that I am glad that in any circumstances in the difficulties in which we are at this moment we find ourselves able to make so large a contribution to the League of Nations' solution of this problem, and I am glad, difficult as it is for us with our heavy burdens of taxation, that we have braced ourselves to our responsibilities, that we are paying our own debt abroad, and are able by this Bill to make so large a contribution towards the rehabilitation of Austria under the ægis of the League of Nations. I want to say one final word to the Government. I am sure, whether the Government thinks so or not, and however well established they think the Overseas Trade Department and other trading Departments of the Government may be, that the British commercial community resents Government Departments interfering with British trade. There is nothing that the commercial community in this country desires so much as that there should be no Government Department interfering with any single business in this country. I hope that the Government in pressing upon us to support them in this Bill—this omnibus Bill, which is, in parts, so diffuse, so varying that a single vote might not represent our opinion on any single part— will realise that they are exasperating the country by this interference. I could speak of a certain Measure—but having been warned that I have wandered further than I ought to do in the Debate I will leave hon. Members and the Treasury Bench to call to mind the name of the Bill—where the Government have interfered with hundreds of businesses.
  I want to know how much more of the money which is voted will be in any way invested in private enterprise or in any way used to cause Government interference with the free control of private enterprise. When the House was asked during the last Parliament to vote sums of money, it was on the ground that the industries concerned were vital for the safety of the Empire. We heard about new industries. We have now heard about unemployment. There is a sinister Clause in this Bill which says that fees are to be charged for the examination

  1879
  of business and commercial proposals. One would imagine that there is to be an institution and office like that of the Public Trustee. One would imagine that there is to be a permanence about it which this House hopes will not exist. One would imagine that the Government thinks it is necessary to interfere in private business, and I say that private traders do not wish the Government to interfere. Although one cannot support this Amendment because of previous commitments, I do hope the Government will realise, when they get their majority to-night, that the overwhelming sense of the House is that the less Government interference there is with private enterprise the better.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member who has just sat down says he is against Government interference with private business. No one agrees with him more heartily than I do on that, but I am not sure that his allegation w*as very well based on this particular Bill, because nobody is bound to take the advantages offered under this Bill unless they choose. Therefore, there is no need for any Government interference in business except by the will of those who are engaged in the business. I agree with what the hon. Member said about the danger of any distribution of Government assistance to private enterprise. The danger is quite obvious. There is always the danger that by some means or other the exercise of patronage of that kind will not be altogether free from suspicion. I agree that it is a very great danger, and one that this House ought to watch with the greatest care. I have no right to speak for the Government, but I am sure that they also will agree with that. On the other hand, we have to consider that we live in a very exceptional time, and that we cannot altogether be guided by the strictest rules of propriety when there is a vast mass of unemployment with which we have to deal.
  I did not rise to deal with these parts of the Bill, and I think I ought to say a word on that portion which refers to the Loan to Austria. I wish to express my personal gratitude and gratification to the Government for the prompt action they have taken in this matter. I agree very largely with what fell from my right hon.
  1880
  Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher). In one respect I think he was rather hardly dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F, Banbury). He was describing the great difficulties under which Austria had to labour and, amongst others, he mentioned the necessity of having the Coalition Government. The right hon. Member for the City of London seemed to think he was basing on that a claim for assistance to Austria, but I am sure that that was very far from the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. The one point, as it seems to me, in the criticism made by the right hon. Member for the Combined English Universities, the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Lyle-Samuel), and the right hon. Member for the City of London, is that they regard this as an act of generosity to Austria. If it were that, or only that, I agree that, in the present state of our finances, it would be a matter which the House would scrutinise very closely. The point really is quite different. It is that we have got, if we can, to set Austria upon its legs. That is absolutely vital, and the first practical step which has yet been taken in that direction is this proposal to give assistance to Austria. Therefore, when the right hon. Member for the City of London utters that cry from the heart against charity, especially where we are not going to get anything in return, he is really alarming himself unnecessarily. We shall get ample return if we can actually show the world that a country like Austria can, by the united efforts of the members of the League of Nations, be set upon its legs. It will be a great ray of hope in the very dismal outlook which we have at present before us.
  A great deal has been said, and said rightly, about the advances that have been made to Austria—£12,000,000 that we have advanced, and very considerable sums advanced by America. It is quite true. Personally I was never very much in favour of those advances. They were advances given mainly to feed the starving population of Austria. They really were charity, and it is very doubtful to me whether they have actually produced any adequate benefit, even to the population of Austria. This is quite a different proposition; it is absolutely distinct. I want to press that very much upon the

  1881
  House. It is, to me, extremely important, both, because I believe it to be the first step upon the real road towards the reconstruction of Europe and, secondly, because it seems to me to be a great achievement of the machinery of the League of Nations. The difficulties were enormous. There was all this history, which I need not recount, and the fact that the Supreme Council had abdicated in this matter. They had said they could do no more to help Austria, and had handed it over to the League of Nations. There was the fact that all the other nations on the borders of Austria were extremely jealous of her. Without their consent and co-operation nothing effective could be done to assist her. Then there was the financial difficulty, which was very grave. The right hon. Member for the City of London, speaking of another part of the Bill, protested against the Government ever advancing money. He said that if from an economic point of view the money ought to be advanced, private enterprise should do it; and if it were not right from an economic point of view to advance the money, then the Government ought not to do so. It is true up to a certain point, but it is not true altogether, and we find a very good example of the limitations of the truth in that observation.
  I believe that merely as a financial proposition the Loan of £27,000,000 to Austria on the security offered is perfectly sound. The revenues that are pledged are much more than sufficient to pay the interest and sinking fund on that Loan. If that had been the only thing to be submitted to the financial world there would have been no difficulty whatever in obtaining the money. The difficulty was purely political. What the financiers said was: "We dare not advance this money because, although it is perfectly sound in itself yet, unless there is some reform in the political situation in Austria, and unless we can have some guarantee for stability in Austria, we cannot do it." The proposition which was submitted to the League of Nations was: "Is it possible to devise such political security as to convert a financial proposition from a dangerous one into one which, so far as one can see, is perfectly secure?" Let me remind the House what was done. In the first place, they got this self-denying ordinance agreed to by all the surrounding States—
  1882
  surely a very remarkable achievement. An hon. Friend of mine who sits on the Labour Benches said, in a Debate the other night, that this was only an additional restriction on the sovereignty of Austria. That really is a mis-reading of what was done. The point was, would all the States round Austria agree that they would make no attack on the-sovereignty of Austria, so that there would be no danger of political disturbance in Austria during the period of the Loan? That was agreed to by all the surrounding States. In the second place, there was the appointment of the Controller, who was to deal out the money in return for the necessary reforms which would give stability to the financial position of Austria.
  I listened with great interest and admiration to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I agree that it is very important that no undue interference with the sovereignty of Austria should take place. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I had nothing whatever to do with these negotiations myself, although I heard something about the matter when I was in Geneva—that that was present every hour in the minds of the negotiators in Geneva. If the hon. Gentleman reads the provision, he will see that the powers of the Controller are limited entirely to securing the financial position, and are not to interfere with the sovereignty of Austria one inch more than is necessary for that purpose. They are only to last for two years, or for such shorter period as may secure the financial security and solvency of Austria. Therefore, I do not think there is any unnecessary interference, and the hon. Gentleman may be quite certain that no excessive use of those powers will take place. He must remember that there is an appeal to the Council of the League of Nations, and at such an appeal the representative of Austria will be entitled to be present and be heard. I do not say that that is the whole of what is necessary to restore Austria. No doubt one of the things that very much wants doing is to break down the tariff barriers between Austria and the Succession States. That was very present in the minds of those concerned with these proposals, but the political difficulties in its way are very great. Another most important thing is to get the railways of the old Austrian Empire running under one command.

  1883
  That also, is a matter which will be very present in the minds of those dealing? with this question.
  That, really, is broadly the scheme. I want to say one word as to the way in which it was done, and as to the speed with which it is done. This was done solely by the machinery of the League, which I need not describe to hon. Members. It was done in the shortest time on record for a diplomatic transaction of that character. It took a few weeks. It was begun on 31st August and completed by the end of September. There is nothing in the least comparable in the whole history of diplomacy to a negotiation of that complexity being accomplished in that time. I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for the Combined English Universities that the person who is entitled to the greatest credit for that is Lord Balfour, who was a member of the Government to which I was bitterly opposed. I should like to add another name, that of Dr. Benes, the Prime Minister of Czecho-Slovakia, who worked with unfailing energy and great farsightedness and freedom from national prejudices in securing this arrangement. An hon. Member sitting near me expressed grave doubt as to the possibility of this plan succeeding. Doubts in such a quarter are well worth listening to and attending to. He described what, after all, is familiar to this H6use, the immense difficulties which Austria has to face. He said, with great force, "Why lend money to a State in such a condition? If you are going to lend money, ought not you to lend much more in order to secure good results?" I am not competent to cross swords with my hon. Friend on a question of finance.
  I would like to remind him, however, that this was a matter which was very carefully considered by some of the best financial authorities in Europe, who were collected at Geneva. They were not great financiers in the ordinary sense of the word, it is true, but they comprised such gentlemen as Sir Basil Blackett, of the Treasury here, who certainly does not err on the side of being unduly rash or reckless in financial matters. He and others examined the whole position, and it was on their advice, and on their advice solely, that the Committee of the Council of the League of Nations thought that an advance of this character, agreed to under
  1884
  those conditions, was capable in two years of bridging over the transition period between the present financial insecurity of Austria, and the financial stability and the balancing of the Budget which they were confident would be achieved by proper financial reform in that country. The figures are given in the documents which are published, and anyone can examine them. I am not competent to say whether they are right or wrong. They were arrived at by men eminently qualified for a decision, after making full inquiries into the position in Austria, and with a knowledge which will compare favourably even with that of any hon. Member in this House. Though I should not like to say that this plan is certain of success, it does seem to me that the probabilities of success are considerable.
  But there is one thing which is undoubted. The moment we get Austria on the road to financial stability we shall have greater difficulty and greater unemployment in Austria probably than she has had for a long time. I do not believe that it can be avoided. As long as a country is content to go on increasing its inflation and diminishing the value of its currency it lives well, because it is living on its capital. The moment it puts an end to that process it lives less well, because it is forced to live upon its income, and I am afraid that there is bound to be a period of great difficulty and doubt which can only be solved by the experience as to whether there is sufficient grit in the Austrian people to go through that-period for the sake of recovering the solvency of their country. I believe that the measures taken for the appointment of a Controller and the other measures sketched to the House do enable that to be done if the people have courage to go through the difficulties which will inevitably occur.
  I welcome this first constructive measure. I think that it should have been taken long ago. A similar process could have been carried out two or three years earlier with much greater success, but still it is going to be a step forward. It is a real attempt to put in operation the united effort of the members of the League in order to accomplish a great work which is in the interests of the whole of Europe and, indeed, of the whole of humanity. I welcome that effort immensely, and I

  1885
  hope earnestly for its success. I venture to say to the Government: Do not falter in this work. Accept the League of Nations as the basis of your foreign policy, but, having accepted it, do not try to go back and work upon the old and different system. That way failure lies with absolute certainty. You must adopt one way of dealing with foreign affairs or the other. You must accept the principle that the affairs of each nation are the interests of all, or you must go back to the, old system of alliances and counter-alliances. You cannot have any compromise between the two.
  Therefore I earnestly hope that, having adopted what I believe is a sound principle, the Government will press it forward with all their strength. They are, we all know, about to enter on the solution of a much more difficult subject, the subject of reparations. It would not be in order to say more than this. I believe that they have the opportunity of applying the same principles—I am not dealing with machinery—for the solution of this difficulty, which they have applied for the solution of the Austrian difficulty. Only-yesterday I read a very remarkable speech by a French statesman, M. de Jouvenel, with whom I was in contact at Geneva, in which he openly advocates the transfer of the reparations question to the League of Nations. That is a very important suggestion, coming from such a quarter, and I trust that the Government will be able to make use of it. I would urge them to recognise that this is only a first step on the new way of dealing with European affairs, and to advance boldly on that road, fully confident that on that road, and on that road only, is a solution of the difficulties which oppress the peoples of Europe, and that nowhere else can a safe and satisfactory solution be found.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: This year Austria, next year Germany, I suppose. I wonder what there is about modern civilisation by which the victor in a war has to pay compensation to those whom he has conquered. I remember that the end of the South African War we were to get £30,000,000 compensation out of the Rand and out of the Boers. Instead of that, Mr. Chamberlain went to South Africa and returned to England, not with £30,000,000, but with a promise to pay them £30,000,000 compensation for the de-
  1886
  struction done in South Africa. Here we are getting exactly the same result My only regret is that we have not got on these benches one extra Member, Mr. Norman Angell, to see the proof which has been given of his prognostications as to the results of war between civilised communities. But the Noble Lord in dealing with the Cromerisation of Austria—that is what it amounts to—missed one point It is not enough for the League of Nations simply to guarantee loans to Austria or to control the Austrian Budget. In addition to financial help, if Austria is to pull through, she will have to have from the League of Nations political assistance. It is impossible to confine the assistance of the League to the Austrian Government to finance and the control of finance.
  You have not only to protect them from all those surrounding Powers, particularly the Hungarian Kingdom, but you have also got to see that the special interests of some of the great Powers are not used further to exploit that country. I observe, for instance, among the securities for this loan are the tobacco monopoly and the Customs House. Nothing is said of the railways. It would be disastrous to Austria if the railways also have to be mortgaged to one particular great Power in order to raise further financial assistance, because I think that we are hopeful that if we are beginning this is not going to be the end. Just think of what the position of Austria is to-day. The exchange has fallen to 320,000 kronen to the £. The exchange has been more or less constant there ever since August and unemployment has been increasing daily. To-day there are 85,000 unemployed in Vienna. On the 1st of January we learn that various factories in Vienna are to close down. As the Noble Lord said, up to now, with a constantly depreciating exchange, industry has found it possible to find employment for all these individuals in Austria, but the stabilisation of the exchange in Austria, although it makes the finances sound and although, indeed, it is the only hope of reconstruction, must inevitably result in the unemployment and destruction and break-up of the industrial system in Austria.
  About a year ago in the neighbouring Kingdom of Hungary a Finance Minister came into power and determined to do his best to re-establish Hungarian finance.

  1887
  He introduced various Measures, among others a capital levy, and for a short time Hungary looked like developing into a sound financial country. The exchange even now is far better than the Austrian exchange. I think that it is 11,000 to the £, as against 315,000 to the £, but directly the Hungarian exchange was cheeked in its fall exactly the same thing happened. Thousands of men were thrown out of work and the experiment of trying to stabilise the exchange was dropped. The Finance Minister was thrown over, and the country went back to the good old lines of living on credit and postponing the debts to posterity. If you are going to make this a success, if this loan and a subsequent loan on further security that may happen to be made through the League of Nations are going to be a success, we have got to realise that the whole nature of the Austrian society has got to be changed. Up to now it has been an industrial society. Vienna, with 2,000,000 inhabitants, has been an industrial town surrounded by a peasant people. I am afraid that the stabilisation of the exchange in Austria and the reconstruction of Austrian finance must mean the conversion of that State from an industrial State into a peasant State such as Switzerland.
  Having got the inevitable results of the destruction of civilisation, there is no longer any need for the labour of the people in the town. The difficulty will be effecting the change so that the industrials in the towns are not driven by starvation into riot or revolution, and are facilitated in the transfer from industries to agriculture. It is going to become a land problem in Austria, how to get the 2,000,000 people in Vienna back on to the land or else, which is just as important, how to enable them to escape from Austria and emigrate to other countries. With the exchange as it is at the present time, a man requires to be a millionaire in Austria to get out of the country. It may very well be that the League of Nations will have to facilitate emigration, and also settle men upon the land in Styria and Upper Austria, as well as to control the Budget, and to see that there is no wasteful expenditure of the limited resources of that country. The difficulty of the position for the Austrian people is, naturally, that cromerisation involves the
  1888
  surrender to a certain extent of your sovereignty.
  The people of Austria are no longer in a position to say that they will have unemployment benefit for their unemployed in Vienna. They are no longer in a position to say how their money shall be spent. They are no longer in a position to say what expenditure they will meet when their annual Budget comes up for discussion. So far as finance is concerned, they have surrendered their sovereignty. It is, therefore, urgently important that the League of Nations, in conducting these experiments, should watch Austria, particularly those classes in Austria who are bound to suffer, with the most unfailing kindness and sympathy. We have got to see that the Socialists—the industrialists of Vienna are Socialists, but unfortunately they do not take part in the Government in Austria at the present time—and to see that their interests arc-looked after. It rests with the League of Nations to watch those interests, because the power of the Government, so far as finance is concerned, has been surrendered, and the experiment now being made may be repeated in future, and it is urgently important that we should watch and learn from the experience of Austria what we may have to do with Germany in future.
  I agree with the Noble Lord that when we deal with the German problem it should he left to the League of Nations, which is the only method we have found of dealing with Austrian problems. The less then will be our expense, our liabilities and our damage, when we have to, as we shall have to, take up the same position with Germany as with Austria, and though there will have to be controlled loans, and though the restoration of civilisation there will mean very largely the reconstruction of society in Germany, all being paid for by us, all that will cost less the sooner it is taken up. I beg the Government, in the interests of this country, because the expense will fall on us and because employment here can never recover until our customers revive on the Continent, for the sake of this country to hand the work over to the League of Nations and get it away from French Imperialism as soon as possible, and, above all, to consult with the United States of America, because, though we

  1889
  may be able to shoulder the Austrian loan without their assistance, it is obviously impossible that we can ever tackle the greater problem in Germany without real co-operation and assistance of America.
  Only a fortnight ago hon. Members on the Labour benches were being derided for proposing a capital levy, and the principal argument used against them was that a capital levy would inevitably result in driving British capital abroad. We were referred to Switzerland, where, we were told, the mere threat of a capital levy was driving capital abroad. The capital levy was held up to us as a most awful bogey and a disaster to British employment and trade that could not be measured. I ask hon. Members to look through the instances in this Bill in which assistance is given, and then to observe that, so far from driving capital abroad being a crime, it is considered to be a virtue which will lead to additional employment in this country. You cannot drive both horses. Which is it to be? With the assistance of the Government we invest £500,000 to help the Calcutta Electric Supply Company in putting up new power houses. Good! That is all right for Calcutta. But is not that investing British capital abroad, which a moment before we were told was a crime against the British working man? T do not know whether investing British capital abroad is good or bad, but of one thing I am certain, and it is that it is much better to invest capital abroad because it pays to invest it, and not because the Government directs the position where it shall be invested abroad.
  The whole of this scheme suffers from the particular vice that the Government knows so much better than the individual where money is to be invested. The result is that we see Powell Duffryn being assisted to build cottages, although anyone holding that company's shares knows that it made huge profits during the War, and that bonus shares have been issued to the lucky shareholders. Beardmore's are being assisted to build a ship. What ship except a battleship can cost £600,000 to finish I cannot imagine. During the War Beardmore's made fortunes. Harland and Wolff are helped as if they were paupers. If ever there have been companies which have prospered, particularly during the War, and have piled up their profits, they are the companies which are now needing assistance. I
  1890
  believe it is a lamentable misfortune for this country when a single officer of State or a single office in the Administration is able by a stroke of the pen to make fortunes one way or the other. I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than that one firm should be able to get terms out of the Government which enable them to raise capital cheaply, while another firm should be deprived of that opportunity because they were not the first in the field, or perhaps because they could not use the same influence in order to get the same assistance.
  This scheme depends entirely on the idea that if you take the financial resources of the country and invest them in some other part where they would not be invested normally, you thereby create additional employment. When you take £500,000 from this country and invest it in Calcutta, you prevent it being invested in this country to help employment in this country. You are not making anything fresh, but re-directing the quarter in which that money is to be spent. In the last part of the Bill, where you facilitate export trade by bonuses, there is an admirable example of the gradual conversion of the Government to the Socialist principle. Under the export trade facilities scheme the Government frankly takes the place of the banks and finances schemes of export which the banks would not touch. The State becomes for the purpose a State bank; it discounts bills and assists trade. My only objection to it is that the Government accept the trade which the banks will not accept. So far as that sort of Socialism is concerned, I think it would be better if they took a few lessons from this side and started their Socialism on lines that would be likely to pay instead of on lines that may lead to disaster.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The hon. Gentleman who leads the Labour party suggested that in this Measure we were tippling in Socialism. The last speaker appears to attack it on the grounds that it is a subsidising of private enterprise. It cannot be both. T quite agree that it gives the guarantee of the State to private enterprise, and I think it is to be warmly supported on that ground. What are we told constantly from the Labour benches? That when we deal with unemployment we should provide work, and not doles. Yet when

  1891
  we make a definite proposal which puts the credit of the Government behind sound economic productive enterprises, and creates employment instead of giving doles, we are told that we ought not to do it because it is unduly favourable to private enterprise. The suggestion that the Government guarantee is being given unnecessarily is without foundation. Hon. Members will appreciate that there are many firms which, although they have done very well in the past, are to-day actually short of working capital, and are certainly short of capital for new developments and extensions. Furthermore, there are firms requiring to raise that capital which, with the Government guarantee behind them, can raise it at a lower rate of interest, and because they can so raise it, are enabled to engage in work which otherwise they would have to put off until a period when prices have fallen further. Therefore I claim that this is not only a useful but a businesslike proposal.
  I would say, in reply both to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that, so far from this being looked upon with grave suspicion in banking quarters, the contrary is the case, for when we were considering this Bill for the first time in the late Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I had a meeting with the bankers who said that they regarded this as the soundest and most businesslike proposal yet put forward for dealing with unemployment.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I did not say anything about the banks.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I thought there was in the hon. and gallant Member's speech a suggestion that this was rather an unbusinesslike action to take. At any rate I feel sure that, whatever intention my hon. and gallant Friend may have had in his mind when he moved his Amendment, the assurance I have given him will completely convert him. It has also been said, and I think rightly, that the Government ought to be careful of the kind of thing guaranteed. We were told that we should not guarantee the ordinary shares of a company which was likely to be a failure. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the Bill he will
  1892
  see that what the Government have authorised is the guarantee of loans, and not ordinary share capital, and that in all cases that means that it is a debenture or something in the nature; of a debenture that is guaranteed. In all cases the Committee looked very carefully at what are the assets and what security is behind the loan. The best insurance that the House has that the schemes will be judged not only fairly but in a thoroughly businesslike way is in the personnel of the Committee which assisted the Government in the work. I cannot speak too highly of the gratitude which I feel that the whole country owes to Sir Robert Kindersley, Sir William Plender and Colonel Schuster for the work they have undertaken. They have had something like 100 meetings to investigate schemes. Apart from those meetings they have spent a great deal more time in bringing schemes into line and in helping people to mould their schema into a more definite form. It has been a labour for which they are entitled to the thanks of the community. The fact that all schemes go to that Committee, which has an unfettered discretion in the way it deals with them, is a complete answer to the anxiety felt by the right hon. Member for the City of London that there might be any undue preference given by a Government Department to one firm or another.
  Let me deal briefly with the criticism of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). He would not have Clause 1, Clause 2, Clause 3, or even a short title. What does that mean? The hon. Member objects to doles, and to guaranteed work, and his contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem is the survival of the fittest, tempered by the minimum amount of pauper relief which can be granted. I do not think that is a proposal which any Government would venture to make in dealing with a pressing problem. It has been suggested that there might be some overlapping between this scheme and the export credit scheme. That is not the case. They cover ground that is perfectly distinct. The first guarantees the capital issue; the other can be used to guarantee bills drawn against shipping documents for goods which are sold outside this country. Considerable credits have been sanctioned for South America in order to develop trade.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it to help export from Chile to this country or the contrary?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: To guarantee bills for the export of manufactured goods from this country to South America. May I say a few words about the Sudan loan? The conditions are set out in the Bill, and I think they ensure adequate security for the Treasury. I most sincerely echo the views expressed by my Noble Friend the Member for Fylde (Lord Stanley), who by his speech showed that he was not only an acquisition to this House, but an acquisition to his county and to the great trade of that county. Anyone who is acquainted with the position of the cotton trade, and has noticed the rising price of cotton the moment there is a shortage, and this at a time when the industry is not full of orders, must feel that it is not only in the interests of Lancashire but absolutely vital to the whole export trade of the country that we should, wherever possible, develop cotton growing in those countries which are physically capable of producing cotton.
  In conclusion, I wish to refer to the third part of the Bill, which contains the provisions dealing with Austria. It has been said in some quarters that those provisions are too hard. It has been said in other quarters that they are not hard enough. It may well be, and I think it is the fact, that those who, in an extraordinarily difficult situation, had to devise this scheme, and devise it with rapidity, have trodden the solid road between those two extremes. I commend this scheme to the acceptance of the House because it is the first big constructive scheme of an economic kind that has come from the League of Nations. Even were the scheme open to much more criticism than it is, I should ask the House to deal readily with it, because it is their first achievement. It is, however, an achievement which not only comes from a good source, but is well worthy of the source from which it comes. All sections of the House, I believe, will join in the tribute which was paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Fisher) to Lord Balfour for his work. The right hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned, although he is too modest to do so, that he was not without some share in achieving this result.
  1894
  Many points of detail were raised which might be more conveniently dealt with in Committee were they to be dealt with at all. It is possible for anyone to say that had they helped to make this agreement they would have made it rather different here or rather different there. Faced with the difficulties with which Lord Balfour was faced, any Member of this House who secured an equally good agreement might well be proud of his work. What we have here is an agreement which we have to take or leave, and I commend it to the House most emphatically as an agreement which we should take. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London asked why should we help Austria. He said after all we fought against Austria and Germany in the War; indeed they brought us into the War, which caused us terrible suffering and loss. That is quite true, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am saying something which is merely trite when I say that we have not only got to win the War, but to win the peace as well. On the lowest ground—I say nothing about other reasons for helping Austria—but on the very lowest ground, it is good business for us in this country to take this scheme and put it into operation in order to get trade going. Before the War, I believe something like £200,000,000 of trade used to go through Austria. The one chance of pulling these Central European countries together lies in getting co-operation between the great financial and technical skill which is to be found in Austria and the physical resources of the countries which are round about it. That is essential, and you have in this proposal, not only an agreement signed by Czecho-Slovakia, but a loan jointly guaranteed by Czecho-Slovakia, which but a short time ago was a country animated by a desire to build barriers against Austria.
  That surely is the best guarantee that a new spirit of co-operation and not a spirit of exclusive nationalism is coming into this part of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) whose views on a subject like this must tell greatly, questioned the wisdom of dealing with this Austrian position, because in dealing with Austria we were not dealing with an economic entity. I agree we are not, but I say also, is not the best way of converting Austria and the

  1895
  countries adjoining it into an economic entity, consistent with their national aspirations and national desires, by giving, not only our approval, but our assistance to this scheme? It is a scheme to which one of these countries has subscribed, and also desires, and I believe it will produce exactly that communion of interests which will make these countries the economic entity which the hon. Member desires to see. I appeal to the House to give this Bill its Second Reading. We have had a very full discussion and we have had that discussion at a time when discussion is more fruitful, perhaps, than in the long hours during which we discussed the Financial Resolution. I think I have dealt with most of the broad points raised in this Debate, and any points which have not been dealt with, can I believe be dealt with during the Committee stage.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was understood to say that the countries were jointly responsible. Is that so?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for drawing my attention to this point. We are jointly responsible—that is to say each country is responsible for its own share and for no more. If there is default by somebody else, we are not in any way responsible for that. I think from the speeches which have been delivered, it is apparent that apart from some details here and there, the general sense of the House is strongly in favour of the Bill, and I therefore ask that it now be given its Second Beading.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to raise one or two points which are not altogether unimportant in connection with the trade facilities portion of the Bill. It is within the memory of Members of this House that last week when the Minister of Labour announced the Government schemes for assisting trade, he mentioned that the capital figure was increased by £25,000,000, in respect of which these trade facilities were being given, and the House cheered in a manner which left no room for doubt that the extension of the amount, from £25,000,000 to £50,000,000 was felt to be a step in the right direction judged purely from the point of view of the number of unemployed it would
  1896
  absorb. The loans or amounts guaranteed up to 31st March, 1922, according to the White Paper amounts roughly to £15,000,000, and 7½ million pounds has been guaranteed as between March and the time the Minister made his statement last week. I am desirous of knowing if Government Departments go into the conditions under which these facilities are granted, and ascertain how they work out in the direction of absorbing the unemployed. I have information here which will indicate to the Government the point of view I am desirous of impressing upon them. I am informed that two of the very large schemes which have had Government help—one being the Underground Electric Railway which I find in the White Paper have received guaranteed facilities to the extent of £5,000,000–have a general system operating in the employment of workmen of two shifts of 12 hours each. Of course, men working at tunneling and working in compressed air could not possibly work a 12-hour shift, but I refer to those working in the free air. There is no reason why the Government should not be able to say, "This money is guaranteed as a means of assistance in absorbing the unemployed, and there should not be permitted any such thing as two shifts of 12 hours, but rather there should be three shifts of 8 hours each."
  I have every reason to believe the authority from whom I got my information, and I am informed that if three shifts of eight hours were instituted on the London County Council scheme and the Underground Railway scheme, at least 5,000 more adult workmen would be employed in London and the immediate suburbs. That number may not appear to be very large, but it is; very important, when the Government is guaranteeing money, to prevent men having to 6ign the registers at the Employment Exchanges, and to enable them to retain their physical usefulness by being in employment, that some good reason should be given for the continuance of this 12-hours shift which is now in operation upon these schemes. One reason given is that the custom of working two shifts of 12 hours is a very old-established one and that, as a matter of fact, the shifts are not of 12 hours' duration but of 10 hours, and that no overtime is paid for them. As to why the contractor carrying out the work for

  1897
  the London County Council could not engage men on eight-hour shifts, this astounding reason was given—that the job is a prime cost one, and therefore any additional cost brought about in consequence of employing more men by reason of the institution of an eight-hour shift, would have to be raised by the London County Council, and in their case the total extra coat of instituting three shifts of eight hours in the place of two shifts of 12 hours each was £6 4s. per week, and the extra cost of £6 4s. per week was allowed to stand in the way of absorbing at least one-third more men. In the extension of these guarantees to other great undertakings, the Government should be able, if it has not already that power, to put it to the people who are asking for these facilities that, where a continuous period of 24 hours is being worked, instead of having two shifts, there should be three shifts of workmen, so that the purpose of granting these facilities may be more effectively carried out.
  8.0 P.M.
  I would also like to raise one other point. Some railway companies have a condition that no male adult over the age of 40 years shall be employed. Many of the principal sufferers through unemployment are men from 40 upwards, with big family responsibilities, and I think that, if any such restriction exists on any work for which the Government make a grant under this scheme, such limit should be wiped out, in order that men may be taken from the Employment Exchange registers, who, whilst they are over 40 years of age, have larger responsibilities than many of those who are under 40. During the Debate upon the whole of these facilities, and in looking through the White Paper, I have found no trace of any great undertakings seeking facilities to employ any large body of female labour, and I want particularly to mention this, in the hope that facilities will be given, should there be applications for approval from some of our own home industries employing female labour. I hope some special attention will be given in that direction, because in all the provisions outlined by the Minister of Labour there cannot be absorbed more than 5,000 of the women at present unemployed, and when we remember that there are over 200,000 women signing the live register in this country, I hope the Government,
  1898
  if applications for these facilities come from any industry employing large bodies of female labour, will at once give those facilities in order that the women, at all events, who have as great responsibilities as the men and the youths, may at least participate to the extent of being employed under these schemes.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: In the White Paper which has been submitted, out of £14,000,000 spent, there is not one single local authority which figures as receiving a loan for assistance under this Measure, and I want to contrast the difference in treatment which is meted out to local authorities and to the private enterprises which are receiving these grants from the Government. I submit to the Government that, whilst they are, I think, perfectly rightly extending the facilities by this Bill, they should give more sympathetic attention and consideration to those large local authorities in large industrial areas which are in the most necessitous conditions. I may be told that they have other measures for dealing with them, but I submit that those measures are quite inadequate, and that they should be extended on as large lines as these are being extended. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said there were 85,000 unemployed in Vienna. We have in our large industrial cities in the North of England a much bigger proportion of unemployed than that, and I submit that, if you would only revise and amend the grants that you have made on a small scale to these districts to enable them to get on with public works, you would find infinitely more employment and relieve the situation to a much greater extent than you can do under the whole of these Measures. Whilst I do not under-rate the needs of Austria. I submit that our needs here are as great and as clamant, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not close his mind against the claims of large industrial areas throughout the country, which should have as sympathetic consideration and as liberal treatment as private enterprise is receiving under this Bill.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT, 1921.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move,
"That the Order which was made by the Board of Trade on the 9th day of October, 1922, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. 1921, and published, and which was laid before this House on the 27th day of November, 1922. shall continue in force."
After the very full Debate which took place in this House on Monday last on the general policy of the Act, I do not propose now to go into the general question of policy, but to confine myself to the sole question under this Motion, namely, whether this particular Order should or should not be confirmed upon its merits. The Order was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, on the 9th October, during the Parliamentary Recess, and it now comes to this House, in accordance with the terms of the Act, for confirmation. The Report of the Committee upon which my right hon. Friend made the Order has already been circulated and is in the possession of hon. Members. It was a strong Committee, of wide experience, as the names at the end are sufficient to justify, and the Committee was unanimous in its Report. The Committee gave a very extensive hearing to the case. They went into it most fully, they heard seventeen witnesses, some on behalf of the applicants, others on behalf of the opponents, and they also heard evidence, called by the opponents, from German witnesses who were members of the Convention of German Manufacturers in the incandescent mantle trade. The Committee were required to investigate and to find upon five questions. The first was. Is the price of the competing article below the price at which that article can be manufactured in this country? Secondly, If so, is that due to the depreciation of the exchange? Thirdly, Is employment in that industry being seriously affected, or likely to be seriously affected I Fourthly, What effect, if any, will such a duty have upon any other industry which uses these goods? Fifthly, Is there reasonable efficiency and economy in the manufacture of these goods in this country? Upon all those questions the Committee took evidence, and upon all of them they have reported in favour of the applicants.
1900
First, with regard to the scale of imports, the Committee find that in 1920 the imports from Germany—I am dealing entirely with Germany, which was the only country considered—were at the rate of 3,000,000 a year; in 1921 the imports were at the rate of 9,000,000, and for the period of 1922 which was before them during their hearing the imports had risen still further and were at the rate of 16,000,000; but the House will want to know more than that. The Committee held their sittings in June or July and August and reported at the beginning of September, and, therefore, before making an Order even upon that very strong Report, my right hon. Friend was careful to see what had been the rate of importation, not only during the time which the Committee had been able to review upon statistics, but during the time the Committee was sitting and after they had made their Report. There was a steadily increasing importation at a much higher rate than that which was given in evidence before the Committee, and upon which the Committee found in the strong way I have mentioned. In July the imports were 11,000 gross, in August 11,000 gross, in September 17,000 gross, and in October 26,000 gross. That is to say, that while the Committee, in looking at the 1922 figures which were then before them, taken in the earlier part of the year, found and recorded as very serious an increase which had come up to a rate of 16,000,000, if we take those four months and take the average the rate is increased to something like 28.000,000 a year. Then comes the question of the comparison between the English cost of production and the German cost of production, and on page 6 of their Report the Committee find this:
"The lowest of the costs we have examined (that is, the lowest of the English costs of production) is more than 50 per cent. in excess of the price at which the German mantles are sold, and we consider that this difference is too great to be substantially affected by any qualification we may make."
They had got therefore this great and increasing volume of importation, they had got the fact that, looking at it at its best, the English cost of production was SO per cent, higher than the price at which the Germans were selling, and then they find as a fact that this is due to the depreciation of the exchange. In para-

1901
graph 7 of their Report they say—and there is no dispute about this, because they had the German witnesses:
"German witnesses admitted that, as regards wages, the German manufacturer, paying the current rate equivalent at the time to about 2½d. per hour, had an advantage over his English competitor who paid 7d. per hour."
I should not have thought 7d. per hour was an excessively high rate of wages, and one might indeed hope, if this industry can get a chance, that wages might rise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Might!"] One thing we know with certainty is, that if this Order be not confirmed, every man and every woman in that industry will be thrown out of work and will get no wages at all. The comparison of the rates was sufficient to convince the Committee that there was a very considerable amount of competition due to the depreciation of the exchange, and they went on to say:
"Further, we are satisfied that overhead charges, and salaries in particular, form a considerably smaller cost in Germany than in England, and that the difference is at any rate largely due to the failure of wages, salaries and other costs to rise there in proportion to the fall in the exchange value of the currency."
Precisely that bounty which this provision is designed to meet. I would draw particularly the attention of the House to this. They say further on, after having dealt with the problem of the depreciation of the exchange:
"Incidentally we may add that we propose to ignore for the purposes of this Report the rapid fall in the value of the mark, which has occurred since we completed the hearing of evidence on 21st June, as we have no knowledge as to its precise effects on German trade."
"But," they continue—and this is signed by so admirable an economist as Sir John Barran, who was rightly described by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) as a first-class economist—
"But we would point out that our conclusions on this subject are only likely to derive additional support therefrom."
That is, the headlong flight from the mark was calculated to increase rather than diminish the bounty, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, the Committee were perfectly justified in that assumption, because if you take the fluctuation of the mark, and you compare the purchasing power in Germany and the purchasing power in England, you find that, at any rate up to October, when
1902
the catastrophic fall of the mark in two or three months was something like 2,000 to 14,000, the internal value is at least twice what the external value is. To come to the effect upon employment in this industry, the Committee deal with that on page 9 of their Report, and they say that in 1920 you had an employment of about 3,100 rising to 3,280 people in this industry, and 156,000 hours a week work. In 1921 that fell to 2,900, and for the week ending 26th May, 1922–the latest figures they could get—the employment had fallen from over 3,000 to 1,158. Then there was the further question before them as to whether the imposition of a duty on this industry would exert any effect upon any other industry which used mantles. The Committee were in some doubt as to whether they could reasonably say that there was any industry at all which used gas mantles "as material," but they erred on the generous side, and said they would take evidence from the gas trade, and on page 10 they say:
"The only evidence given before us as to the effect which the imposition of a duty on gas mantles would exert on employment in any other industry, was given on behalf of the gas industry. Without expressing any opinion as to whether that industry can be regarded as using gas mantles as material, we think that the effect on that industry of a duty on mantles would be negligible. We know of no other industry which could possibly be regarded as using gas mantles as material."
Then there came the question of efficiency, because we have always contended that the last thing we wanted to do was to bolster up an inefficient industry, and I am sure the House will remember an Amendment in the Act to ensure that that should not be done. It was referred to the Committee to find whether or not an industry making application was efficiently conducted. This is their finding as to that. It is on page 10, paragraph (11):
"It appears to be generally agreed that as regards equipment of the factories and methods of manufacture, the British industry is in every way as good as the German. Before the War two of the principal factories in this country were controlled by or closely associated with the leading German manufacturers, and were worked on identical lines with the German factories. They have continued on the same lines since they ceased to be German, and there is little, if any, difference between them and other British works. One of the German witnesses admitted that, if the English factories have maintained their methods and equipment up to the pre-War

1903
standard, they are as good as the German to-day. We see no reason for doubting that the quality of British mantles in general is fully equal to that of the German."
There is, therefore, thoroughly efficient production, and a thoroughly efficient article produced. The only other question which is raised is with regard to capitalisation. The Committee say:
"Very strong criticism was directed by one of the German witnesses as to the relation of the capital to the turnover as indicated by the figures. Several German examples were given in support of the opinion that the turnover should be at least twice the capital involved. We are inclined to think that some weight must be attached to this view, and that the industry is over-capitalised, a condition which may affect its overhead charges; but we feel that if we take into account the special circumstances under which it was developed during the War, we are justified in finding that it is conducted with reasonable efficiency and economy."
I think that will appeal to the House as a sound and reasonable conclusion. Of course, if factories were extended during or immediately after the War, and developments have taken place at times when prices were very high, that, naturally, if interest is to be earned on capital, does add somewhat to the overhead charges. But I would point out that if it is to be a reason in every case where you get thoroughly efficient production in every respect for ruling it out, it means that you rule out every single industry which has developed during the War, or immediately after the War, at a time when we were all pressing people to extend their factories, and the provision would be confined to the man who sat still in a time of crisis. I do not think that that would be either wise, right or reasonable. Might I point out that the amount of turnover on capital naturally depends and must depend upon the amount of trade which the industry is able to do, and if it is found that its output is falling off for the various reasons specified, including that of the depreciated exchange, it is natural and inevitable that the turnover should be smaller and, therefore, bear a higher ratio to the capital than it would have if able to compete under normal and reasonable conditions. I may say further that the fact that some extensions are made which are chargeable to the high price, that is a matter which really affects dividends rather than the cost of
1904
production. I do not think the hon. Member, who has a large business experience need be very anxious on that matter, because when you have the cost of production 50 per cent, higher than your competitor's selling price, it does not lead to making very large profits. Therefore the Committee found unanimously on all the five counts in favour of the applicants. So, I think, my hon. Friend was not only right but bound to make this Order which I now commend to the House for confirmation.
I would only add that the importance of this industry, not merely to the employés but to the country, was recognised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee. During the War it became of vital importance that we should strip our gas of various ingredients, with the results stated. The whole point is this—and I am quite sure that I am right in this—I think the experts here will bear me out that if you strip the gas you must use the mantle, and therefore it was accounted important to make special provision to ensure that the raw material in this industry should always be available for the manufacturer in this country, and specially taken out of German control. Therefore the industry not only stands on its merits, an industry employing a number of people, but is also an industry of very definite national value and of national interest outside itself. One final thing I would say: We are always told that the moment you put a duty on everybody raise their prices. That argument cannot be used in this instance, because since the Order was made the price of gas mantles per gross has fallen considerably. I commend this Order to the House.
Major ENTWISTLE: I hope the House will not confirm this Order which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade. The only argument I have heard the right hon. Gentleman put forward in favour of the Order, apart from quoting some of the remarks of the Committee, is that if this Order is not made, all the people in this industry will be thrown out of employment. Yet a few moments before he read from the Report the statement, which is on page 6:
"The lowest of the costs we have examined is more than 50 per cent, in excess of the price at which the German mantles are sold."
If the Report be carefully examined you will see that in this comparison of the

1905
lowest cost of the British manufacturer and the highest price at which the German mantle is sold there is a difference of more than 50 per cent. The Report goes on to say:
"We consider that this difference is too great to be substantially affected by any qualifications we may make."
What is the Order? The Order is to add 33⅓ Per cent. duty, which admittedly, on the face of it, will not help the British manufacturer at all. On the top of that we have the statement from the President of the Board of Trade that since the Order was made there has been a great fall in the exchange. If the exchange is the cause of the trouble from which the gas mantle manufacturers are suffering, the difference will be all the greater, and still less will be the advantage of this duty of 33⅓ per cent, to the manufacturer.
There is no doubt about it, that it is a farce to pretend that this 33⅓ per cent. duty is necessary. What did the President of the Board of Trade go on to say when he was using his own arguments, as apart from the arguments in the Report of the Committee? In regard to over-capitalisation, he said, that if that argument held any weight, it would mean that any industry in this country, which was started during or since the War, would not be able to stand on its legs. Yes, but if these applications are allowed to go on, on the evidence which is sufficient to comply with the terms of the Act, it means that the price of articles will be fixed by the standard of the manufacturer in any industry of mushroom growth, who has not the experience of the more highly technical and long-developed industry in some other country, and that we will have those of our industries, which rely upon these materials, suffering from the fact that we have to keep going certain industries which, obviously, have not experience enough to work on economic lines. We have an instance of this only too well in the fabric glove case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There, in order to keep alive a few manufacturers who started the business for the first time during the War, we are doing harm to the great cotton industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If we protect, by virtue of this legislation, any firm or any industry which opened during the War or since the War under its protection, or under the exceptional conditions under which
1906
the industry was started—if we protect all these by this legislation—then it is good-bye to the general trade of this country. We shall lose our export trade, and we will have millions more unemployed on our streets.
Let us look at the history of this gas mantle case, which is a very illuminating history. We had, in the first instance, I think, a Committee which reported on what articles should be included within Part I of the Act as coming within the definition of articles of a key industry. That Committee, under the persuasion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths), whom we all recognise as "the gas mantle workers' friend," that Committee included, or recommended that gas mantles should be included, as a key-article. When the Safeguarding of Industries Act came before this House who opposed the inclusion of gas mantles amongst this scheduled list of key articles? It was the Board of Trade themselves, and they did so on the ground that gas mantles were not necessary for the protection of the country, and were not a key industry. They very strongly opposed it, and Amendments were put down by the hon. Baronet opposite to get gas mantles expressly included in the scheduled list of articles under Part I of the Act, and the House, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, refused to do it, and gas mantles were deliberately and expressly excluded from the Schedule under Part I of the Act.
What happened? The gas mantle manufacturers were not satisfied. Certain raw materials used in the mantles were amongst the articles scheduled under Part I, and so the gas mantle manufacturers went to the Referee and tried to get his decision that gas mantles should come under the Act. The Referee decided that gas mantles did not come within the Act, but that one or two of the materials used in gas mantles did, and he said that the Board of Trade could impose a duty on those raw materials, which were thorium and cerium. Still the manufacturers were not satisfied, and they announced that they would appeal to the Courts of Law against this decision. That seemed rather surprising, because it was already provided in the Act that the decision of the Referee should be final, and when the Board of

1907
Trade were asked how on earth an appeal could be made to the Courts of Law on this question, we got the astounding reply that, as the Referee had only announced his decision, but had not actually signed it, there was still the possibility of an appeal to the Law Courts.
But although that rather subtle argument appealed to the Board of Trade it did not appeal to the Courts of Law, and they refused to hear any appeal from the Referee. The Act says that no article shall be taxed if it has changed its identity. Can anyone say that the thorium and cerium in a gas mantle have not changed their identity? The mantle manufacturers, after failing to persuade the House of Commons to give them a tax on mantles, went to the Referee to get it by a side wind, and they attempted to interpret the law differently from that which this House intended. The mantle manufacturers then—in the teeth of a provision that no appeal lies from the Referee's decision—tried by a subterfuge to get a decision from the Courts of Law, but the Judges turned it down. You would have thought that they would have been satisfied with that, but they actually got the Board of Trade then to levy this tax on the raw materials.
It was obviously impossible in practice to value the raw materials in every gas mantle and levy a duty in respect of them. Therefore this duty on the materials failed to work, and the Board of Trade, under pressure of the manufacturers, had to decide how they could satisfy them. They said, "We cannot go into an investigation as to the value of the materials comprised in a mantle, but we will assume that on the average in the ordinary case of a gas mantle there will be a certain percentage of these raw materials," and they levied a 5 per cent, duty on the mantle itself. That was contrary to the referee's decision, and the Board of Trade said, "If you are not satisfied with that, you can go to the courts," and that is the position in which the case stands. Therefore we have a 5 per cent, duty levied as to which it is questionable whether it is authorised by law, and which cannot be levied in practice.
1908
Then the mantle manufacturers had another brain wave. They said, "We have this 5 per cent, duty under Part I, which is not working very well; let us have a shot to see what we can get under Part II." They went Lo a Committee of business men to get protection under Part II of the Act. As a matter of fact, the provisions of Part II are so wide that, believe me, almost any article which comes from any country with a depreciated exchange could properly be held, on the evidence submitted, to come under it and could be dealt with by these committees. Who is to say whether or not a depreciated exchange is the cause of goods from Germany or whatever any other country is concerned being sold lower than the cost at which such goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom?
What is the test applied as to whether the cause of the trouble is a depreciated currency? It is by having evidence of what wages the German workman is paid in terms of marks, and, having got that, they ask how much that will come to in sterling, at the current rate of exchange. Now that is a very fallacious test. I would like to take a much fairer test to decide whether the unemployment that any industry is suffering from is due to a depreciated exchange. We have only had a depreciated currency since the War. Before the War all exchanges were more or less stabilised, and there were only slight or minor fluctuations in those exchanges. Now, if we are to arrive at any true comparison as to the effect of a depreciated currency, I submit we must make that comparison with conditions which prevailed pre-War. That is the only comparison which is of the slightest value, and, therefore, the only proper test to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the cause of this trouble is depreciated exchange is to lake the prices at which these goods were sold in the markets of the world before the War, because that is what counts.
It is no good saying that we can erect a barrage round ourselves and be indifferent to world price, because if we do that we should very soon lose the whole of our export trade. We have to find out what were the prices of those goods before the War, and then ascertain whether the manufacturers of this country can manufacture those goods at those

1909
world prices plus the legitimate increase which has occurred all over the world in the cost of materials and through the depreciation of money. Let us look at the position with regard to gas mantles before the War. I am taking the evidence of the Report, as I have no other source of information. In April, 1921, the convention of manufacturers—that is of German manufacturers—raised the retail price of mantles from 9 to 11 marks apiece, the latter figure being equivalent, at the then rate of exchange, to 25s. per gross, retail price. This may be regarded as on the average about 50 per cent, above the pre-War price expressed in sterling. If you have to arrive at a figure on which 25s. is an increase of 50 per cent., it is approximately 17s. Therefore, 17s. was the retail price of gas mantles before the War.
What is the price at which Germans have been selling them—the price which our gas mantle manufacturers declare to be undercutting? We find that in March, 1922. the price was 41s. 10½d. per gross retail. That has to be compared with 17s. before the War. The net increase therefore is far more than 100 per cent. It is something approximating 150 per cent. Is not that a sufficient increase to enable the British manufacturer to compete if he is carrying on his business efficiently? The only test whether he is doing that is this: Is he carrying it on as efficiently as the German was before the War, when he had to meet the competition of world prices? What is the position taken up by the British manufacturer? He says he cannot manufacture at less than from 47s. to 54s. per gross wholesale. If you add to that wholesale price the ordinary difference which, judging from the other figures, is added to arrive at the retail price, you get figures ranging from 51s. to 58s. per gross retail, and that is the price which you have to compare with the German pre-War price of 17s., an increase of more than 300 per cent. Is not that far more than is necessary to allow the British manufacturer to compete? Would it not be enough, if he is able to sell at double the price which obtained before the War? I would ask Members of the Labour party, are wages, on the average, more than 100 per cent. above the pre-War figure? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Wages constitute the one instance given to prove that the ex-
1910
change is the cause of the trouble, which is that the German workers are paid such small wages. But if you can get 150 or 200 per cent, increase over the pre-War price surely, with the British workman not being paid more than 100, and perhaps even less than 100 per cent., above his pre-War wage, it is impossible to say that the cause of the trouble here is the depreciated exchange?
It is nothing of the sort. It is because we are trying by means of this fatuous legislation to bolster up industries which cannot stand on their own legs without this artificial protection. That is the line of policy on which we are proceeding by means of this legislation, and in the end, if it is not checked, it will result in the entire destruction of British trade. It is a very serious thing. One necessary condition which has to be proved under this Act has not been satisfied because nobody can say it is depreciated exchange which is the cause of unemployment in the industry. There again I submit you cannot compare unemployment between 1922 and 1920. The rate of comparison should be pre-War: that is the only fair comparison. We have only the figures of imports from 1920 to 1922. We have the figures of employment from 1920 to 1922, but we have not the figures to compare with pre-War conditions, although they say that the cause of this trouble is depreciated currency. It is nothing of the sort. It is because we are trying to bolster up industries which, owing cither to lack of experience, or machinery, or the skill of the workers involved, have not yet reached the degree of efficiency which there is abroad. If we start bolstering up certain of these industries which are inefficient we are doing infinite harm to numerous other industries in this country which are efficient, and which can compete on the basis of world prices.
Another point which I should like to notice in passing is this. It is stated in this Report that the German manufacturers are further assisted by their large stocks of monazite sand which were accumulated in that country before the War and which will keep them supplied with thorium for a considerable period. Let it be noted, therefore, that one of the reasons why the Germans have been able to under-cut the British in regard to gas mantles, and why they can do it now, is that certain raw materials are available in

1911
their own country. These stocks of monazite sand, whatever they may do, do not prove that the cause of the trouble is depreciated exchange. If it is due to the presence of this monazite sand it is not one of the conditions which can properly be taken into account in determining whether or not an order should be made under this section. I think that the President of the Board of Trade has passed too lightly over the important item of this Report dealing with over-capitalisation in the gas mantle industry. When we come to the actual conclusions in the Report we find that paragraph (6) says:
"We are of opinion that the gas mantle industry is over-capitalised and that this fact must tell against full economy in cost control, but that as regards processes of manufacture and use of materials it is up-to-date and efficiently conducted."
I submit that before applicants can be said to have satisfied the terms of the Act, they have to do more than satisfy the Committee and the House of Commons that the process of manufacture only is efficient. They must also show that the cost control is at a reasonable figure, and I submit that in view of the Report, which states that the industry is over-capitalised, that is a sufficient reason, with the other facts I have mentioned, why the Board of Trade should not have made an order in this case. I only want to add that I am convinced that, on the kind of evidence which is given, and which it has become a custom to give in these cases, with the German currency depreciated as it is, there is not a single article coming from any country with a depreciated exchange which cannot, with a sympathetic Committee, get the benefit of this Act. I think that that is a matter of extreme danger to this country. It is not a matter which merely affects a few workers who are friends of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths); it is one which involves a large principle, and which might in the long run result in great unemployment throughout every industry in this country.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: We are very much enlightened by the speech of my right hon. Friend who opened this Debate on behalf of the Government, and also by what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. I had no
1912
idea that in my lifetime I could possibly become so notorious as I have become since Monday. On all sides of the House I have been hailed as, in the words of my hon. and gallant Friend, the gas mantle workers' friend. It takes my thoughts for the moment from this House to where those friends of mine are, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, if he will come with me one night and see the workers, he will be ready to give up his own seat and come and contest mine. These workers, whose friend I am proud to be, are composed in roost cases of young women and girls, and one of the many joy spots in my experience in Central Wandsworth has been meeting these good people when they are full of work, happy and contented and prosperous, all going home with a smile, glad to have done a good day's work. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the gas mantle industry did not come within the Act and was not a key industry, but I would add that, as a result of many questions which I put in this House, and also of many deputations which I presented to the then President of the Board of Trade, a promise was given, which I think will be found recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that, although the industry could not come within the scope of the Act as a key industry, it would come under the Act—I presume in Part II.
Major ENTWISTLE: Every industry could come in under them.
9.0 P.M.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: That was the promise, and I believe it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should like to mention one other point before I get on to my own story. My hon. and gallant Friend dealt with the question of efficiency. I have had some experience in travelling round the world and in industrial life generally, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as efficiency goes, both as regards the manufacturers themselves and as regards the workers, I have never in all my experience seen an industry where the two work together with as much efficiency as could be expected anywhere. That is the ease in Central Wandsworth, which is the home of the industry in this country. As regards the question of capitalisation, I do not know how some firms work their business, but I do know that your working costs are not affected by what your

1913
capital is or what it is not. A properly run manufacturing concern or organisation will first take its actual cost of production, in labour and material, and should add the cost of the staff at the works which is necessary in order to product the article. That would be the actual cost of production.
Mr. MARDY JONES: Plus profit.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I do not envy those who have any money in the industry. I would ask the House to follow me into what happened in the last Parliament. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who were in the last Parliament that I presented a Petition to this House, signed by 4,200 workers,
"Praying that gas mantles may again be included as a key industry in the Safeguarding of Key Industries Bill."
That was not signed at my instigation, but I was requested to present it. It was got up by the workers themselves, and those workers lived, besides working, in Wandsworth, Streatham, Mitcham, Battersea, Putney, Tooting, Westminster, Hornsey, Camberwell, St. Pancras, and many other districts, and if there are any hon. Members on the other side of the House who represent any of those places I would ask them kindly to note that. That petition was followed by a town hall meeting, with which, again, I had absolutely nothing to do. I did not know of it until I was asked to take the chair. I took the chair, and the meeting was packed by all these workers. It was organised by the Joint Industrial Council, which, as far as I can gather—I heard it for the first time to-day—is a body similar to the one that was mentioned by an hon. Member in connection with the cotton industry. On the platform was a Labour representative. I will quote his name. I am sure he will not mind. He was Mr. Scott, the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Industrial Council. This meeting took place on the 14th April last year. Mr. Scott referred to the fact that gas mantles had been included in the original Bill and then taken out, and he protested against the trickery of the Government in doing that in face of the numerous promises which had been given. That was from the Labour leader representing the workers on the platform in the town hall at Wandsworth, at a meeting called for the sole purpose of protect-
1914
ing the workers which he represented. The resolution at that meeting was:
"That this public meeting of the electors of Wandsworth and Streatham, representing over 4,000 gas mantle workers, draws attention to the serious unemployment in the gas mantle industry caused by the importation of mantles from abroad and demands that this industry be reinstated in the list of key industries, and further that this industry shall be protected against further German dumping."
An HON. MEMBER: There is no dumping.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Indeed there is, as I will point out presently. I do not think I have ever attended any public meeting in my life where there was more determination and enthusiasm to try to get some protection for the industry. These people wore working hard, turning out good work, quite well done and as efficient as any mantle which has ever been made. The hon. Member who preceded me quoted a price of 41s. 6d. That really does not convey much. There are soveral grades and it depends what grade it was. May I remind the House that in 1914 the industry was practically non-existent or in its infancy. The hon. Member who preceded me said, you want to make a comparison between to-day and pre-War prices and conditions. This would not be a logical conclusion to draw. There were certainly in 1921, as far as I can gather, 4,000 workers in the gas mantle industry in this country, and to-day there are only very few- over 1,000 working. Recently I had an opportunity to visit several of the works at Wandsworth which I have seen under different circumstances, and I can assure the House, without any exaggeration at all, that they are living from hand to mouth, not knowing how long they are going to keep going or when they are going to be shut up. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that what makes them happy?"] No. I was referring to the past then. I wish they were now as happy as when I saw them the first time.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): May I ask hon. Members to give the hon. Baronet a patient hearing. No one is obliged to listen to a speech.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: The difference between that 1,000 and the former 4,000 is that the remainder are unemployed through no fault of their

1915
own. Had this industry been included in the Act, I am convinced that the whole of the 4,000 would still have been working. I looked at the balance sheet of one company; it did not take more than a glance to see that there was a dead loss for the year of £183,000. I wanted to satisfy myself so that when pleading to this House for some protection under this Bill I could also state the financial position which is indeed very gloomy. I have not been into the figures of the trade as a whole. They are all working from hand to mouth. (An HON. MEMBER: "Over-capitalisation."] I do not think there is a single company there, as I conceive it, which has any big capitalisation at all. If anything they would probably be found to have too little working capital, and many of them will be wondering whether they will be able to continue next year.
Mr. G. SPENCER: How many hands have they?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Four thousand were unemployed.
Mr. SPENCER: At that one place?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: No, in all the works. There is hardly a place bigger than this Chamber.
Mr. SPENCER: How many employés were there in that particular instance?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I should say about 150 when I went there, and I have seen something approaching 600 when working full time. Another had something like 600. I believe some of the companies have other works elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Germany?"] I never came across one who to my knowledge had works in Germany. If I had I should have been down on them like a thousand of bricks.
Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Do we understand that a factory employing 600 people lost £180,000 in one year's trading?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Not necessarily in one factory. The net result of their trading for the one year, according to this balance sheet, showed a net loss of £180,000 odd.
Mr. SPENCER: Can the hon. Baronet tell us how many people were employed by the group of factories which lost £180,000?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: No. I do not think I can tell the hon. Member that, but I think I am right in saying that there were 600 there when I first went. When I went there the other day the number was 125 or 130. They were women, and in addition there were about half a dozen men also.
Mr. SPENCER: Then they lost about £200 per head.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I am certain that the firm in question would not object to show the balance sheet to the hon. Member, and it would be instructive to look at. That, is my best answer to the hon. Member's questions. It is generally known amongst people who had studied this matter that the total consumption of gas mantles in this country in one year is about 50,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Seventy millions!"] I have taken it on a conservative basis at the present time. It may have been more last year or the year before. A fortnight before this Act came into force the foreigners dumped into this country one million gas mantles. Assuming that this million of gas mantles could have been kept out of this country, it would have, meant in one week wages of, approximately, £8,000, most of which would have gone to the girls and to women to whom I refer.
In 1921–and I ask the Members of the Labour party to bear this in mind—the average rate of wage paid abroad compared with what we were paying was 2½d. per hour as against our 9d. per hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Report says 7d."] Whether it is 2½d., 3½d., 9d., 10d., 8d. or 7d., there is a big difference between the wages paid here and the wages paid abroad, and it must fundamentally affect the whole position of the people whom I am trying to defend. My duty, as representing these people in the House of Commons, is to put their views before hon. Members, and to tell the House what they think and what, are their grievances. I saw in the "Times" this morning, and no doubt other hon. Members will have seen it, an article relating to the subject we are now discussing. It is a well written article, and no one could imagine that it was written in any partisan spirit. It is a general view of the position, and those hon. Members who have not read it would do well to read it. I may summarise it by saying that the article

1917
points out that this is a question of expediency. It asks whether these duties are really keeping these industries going, and whether they would shut down in the absence of these duties. The article further asks whether it is not a fact that, our competition is keeping foreign prices down. It is suggested by the hon. Member for South West Hull (Major Entwistle) that these duties will increase the cost of the article. May I point out that the German manufacturers met the duty of 8s. 6d. by cutting their price from 34s. 6d. to 24s. 6d. That is the gross average. Following that, the English price was also cut. It is on evidence that these duties, whatever else has been the result of them, have, in fact, meant a reduction in the cost of gas mantles. It is clear that the price has been out since the Act was passed, and that answers the point raised by my hon. Friend as to the price going up. What would happen if our works closed down to-morrow? The price would jump again to 51s. 6d. If the foreigners had no competition in this country they would put the price up against us.
Major ENTWISTLE: How was it that the price was 17s. before the War if they could have got 50s.?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: The pre-War comparison is quite out of the question. You cannot compare the cost of materials and labour pre-War with the cost to-day. Let the hon. Member ask the Labour Members whether the workers are not paid more to-day. I have done my best to show that, being a friend of the gas mantle workers, I am a friend of the British worker before I am a friend of the foreigner engaged in this trade. I wish hon. Members could have seen the factories as I have seen them in good and bad times. There is no difference of opinion, that is if we can get the gas mantle industry covered by this Act we shall certainly obtain more work for our British workers and produce more gas mantles.
All civilised Governments have three duties to fulfil. One is to protect the life of the subject. The second is to protect the freedom of the subject—social, political and religious. Thirdly, to protect the means of livelihood of the subject. That is all I am asking hon.
1918
Members to do. I am speaking on behalf of the workers in this industry. I wish the Leader of the Labour party had been in his place in the House, but in his absence I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to press on his Leader the necessity of reminding his followers that these are not ordinary times and that young industries must be safeguarded. Throughout the Debates since the House met, we have heard it said on every side that we are all trying, in one direction or another, to find a means of helping our country over these difficult times. I do claim that this is one direction in which we can do some good. I do not now ask for this to be enacted permanently. I ask for its continuity for a time—the time specified in the Bill is short—but it will help in this industry to tide over these very bad times and to get the wheels of trade running again. I sincerely hope that the Labour party will not follow the Wee Free element by raising the old cry of Tariff Reform or Free Trade. May I tell the Labour party this? The sooner they say, "We have nothing to do with either Tariff Reform or Free Trade, but we will treat the industry of this country fairly and squarely and protect it where necessary," the quicker they will get on to this side of the House, but they never will until they do.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going rather wide of gas mantles.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I get back to gas mantles, and draw the attention of the House to the nature of the opposition to the inclusion of gas mantles in this Act? Where did it come from, and what was it? The opposition to gas mantles being included in the Bill came from the gas mantle trade, the merchant side of it, the middleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, we have had that in evidence.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that large corporations and city councils all over the country, in addition to the wholesale trade, protested against this Measure?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Anyhow, the effective opposition came from the gas mantle trade itself, from the merchant side of it, also gas com-

1919
panies, with running contracts under which they had to supply the various municipalities with light and mantles, and so forth. The opposition came from no one except the people who had absolutely nothing to gain through the industry being maintained otherwise than for their own personal interests.
Mr. DARBISHIRE: What about your interests?
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: How can I gain anything from it?
Mr. DARBISHIRE: You are a representative.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I have already told the House that I am speaking to the best of my ability for the workers. I am only trying to represent the workers.
Mr. DARBISHIRE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is accusing the merchants of having acted in their own personal interests. I say that is exactly what the people whom he is representing are doing.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: It is not my personal interest.
Mr. DARBISHIRE: I say those whom you are representing.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Incredible as it may seem, the best those people could do who opposed the repeated application from the trade manufacturers and the workers to be incorporated in the Act was to produce two German manufacturers, bring them over to this country, and to take their evidence. I was so astounded when I heard it that I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade on 22nd June, 1922. I asked him:
"Whether he can give the names of any German manufacturers of gas mantles, or representatives of the same, who have been permitted to tender evidence or to make statements at the hearing of the British gas mantle manufacturers' application, under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether any facilities for their attendance at the hearing of such application were afforded to them by the Board of Trade?"
The answer I received was as follows:
"I am informed that the Committee, at the suggestion of the interests opposing the application referred to, decided to hear evidence from Herr Heinrich Ziegler, one
1920
of the managing directors of the Auerlicht Gesellschaft, of Berlin, and from Herr Bernhard Young"—
the name is "Young" here. His real name is "Jung"—
"manager of the mantle factory of that company. No special facilities were granted for the attendance of these persons, but the Board of Trade suggested to the Home Office that, in the event of their being no objection to the witnesses in question being admitted to this country, it would be convenient if the necessary permits could be issued without delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1922; cols. 1519–1520. Vol. 155.]
All I can say is that if they have to bring two German manufacturers over here to bolster up their case then it must be weak. The workers to whom I have referred are people who want to earn their living. I leave it to the House to decide with what object the Opposition brought these people over here: whether it was in the interests of the development of British trade or in the interests of the British worker. We had two days very interesting debate on the 9th and 10th May last year. We are to-day to a greater extent repeating many of the things which were then said, and I would ask hon. Members who were not in the House then to read that Debate. A question was asked recently as to what duty was obtained from gas mantles imported into this country during a certain month. Fortunately I have the information. I will not weary the House with full details—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—but it suffices to say that the importation of mantles from Germany during the week ending 14th October and up to the week ending 25th November amounted to 38,916 gross, and the value was £55,393. Had the works in Central Wandsworth been making those gas mantles, it would not only have kept them busy full time and happy, but would have brought the Chancellor of the Exchequer £18,604 in duty.
Mr. PRINGLE: The duty was on them.
Sir JOHN SIMON: The Order came into force on the 9th October last.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: The number of mantles imported into this country in the week ending 14th October was 4,292 gross; week ending 21st October, 5,697 gross; week ending 28th October, 6,116 gross; week ending 4th November, 5,525 gross; week ending 11th November, 9,415 gross; week ending 18th

1921
November, 5,157 gross; and week ending 25th November, 2,714 gross, making a total of 33,916 gross.
Mr. PRINGLE: The duty was on then.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I am not so much concerned in the matter of duty at the moment, but I do want to see these people at work, and I earnestly beg the House to remember that I have to present petitions to this House praying that these workers may have some protection under this Act. In the interests of those workers I beg the House with all earnestness not to consider this as a question of Tariff Reform or Free Trade. I appeal to the Labour benches to help these workers to carry on. Much has been said about the improvement of trade. My business lies mostly overseas in foreign countries and all my work is competing against the foreigner, and I am convinced that you are not going to have any quick recovery, and that while you are going to have ups and downs the position will not be much worse or much better than it is at present during the next seven or ten years. My only real fear is that under this Act the Government do not go far enough. I should like to hear the Prime Minister ask hon. Members of the Labour party to make some suggestions for some temporary protection for trade and industry in this country in the manner now suggested and really do something to protect the workers.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is going far beyond the limits of the question under discussion.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I am sorry, but I hope that my appeal will not be in vain. The picture which I have tried to paint is that of something which does cause uneasiness. There is anxiety in the minds of these workers, and there will be great relief among them if as a result of this Debate they will have some further protection in their trade.
Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Baronet made a very strong appeal to the Labour Benches, on the ground that there is an industry in Central Wandsworth which urgently requires the protection which this Order affords. I think that I express the opinion of all Labour Members when I say that we should only too willingly support any proposal designed to
1922
provide employment in this country, provided we are satisfied that, having regard to the conditions of industry as a whole, it will do good. The hon. Baronet at the same time appealed to us to consider industry as a whole. That is precisely what we have to do now, so far as this Order is concerned. It is not a case of picking out hard and difficult circumstances in a particular industry here and there, but a case of pursuing a policy which is going to contribute to the industrial recovery of this country. But I would remind the House that in the concluding paragraph of this Order it is laid down that the Order shall continue in force until the 19th August, 1924. So we are asked to impose this Measure for a period of about, two years ahead, and the House will agree that there must be very strong, substantial reasons before we give our assent to any such proposal.
The President of the Board of Trade founded his defence of the Government proposal very largely on the Report of a Committee which considered this industry, but any hon. Member who reads this Report impartially will find as much in it against the present proposal as he will find in favour of it. Clearly the Committee has tried to discharge its duty impartially, and we could make a very strong case on the basis of this Report for rejecting the Order which is now proposed. There are one or two general considerations in the Report. In the first, place, this industry in Germany has enjoyed certain advantages in commodities necessary to the industry in comparison with this country. In the second place, there was apparently controversy before the Committee as to whether this was not, from some points of view, a declining industry, having regard to the demand for electricity for lighting purposes and gas for heating, and that may be a factor to be taken into account in considering the position of this problem in Great Britain. Thirdly, and much more important, there were very definite references to over capitalisation in the industry, and what I regard as a very strong statement by the Committee on that point in the five or six recommendations which they made on the subject.
Having regard to these three considerations alone, they would make it very difficult to-night for us to approve an Order of this character without very serious

1923
investigation, because the broad danger which arises is just the danger of giving a subsidy, whatever it may be worth—personally I think it may not amount to much—for certain conditions of inefficiency in an industry in this country, or at all events, if not conditions of inefficiency, conditions which would stand very considerable improvement. That is a fair way to state the case. On that ground alone I personally, and probably many others, would be prepared to oppose this proposal. But, very briefly indeed, there is a fundamental reason why we should reject the Order. Many of us recall in the last Parliament the circumstances under which the Safeguarding of Industries Bill was passed, and we remember the controversy regarding Part II of that Measure. Part II of the Measure was designed, as the then President of the Board of Trade explained, not to give any adequate protection to industries in this country which were suffering because of the export advantage of depreciated exchanges elsewhere, but to try to safeguard them to some extent. He did not suggest that this would in any way help the foreign exchanges or their recovery. He merely said that this is a Measure of safeguard or protection for certain industries which may be more or less closely affected by the abnormal conditions which now obtain, as far as the exchanges are concerned.
I think we can count for all practical purposes on the first two recommendations in this Report. The first recommendation is that the Committee
"are in the main satisfied that the bulk of the German mantles which are imported into this country are sold to dealers at the prices fixed by the Convention of German Mantle Manufacturers."
There is very definite regulation as far as price is concerned, and reference is made to that regulation in the course of the Committee's Report. In the second place, the Committee state that the price at which the mantles are sold
"is very much above German manufacturing costs."
I find it quite impossible to understand how we are to reconcile this statement and the present proposal in the Order with the argument in support of Part II when it was passed through this House, because a very large part of the argument turned on an effort to deal with dumping
1924
or the offer for sale of goods in this country below the cost of production in the country of origin. That is not alleged in this Report at all. Therefore we get into very unsafe waters when we bring forward an Order and support it by a Report which does not fit the facts of the general Debate.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure the hon. Gentleman docs not want to misrepresent the position, or the purpose of this Committee's inquiry. It was never suggested that there was any case of dumping. This was an application in respect of depreciated exchange, and depreciated exchange alone.
Mr. GRAHAM: My contention is that the two things are very closely connected and, indeed, inseparable. This Order is entitled, "Safeguarding of Industries. Prevention of Dumping." It is under this Order that the proposal is made by the President of the Board of Trade. Either the circular or something else is wrong. The real reason for opposing all schemes of this character is that they are parts of a general policy which is utterly against the recovery of the foreign exchanges at the present time. It is certainly utterly against, the recovery of British industry as a whole and the provision of further employment. In the third of the Committee's recommendations there is a reference to currency conditions in Germany, and to the conditions of this depreciated exchange. But, to a very large extent, these conditions are internal conditions in Germany and, in any case, this proposal would not help the situation in the least. Every Committee which has reported on the recovery of foreign exchanges has laid it down that that recovery will depend to a material extent on the freest possible interchange of goods. But here is a definite proposal which is in the direction of the exclusion or the restriction of goods.
It may be a very hard doctrine to lay down to-night, but I believe it is absolutely sound—that we have simply to face the entry of German and other goods into this country if there is to be any recovery at all. I put that to hon. Members in all parts of the House on the ground of reparation, if on no other ground. How are we to get reparation if, step by step, we adopt Orders of this kind, which are definitely in the direction

1925
of trade restriction? So much stress has been laid on the precise terms of the proposal itself that I think it is unnecessary to say more on that point now. The general argument regarding industry as a whole is one which must always weigh with the House when we are considering individual orders. In my judgment, so far from adding to employment in this country, we have only to multiply Measures of this kind in order to lead us into greater difficulties than those which now exist.
Mr. PETO: The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) says we must be satisfied before approving of this Order that it is going to do something to assist industry as a whole, and that we must not pick out one industry here and another there. Unfortunately, I have not had the benefit which the hon. Member has had of attending the Debates in this House when this Act was passed in the last Parliament. I have had to turn to the Act itself, and I see the whole of Part II of this Act under which the present Order comes, is based upon the principle of picking out an industry here and another there. Section 2 of the Act, which is the commencement of Part II, states:
"If, on complaint being made to the Board to that effect, it appears to the Board that goods of any class or description (other than articles of food or drink) manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom

(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined; or

(b) at prices which by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured,"

and so forth. There are two conditions, one or other of which has to be complied with. The hon. Member complains that this Order is headed "Prevention of dumping." That is the heading to Part II of the Act, and the phrase is obviously used to show that it is under this Part of the Act, and not under the earlier Part, that the Order is made. It would not be within the limits of orderly Debate to proceed on the general question of whether we ought to adopt a Protective tariff for goods generally in this country or not. The hon. Member says we should not pass this Order, because we are not dealing with the industry of the country as a whole. But
1926
if we cannot find employment for all our people, let us, at any rate, find employment for some of them. The hon. Member went on to ask what would happen if we applied these Orders more generally. The provisions of the Act are very wide, and I agree that a great deal can be done under Part II. I will be perfectly candid with the House. The hon. Member asks if we apply these Orders, how are we going to get reparation? If I got the choice as between reparations and employment for the people at the present time, I should choose employment. I believe we can devise a means of getting reparations without injuring employment, but that is not the question now. We have to consider whether this Order will or will not provide employment for the people of the country, and in that connection I ask the House to remember the Preamble to this Act. It says the Act is:
"An Act to impose duties of Customs on certain goods with a view to the safeguarding of certain special industries and the safeguarding of employment in industries in the United Kingdom, against the effects of the depreciation of foreign currencies, etc."
10.0 P.M.
It is definitely enacted to provide employment for the people, and here is an Order which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) has pointed out, in words which I think ought to appeal to the House as being pathetic, is intended to benefit those young women who are otherwise going to be thrown out of employment, and only one in four of whom are employed at the present moment. It is, at any rate, giving them some safeguard for employment during the next two years. I do not think it is much to ask, and I cannot understand how any hon. Member in any part of the House can oppose it. I think we are all agreed as to providing employment. I recognise fully that hon. Members opposite are anxious to do all they can to provide employment as long as they are satisfied that the means adopted will not cause more unemployment than employment. I am absolutely satisfied as to what the effect of the Order will be, and I will give the House one illustration of why I am satisfied. One of the most contentious matters introduced under Part II of the Act was that of fabric gloves. I followed the controversy very closely, and

1927
I think I am entitled to show what has been the operation in my own constituency of one of the last Orders made under this part of the Act, so that we may form some judgment as to what will be the effect in the case of gas mantles.
During the recent Election I studied more closely than I had before the various industries in two of the principal towns in my constituency. They are cabinet-making, shipbuilding, a mosquito net manufactory, a leather glove factory, a collar works, and a fabric glove factory. I found the shipbuilding yards were practically deserted, with 25 men employed where 500 had been employed. In other concerns only half the former numbers were employed at the best. The collar works were closed down, and one of the principal cabinet factories was in the hands of the Official Receiver. That was the story everywhere. Crowds of unemployed were taking their unemployment pay every Saturday. There was one exception, and one only—one busy factory, and that was the fabric glove factory. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. These practical illustrations are coming home to the working classes in this country, and I welcome this Act and -the inclusion of every separate industry, even if we have to pick and choose. Not only does it find employment here and there, but it educates the working classes in the value of Protection.
Hon. Members opposite know that the last thing I would do is to say anything personally reflecting upon them. I would never for a moment say that they are blind leaders of the blind, but I do say that the people whom they are leading are rapidly getting their eyes opened. If they had appealed on a plain Free Trade platform at the Election instead, of from the various planks of the platform which they did use, they would not have returned 140 strong to the House. They would have returned a very much smaller party, probably without the 100. I beg them to consider this—that whatever reasons they may give for this ancient system, which I regard as being rapidly discredited in the eyes of the working classes, do not let them carry it to extremes. Do not let them carry it so far as to refuse such assistance as the inclusion of industry after industry under this part of the Act will give to employment. I beg of them not to oppose
1928
this, and I do not think they will. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"] If they do, I tell them frankly I have a very poor opinion of their prospects at the next General Election. I am convinced it is not in their interests to do so, and I know the interests of the working class and what is in their minds, and I am making a wider appeal than any mere election speech.
I wish to ask a question of the President of the Board of Trade. Under the second part of the Act, if any industry can prove that by reason of dumping or depreciation of foreign exchanges it is not getting a fair deal with foreign competition, it is at liberty to make out its case if it can. The Prime Minister by d self-denying ordnance says he is not during the currency of the present Parliament—I do not quote the exact words but the tenor of his remarks—going to introduce any great change in the fiscal system of this country. I say the decision of the electorate which has returned to power the party to which I belong is a clear indication that they do not want any backsliding in the matter of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and such small measure of protection as the working classes have at the present time. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is going to be a policy of placing difficulties in the way of industries getting protection under this part of the Act.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the President of the Board of Trade would be quite out of order in replying to that question.
Mr. PETO: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I must ask your excuse, owing to my absence, in the country, in the past four years. If the President would be out of order in replying, I will certainly not press the question now, but put it on some more appropriate occasion. I make an appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to let us have a little agreement on this question of what is really one branch of the great question of finding employment for the people at the present time. I am convinced that the Act is effective where it is in operation, and therefore I say, Let us not turn down this one industry which is now before the House and put it back again where the hon. and gallant Member for South-West Hull (Major Entwistle) put it. I hope that no hon. Member will wish to push

1929
that argument of his, that there was practically no industry before the War. Surely we do not want to go back to a state of things where there is no industry at all in any industry in the country. The whole argument of the hon. and gallant Member was that this was not very efficiently managed, and therefore we should go back to where we were in 1914, when there was practically nobody employed in this industry in the country. I think that is an appalling argument at the present time. Let us, at any rate, take the step that we are asked to take to-night, which will have the effect on this industry, whatever it may have on other industries, of giving an advantage of an import duty of 33⅓ per cent, over foreign competition.
The only other argument I wish to mention is the argument of the hon. and gallant Member that 33⅓ per cent, was not enough. Is that any reason for having nothing at all? If it be not enough, surely it is something. I am amused at that argument in this House, because I met it in my own constituency in the matter of fabric gloves. The main argument of my opponent was that they would want 600 per cent, duty to be really effective, and so, if he came back here, he was going to vote for no duty at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) the other evening asked any of us whether we could really say we were returned here to support the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I told him I was. That was the argument that I was up against during my election, and I am not surprised, as that argument was used, that it was found very ineffective, but I am surprised to find any hon. Member in this House using it here, and saying that, because 33⅓ per cent, is not as much as he would like in order to protect the industry, therefore he would vote for there being no protection at all. I thank the hon. Members most cordially for the kindly hearing they have given me on this occasion when I reappear in their midst.
Mr. HARDIE: It does not matter how high you may build a tariff wall round inefficiency, you cannot by heightening that wall make that inefficiency into efficiency, and all that has been said tonight with regard to the introduction of the manufacture of gas mantles into this country has been quite outside the known history of the gas mantle in Germany and
1930
in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) gave us great enlightenment when he said that in the mantle industry in this country it was not so much a question of capital as that they had very small works, but surely he will admit that there is a difference between the productive power of a man with a machine and that of a man without a machine, and when he spoke about tariffs he seemed not to realise that the machine is part of that of which he spoke. The President of the Board of Trade, when introducing this Debate, spoke about the gas mantle and the gas, and I am just afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has never been very much about a gasworks. He spoke about the qualities of the mantle, and he tried to point out to this House that during the War the gas manufactured in our gas works was specially washed or scrubbed in order to extract the toluol to give us the basis of the great T.N.T. explosive. He wanted by that argument to make out that because this gas was washed in that way it was more difficult to get the value out of the mantles in use.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him, what I said was that if you stripped the gas in the way which he has described, you then got a gas which had only heating properties and no lighting properties, and that unless you used a mantle you could not get light.
Mr. HARDIE: That is just what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say; he has confirmed me. The stripping of the gas, he says, only left the heating qualities and took away the illuminating qualities. What is the history of the matter in this country? This House, at the very beginning of the gas industry, said to those manufacturing the gas, "You must make a quality of gas that will have 900 British thermal units as a basis." That was because you were using a flat, plain burner, and you required to carry forward these qualities to get these illuminating qualities in your gas. You had to carry forward all the rich qualities of ordinary coal gas, but what happened when the mantle was invented? Is it not a fact that when you put that on your ordinary burners, with that high quality of gas, as soon as you lit your gas your mantle burst? Very well, then, I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman

1931
comes in at all, and when it was agreed by the House of Commons to reduce from 900 British thermal units to 450, what happened? A further improvement was made in the manufacture of the gas mantles by the Germans, and we could come down to a value, not of 900, but of 350. I want the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to this. During certain experiments in war-time in connection with the distillation of coal, we used in the night shift a mantle with gas of 350 British thermal units. There is a man—an Englishman—in the English gas world who has been proving right and left that he has done it in London in front of experts.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He must have been a Scotsman.
Mr. HARDIE: Yes, a Scotsman is always out for saving. What happened was that a debate took place as to whether you could heat a kettle, for instance, as quickly with 350 British thermal units as with 500, and it came out in favour of the man who claimed for the 350 British thermal units. What the right hon. Member did not tell the House was this, that during the War, when gas was being scrubbed for the Toluol, they did not intimate to the consumer that it was a question of having a poorer illuminant, but that it was a question of their being short of coal, and in order to increase the quantity they made the gas up with air, and charged the same price as they did for gas. The technical side of this subject is a very simple one. Here you have the introduction of a system of measurement by therm. Why? Because the gas works were putting in air and charging us the price of gas.
Mr. HOHLER: May I ask, Sir, what relevance this has to the subject under debate?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member has yet had a fair chance of bringing his remarks to the question of approval or otherwise of this Order. He seems to know his subject.
Mr. HOHLER: With great respect to your ruling, the hon. Member has throughout his speech referred simply and solely to the question of the manufacture of gas in this country. It has
1932
nothing whatever to do with gas mantles in any sense or form.
Mr. SPEAKER: I imagine that without gas we would not have any mantles. We must not prevent the hon. Member from proceeding. There is no doubt that he is coming to the question of the mantles.
Mr. HARDIE: The hon. and learned Member who has raised the objection may not have been in the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his observations in favour of what he is fighting for. I am putting my case, and if there had been any intention of protesting against anyone taking up too much time, I think it might have been done when the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was speaking. We have heard to-night from three different sources about the manufacture of the gas mantle. On our first experience of the gas mantle in this country all the gas-users in the district that I know of held public protest meetings. What did they say? They said that with the continued breaking of the gas mantles they were sure that the shareholders in the gas works had shares in the gas mantle factories too, because that seemed to be the condition of production in relation to the quality of the gas. You could only use the gas mantle in the first stages for four hours. I am not going to imitate some hon. Members here who begin a long speech by the observation that they will not detain the House for more than a few moments; but I will conclude with this: I am surprised that while a speaker has gone through this question as briefly as I have done, that the moment one gets up to give the technical side there is an endeavour made to crush him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Go on."] Unless you have technical knowledge of a subject that comes before this House, and the man who can develop the subject specially is given a chance, you will never get questions discussed as they ought to be discussed on the technical side. The introduction of the gas mantle into this country meant a change in the whole system of the manufacture of gas. During the War, I have explained what was done, and apart from what I have already stated, the companies allowed naphthaline deposits to accumulate in the pipe, and that meant the putting of another charge upon the gas consumer, who has been robbed right and left.

1933
The right hon. Gentleman concluded with a plea that you want to protect the gas-mantle industry. What are you trying to protect? You are trying, as I said at the very beginning, to cover up your incapacity to compete with other people making gas mantles.
What was the cry during the first period of the War? "We have been found without the necessary skilled men and products: no longer after the War will we have this state of affairs. We are going to give good wages to our chemists. There shall be a new system of education in order that we shall never be put in the same position again! "What have you done? By the Education Bill you have robbed us of the possibility of giving the young people of this country the chance to become technically educated. We have brains in this country. We have brain power that cannot be equalled by any other country, and it will have its effect if you can get the profiteering off our backs. Technical education was the basis of what was called the commercial success of Germany. The gas-mantle industry was not built up by tariff walls, but by men of brains. Yes, that knowledge that comes from true technical education placed Germany where she was commercially before the War. No amount of tariff wall building will make up for the technical mind, or by saying, in effect, "We will put up a tariff wall to conceal our ignorance."
Mr. H. H. SPENCER: I will give a homely parallel to the hon. Baronet the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) who has been pleading the cause of some 4,000 girls who are employed making gas mantles. I have the honour to represent, I suppose, between 15,000 and 16,000 girls who make their living by weaving textiles for which work you want a good light. I could take the hon. Baronet to a weaving shed with 1,200 looms, and between every pair of looms there is an incandescent burner with a gas mantle on it. In the industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire the value of the products is governed by the world's price, and we cannot get any more for them than the world will give. Therefore everything that the Government does which increases the working expenses of these industries comes out of the wages of the people engaged in those industries. I took the liberty of saying a few words on Monday
1934
night on the question of dye work and I pointed out that we were paying twice as much for certain dye work as we ought to do in the textile industry. Now the hon. Baronet opposite wishes to make us pay twice as much for the light we use in our works.
We have arrived at agreements with our people to pay them up or down on a sliding scale according to the cost of living. There comes a point when our cost of production goes up to such an extent that we lose the orders in our export trade, and that is just what the things suggested by the hon. Baronet opposite do. They add to the cost of production and destroy our export trade, and for the 2,000 or 3,000 girls which the hon. Baronet wants to keep in work what is suggested will cause unemployment to exactly the same extent as it causes employment in that particular trade, because, whenever you make these things in a particular place in this way you throw someone else out of work, and other people have less to spend on something else. Those are arguments for Free Trade. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Peto) said his Tariff Reform argument was useful in his part of the world, but in my constituency we had 12 candidates for three seats. Four were Socialists, four Conservatives and four Liberals, and 11 of them were thorough-going Free Traders and the twelfth was very doubtful. I know that he got in, and I am waiting to hear whether he is a Free Trader or a Protectionist.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: What I argued was that hon. Members should not take into consideration on this question whether they were Tariff Reformers or Free Traders.
Mr. SPENCER: I will not pursue that argument. I want to make this point, which I think shows the very worst side of this Order, and it is that the whole level of our industrial and commercial legislation is lowered, and it is lowered by each Member thinking that he must look after the trade of his own constituency. I do not want to set myself up as better than anybody else, but I do want to make this point, that a plea is coming to this House from the great industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire to the effect that "we want nothing from the Government except to be allowed to carry on our business without inter-

1935
ference or assistance." The position of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth is that he has 4,000 girls making gas mantles. The position of the hon. Member for Barnstaple is that he has 50 or 60 girls making fabric gloves, and I suppose the position of the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) will be when he has ceased making the best ale and his beer has conic down to the standard of Government ale, that he shall be given protection against Pilsener beer. These are the arguments of incompetence. The argument of the competent is that they want from the public the value of their produce and no more.
Mr. G. BALFOUR: Most of the arguments in opposition to the proposals of the Government have been, in my judgment, very weak and none weaker than those of the hon. Member who has just spoken. The strength of his argument was that we should go into some textile factory where there are a thousand looms, and then we should find a gas mantle used for the purposes of illumination between each pair of looms. The hon. Member pointed out that the cost of all these operating charges had to be borne out of the expenses of working, and if they were increased it would mean a diminution of the sum which would be available for wages for the workers. I think I correctly represent the arguments of the hon. Member opposite. Let me take him on that ground. What do we find? I am credibly informed—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—that gas mantles cost something about £2 per gross wholesale. Therefore if we have one mantle between each pair of looms, and there are 1,000 looms, 500 gas mantles are required. Then comes the question of replacement. I do not know how many times the mantles have to be replaced each year, but let us assume that they have to be replaced 10 times per annum. That, I think, is a very liberal estimate.
Mr. SPENCER: The hon. Gentleman must remember he is not dealing with gas mantles in the seclusion of his own study.
Mr. BALFOUR: I may tell the hon. Member I have been in a very large number of textile factories, and am quite able to deal with this question. I do not, however, wish to narrow this down to a small point, or to introduce unnecessary
1936
controversy. I am willing to accept any reasonable suggestion based upon experience. If there are 10 replacements a year of, say, four gross of mantles, that represents 40 gross of mantles have to be replaced per annum in a factory of 1,000 looms, at a maximum cost of £80 per year. That is the kind of argument which is advanced. It is said that this £80 per annum is taken out of the wages available for the employés in a factory of 1,000 looms, and that that is a sufficient reason why this Order should not be put into effect, although it may provide employment in a number of miscellaneous industries. Surely, however, some expenditure would have to be provided for the replacement of any form of illumination installed in the factory. I submit that the argument is absurd, and I shall certainly give my hearty support to the proposal submitted by the Government.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I was not, if I may be allowed to say so, very much impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). His defence of this particular imposition and addition to the cost of production is that it is only a little one: but may I remind him that he himself has voted also for taxing the illuminating glassware that is used in factories, for taxing the chemicals used in trade, and for taxing endless other things. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six thousand!"] There are 6,300 in the Chemical Schedule alone, and if the hon. Member and his Friends had their way they would not stop at a tax on gas mantles. The taxation would spread to everything, and prices would be raised to such an extent that it would be impossible, as the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. H. H. Spencer) has pointed out, for the goods of this country to compete with the world prices prevailing among other competitors.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I only addressed myself to one particular argument advanced from the benches opposite? I am quite ready to take up the defence on each of the others in detail.
Captain BENN: That is very characteristic of the Protectionists' point of view. They always do address themselves to one particular article. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) addresses

1937
himself to gas mantles, and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Peto) to fabric gloves; and that is the way in which such diverse and variegated support is obtained for a general tax.
Mr. REMER: What about paper in Penistone?
Captain BENN: The claim is put forward that we should, by means of a tariff of 33⅓ per cent., which even the Report declares to be perfectly inadequate for the purpose, attempt to maintain this particular industry at an artificial war standard. It is not suggested that the industry is in a materially worse position than it was before the War. The figures given in the circular sent out by the Incandescent Mantle Manufacturers' Association show that in 1913 about 1,800 people were employed, and that in 1920, at the worst of all the trade depression, there were 1,100; and the hon. and gallant Baronet wants to maintain that industry at the artificial war standard created at a time when exports from the Continent were not to be had. Moreover, the German import of mantles, to which the hon. and gallant Baronet referred, has not reached one-half of what it was before the War. They were then sending us 30 million mantles, that is to say, roughly about 228 thousand gross; while even this year's figures, stimulated as they were by the fear of this same Order, reach less than 200,000.
Lord EUSTACE PERCY: What about imports from Holland?
Captain BENN: The Order does not apply to Holland, and I do not understand the meaning of the Noble Lord's interruption. This Order applies to Germany, but, of course, one of the things it will do will be to stimulate Dutch competition in this country. With the German competition out of the way, Dutch—if there be Dutch—and all other foreign competitors will take advantage of it, and will fill the place of the Germans. That is all that will be achieved.
Lord E. PERCY: I was referring to the importation of German mantles via Holland. That took place on a large scale in the early days of the War.
Captain BENN: I do not want to be drawn aside and to take up too much time,
1938
but under this Act a certificate of origin is required. The importation of German mantles to-day, on the figures shown here in the Report, has not reached the figure of 1913, and yet we are told the industry is threatened by a competition which has been stimulated by the depreciation of exchange. There is no evidence of that. The President of the Board of Trade expressed what I thought were not very convincing condolences with the people who were earning low wages in this industry. He said: "I do not think myself 7d. an hour is a very big wage." But does he remember that when we moved from this side an Amendment saying that the duty should not be imposed unless the trade union rate of wages was paid in the industry he resisted it and defeated it in the Lobby? In these circumstances it comes a little badly from him to weep crocodile tears. In point of fact, in the happy Arcadia painted in such a fascinating way by the hon. and gallant Baronet the worker is contented with an average wage of 24s. a week, which at the present rate of the cost of living is certainly not very high. What is the effect of an order of this kind on our own exports to foreign markets? If you will not let the German mantle come here you force it to go and undersell us somewhere else. I quoted some figures on Monday in reference to this and showed that whereas the effect of legislation of this kind combined with import restrictions and other interferences has been to reduce the proportion of German exports coming to this country from 14 per cent, to 6 per cent., it had the effect of stimulating the proportion sent to other countries. In the case of America, it has recovered its pre-War figure, and in the case of neutrals it has risen from 7·6 per cent, to 11 per cent., and so on. [Interruption.] In point of fact this is exactly what the Report tells us has happened. The British export trade in mantles has fallen from 57,000 to 21,000. And moreover we find that when we forced the German convention of mantle manufacturers to raise the price to us, they sent the same mantles to America, only they make a lower price, because the Americans are not so foolish as to insist on a high-priced article coming into their country. [Interruption.] I am not giving my own opinion. I will read the passage. I would not express

1939
an authoritative view. I base myself on official information—
"The invoices and consignments and the prices fixed for export to America are much lower than these fixed for England."
That is the report of the Committee.
Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the American tariff?
Captain BENN: I am talking of the prices they make for sending things to America. The only effect of making these arrangements here is to force them to send their cheap goods elsewhere and cut out our people who are trying to beat them in the export trade.
The main and noticeable features of the Debate have been two. In the first place, it has been noticeable that hon. Members opposite, in view of the pledge given by the Prime Minister that he would not make a fundamental change in the fiscal system of this country, have great hopes that by means of this Act they may get all they want. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Peto) said so. If this Act is going to be interpreted in the loose and wide way in which it is being interpreted by the Committee and by the Board of Trade it is quite possible that, despite what the Prime Minister said, a general tariff barrier may be erected round this country. The 33⅓ per cent, duty is not considered adequate by this Committee for this purpose. We know that these mantles are subject to other duties. When this Act was introduced—I think the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government at the time—a pledge was given that 33⅓ per cent. should be the limit; that it should not be higher. There was a great deal of discontent amongst the supporters of the Government. A private meeting was held, and what was regarded as a definite pledge was given that that should be the rate of the duty. What has happened? In the case of gas mantles the duty is 35 per cent., then 33⅓ per cent.—
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. and gallant Member is accusing us of a breach of faith. He knows perfectly well that when Part I was introduced it put on a duty to protect key industries. He subsequently asked me whether if a key industry was still suffering from the
1940
depreciation of exchange it would be precluded from making an application, and I told him at the time that it would not, and that it would be perfectly open to it to make an application. He has no business now to accuse me of a breach of faith.
Captain BENN: I regret the extreme heat which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to import into this matter.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We regard a breach of faith as something that is serious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Since when?"]
Mr. PRINGLE: What about agriculture?
Captain BENN: In view of the statement of the Board of Trade I will read the pledge on which I base my statement. It appears in the "Times" of 7th May, 1921. That was before the Bill was introduced.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Captain BENN: Pledges may be given and broken before a Bill is introduced. Recalcitrant followers of the late Government, of which the President of the Board of Trade was a member, were entertained to breakfast by Lord Derby, who is a member of the present Government, and the "Times" states that at that gathering
"what was regarded us guarantees were given by the Prime Minister, namely, that the 33⅓ per cent, would he the maximum duty to be imposed."
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME indicated dissent.
Captain BENN: Does the light hon. Gentleman think that was not a pledge?
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, certainly. I am perfectly certain that the late Prime Minister—he knew what the Bill was and what the proposal was—gave no pledge inconsistent with the policy he afterwards endorsed in this House.
Captain BENN: What is the use of the President of the Board of Trade making statements of that kind? He gains nothing in conviction by the introduction of passion. Let me explain again to the House exactly what happened.

1941
Certain followers of the late Government, of which the President of the Board of Trade was a member, were uncertain about these duties. We are more in doubt and fear now than ever. We are afraid that these duties will be raised until they amount to a formidable and devastating tariff upon the industries of the people of this country. When these people showed signs of disquiet, they were entertained in this pleasing and altogether laudable way by Lord Derby. Here is the definite pledge, as quoted in the "Times," that 33⅓ per cent.—of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says that the "Times" report is incorrect, it is a pity that that was not done earlier. If he cares to say that the "Times" report is incorrect, I accept his statement.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, I do say that, and I say that I am perfectly certain that the late Prime Minister never held out one point to people at a breakfast party and then came down and endorsed another.
Captain BENN: I think we can safely leave the matter as between the Parliamentary correspondent of the "Times," who is a person of authority, and the right hon. Gentleman, who is also a person of great authority.
Mr. REMER: I was present at that breakfast party. I am within the recollection of other hon. Members who were also present when I say I am quite sure that nothing like what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has read out happened at that breakfast table.
Captain BENN: Then it is quite clear that the "Times" Parliamentary correspondent was wrong—[An HON. MEMBER: "Was he at the breakfast table?"]—I have no doubt that the Government will appoint a Select Committee, to inquire among hon. Members who were at the breakfast party as to what exactly was promised, but that was the impression that they gathered and it was in the faith of that that their fears were quieted. To-day we find that so far from the 33⅓ per cent, being the maximum duty, it is only one of three duties, namely, the 5 per cent., the 33⅓ per cent., and the 26 per cent. under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act.
I have heard a great many speeches in this House, but we have had a novel kind, which I do not recollect before,
1942
in which hon. Members have got up and frankly spoken on behalf of a private interest—I am not speaking of their personal interests—instead of the public interest. This hon. Member gets up and says, "I represent the gas mantle workers"; another hon. Member says, "I went to Somerset and I said I would do something for the glove workers"—
Mr. PETO: Somerset happens to be half-way between Wiltshire and Devon. I certainly was not anywhere in Somerset, and I made no such statement. I told nobody that I was going to do anything for them at all.
Captain BENN: I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman in the least degree, but the gist of his argument was that his policy was in the direct financial interest of those people in his constituency concerned in glove-making.
Mr. PETO: Why not? Every hon. Member in the House looks after the interests of his own constituents.
Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I represent 4,000 workpeople.
Captain BENN: That is quite a new feature of the Debates. There is one person who has not been named in this Debate to-night—perhaps hon. Members of the Labour party will do so—and that is the consumer. The interests of the consumer is the real interest of the House of Commons. We have not heard anything about the housewife, the poor people in the back streets, who have gas which cannot be used without a mantle and on whom an addition of 33⅓ per cent, to 9d. charged for the mantle is a substantial increase. When it is a question as between the interests of a small number of parties who desire that a tax should be laid on the general consumer for their benefit and the 70,000,000 purchasers of gas mantles during the year—that is to say, they make 70,000,000 purchases during the year—there can be no doubt as to what is the duty of the House of Commons. That is, to prefer to all private advantage the public weal.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I do not propose to take up time in giving detailed replies to the points that have been raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is, I believe, the desire of the House to go

1943
to a Division as soon as possible. I will, however, call attention to some figures which are illuminating as regards this matter. I repudiate the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) that we are trying in this way to introduce anything like a system of protection. We are simply trying under the provisions of this Act to deal with one or two particular industries which we conceive can be bettered by the provisions of this Act. That is the whole object. We believe that this gas mantle industry is among those. In 1914 the Germans had this trade almost entirely in their own hands. They were at that time endeavouring to force the British manufacturers into a fixed price, dominated by the German cartel. There were at that time 70,000,000 gas mantles imported annually into this country, of which from 70 to 75 per cent, came from Germany. During the War the German import was entirely stopped, and an industry was built up which, though it may be only a matter of 4,000 workers, is worth keeping if it is possible to keep it without detriment to the community at large. Very soon after the War German competition began again. In 1920 they sent here 3,000,000 mantles, in 1921 9,000,000, and this year they are exporting to this country at the rate of 16,000,000, and there is no reason to suppose that they would not increase that figure very largely as years roll on unless we confirm this Order.
In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Major Entwistle) I would say that it is not wise to exaggerate in this matter. The hon. Member, in arguing against this Act, said that the fabric gloves duties were doing infinite harm to the great cotton industry. Whatever else that is, it is a gross exaggeration. I have had the privilege of sitting for a Manchester seat, and I had a conference to-day with representatives of the Manchester cotton industry, and I am prepared to say that whatever effect the duties may have had on the cotton industry—and I think it was infinitesimal—it was at all events a gross exaggeration to say that they had caused infinite harm to the cotton industry. The same hon. Member went on to say that the Report said that this gas mantle industry is grossly over-capitalised. There is no such thing in the Report. The
1944
Report says that the industry is over-capitalised, and the hon. Member introduced the word "grossly" to produce an effect on the House as to what was stated in the Report. The Committee was to find out not whether the industry was over-capitalised, but whether it was efficiently conducted, and on that point the Report says:
"It appears to be generally agreed with regard to the equipment of the factories and the methods of manufacture that the British industry is in every way as good as the German."
11.0 P.M.
There is not a word there of over-capitalisation, and not a word of the inefficiency which the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) dwelt on in his illuminating speech. Throughout this Debate it has been assumed by opponents of this Measure that the gas mantle industry is an inefficient one, and that we are trying to bolster up an inefficient industry at the expense of the community at large. That is not the Report of the Committee. Then the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), in a very closely reasoned speech from the Free Trade point of view, told us that the Germans had very great advantages in regard to raw material. No raw material included in the manufacture of gas mantles is produced in Germany. The whole of it comes from Brazil, or India, or elsewhere in the East. The question is not one of cheaper raw material or of getting material at a greater advantage than is possible in this country. The important factor is that the main costs in the production of these mantles is lower in Germany than it is here. The sole reason why we are asking the House to confirm this Order is not that it is protection at all, but that the English workman, the English manufacturer, is up against the depreciated exchange of Germany, and because of that fact he is entitled to such remedy as this House can give him.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh is perfectly fair. He told us that it was not a pleasant thing to say, but that for some time to come we have to face the entry of German goods into this country. Where does that take us? What is the logical conclusion? Clearly it is that if it is beneficial to us to import gas mantles made in Germany with the

1945
real wages at present paid to German workmen, it will be to our advantage to import everything possible that is made with cheap German labour, and the more we can import the better. I remember that years ago when the old Tariff Reform and Free Trade controversies were at their height, a very eminent statesman made a speech in favour of dumping and said "Let them all dump." This is not such a case. In a Debate last week a Member of the Labour party described the position of the German workman, his inadequate wages, the starvation, the miserable clothing, the terrible conditions of the worker and his family. We say that we are not going to have our workmen placed in competition with those conditions. The reason for the trouble is the depreciated exchange. That is clear, and it is so stated by the Committee in their Report. May I put this to hon. Members of the Labour party. I presume that they will say to me that I am perfectly at liberty to go to Germany, take my capital there, and build a factory there; that it is desirable in British interests that I should do so; that I should employ German workmen at starvation wages and manufacture mantles there and bring them in here to destroy the industry at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are doing it!"] I am not saying it is not being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the miners "] I am saying that on the speech of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh it is a justifiable thing to do. I wish to carry the argument one stage further. Would hon. Members allow me to build a factory for the manufacture of gas mantles here and import into this country a thousand German workmen, and pay them at the rate of twopence halfpenny an hour? I think if I did so the trade union leaders would have something to say. The truth is, you are quite entitled to protect your labour, but do not allow the German workman—under conditions which you know perfectly well, and which were described in this House last week—to send these things in here to destroy an industry which we are trying to build up. That is the whole reason why we are asking the House to pass this Order. May I point out how employment in this country has fallen since the German competition began. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth has told us that there were
1946
4,000 workers employed, and I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Leith who admitted quite frankly that the number had fallen to 1,100. Is it desirable or not to make some effort to find work for the 2,900? I am not here to say that this Order is going completely to do away with unemployment, but I am here to say that it is a real, definite effort, in accordance with the decision of the House of Commons last year, to deal with the particular evil of the depreciated exchange in Germany. It is an evil which the Committee admitted to be a cause of unemployment in this country. (Interruption.)
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) should not make so many speeches when sitting down.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: When I rise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have only a few words further to say. I wish the House to realise that the Committee which considered this question was not a picked or packed Committee of Conservatives. The Chairman was Sir Bernard Mallet, a former Registrar-General and ex-President of the Royal Statistical Society, a name perfectly well known throughout the whole commercial world. There was Mr. J. Arthur Aiton, a member of the Executive Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and Sir John Barran, a former Liberal Member of Parliament for Hawick Burghs. We have known him in this House.
Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to rise when another hon. Member is speaking, unless the hon. Member in possession should give way.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: He has given way.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet resumed his seat because I was standing.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Sir John Barran was not only a Liberal Member of this House, but he was also private secretary to the late leader of the Liberal party, who described him as one of the best economists in the House. Then there was a Mr. Moore, a business man, a merchant, and last, but not least, Mr. Arthur Pugh, a member of the Parlia-

1947
mentary Trade Union Congress. Is not that satisfactory to hon. Members opposite? [An HON. MEMBER: "Ten to one!"] No, there was no minority report. The whole Committee was unanimous. Do you think that a member of the Trade Union Congress is likely to sign a report that he did not believe in? I do not think so. I have too much respect for him to imagine for one moment that he would be coerced by his colleagues. The Committee did their work honestly, straightforwardly, and well. It was an independent Committee, formed for the purpose of going into this matter. They heard all the evidence, and they came to the conclusion that this industry was one which came within the provisions of the Act. I believe that if the House confirms this Order we shall be able to manufacture mantles in this country of as good a quality and at as good a price as we are now getting from Germany.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): May I make a suggestion which I hope will find favour in all quarters of the House? The Eleven o'Clock Rule was suspended with the idea of taking the Importation of Animals Bill, but at this hour I do not wish to do that. If hon. Members will agree to give us a Division now, and also to let us have the Importation of Animals Bill, by the kind of Parliamentary bargain which is usual in this House, and which I have never known broken, by the dinner hour tomorrow, then, as soon is we have had the Division on this Order, the House will adjourn.
Question put,
"That the Order which was made by the Board of Trade on the 9th day of October, 1922. under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. 1921, and published, and which was laid before this House on the 27th day of November, 1922, shall continue in force."
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 194.

Division No. 21.]

AYES.

[11.15 P.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

Chapman, Sir S.

Gould, James C.

Allen, Lieut. Col. Sir William James

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Clayton, G. C.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gretton, Colonel John

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Cocker, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Baldwin, St. Hon. Stanley

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cope, Major William

Halstead, Major D.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Banks, Mitchell

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

Harvey, Major S. E.

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hawke, John Anthony

Becker, Harry

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

Hewett, Sir J P.

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hiley, Sir Ernest

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

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

Berry, Sir George

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Betterton, Henry B.

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

Hood, Sir Joseph

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Dawson, Sir Philip

Hopkins, John W. W.

Blundell, F. N.

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Brass, Captain W.

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Hudson, Capt. A.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hume, G. H.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Ednam, Viscount

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Brittain, Sir Harry

Elvedon, Viscount

Hurd, Percy A.

Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)

Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

Bruford, R.

Falcon, Captain Michael

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Bruton, Sir James

Fawkes, Major F. H.

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

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

Jephcott, A. R.

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

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

Butcher, Sir John George

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

Fraser, Major sir Keith

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Butt, Sir Alfred

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Button, H. S.

Furness, G. J.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Cadogan, Major Edward

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lamb, J. Q.

Cassels, J. D.

Garland, C. S.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gates, Percy

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

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Parker, Owen (Kettering)

Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Sparkes, H. W.

Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Penny, Frederick George

Stanley, Lord

Lorden, John William

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Lorimer, H. D.

Perring, William George

Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

Lort-Williams, J.

Peto, Basil E.

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H,

Lougher, L.

Plelou, D. P.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

Lumley, L. R.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

M'Connell, Thomas E.

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Privett, F. J.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Maddocks, Henry

Raeburn, sir William H.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

Raine, W.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Margesson, H. D. R,

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

Tubbs, S. W.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Mercer, Colonel H.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Remer, J. R.

Wallace, Captain E.

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Remnant, Sir James

Wells, S. R.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Rentoul, G. S.

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Molloy, Major L. G. S.

Reynolds, W. G. W.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

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

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Whitla, Sir William

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

Windsor, Viscount

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Winterton, Earl

Murchison, C. K.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Wise, Frederick

Nail, Major Joseph

Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

Wolmer, Viscount

Nesbitt, J. C.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

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

Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

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

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

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Worsfold, T. Cato

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

Yerhurgh, R. D. T.

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Shepperson, E. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Skelton, A. N.

Major Gibbs and Major Barnston.

Paget, T. G.

Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Jowett, F. W. (Bra ford, East)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Kenyon, Barnet

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

Kirkwood, D.

Attlee, C. R.

Fairbairn, R. R.

Lansbury, George

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Falconer, J.

Lawson, John James

Barnes, A.

Fildes, Henry

Leach, W.

Batey, Joseph

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Lee, F.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Foot, Isaac

Linfield, F. C.

Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Lowth, T.

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Lunn, William

Bonwick, A.

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Bowdler, W. A.

Greenall, T.

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

M'Entee, V. L.

Broad, F. A.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Bromfield, William

Groves, T.

March, S.

Brotherton, J.

Grundy, T. W.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Guthrie, Thomas Mauie

Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

Buchanan, G.

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

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

Buckle, J.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mathew, C. J.

Burgess, S.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Maxton, James

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Hancock, John George

Middleton, G.

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Harbord, Arthur

Millar, J. D.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Hard e, George D.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Cairns, John

Harris, Percy A.

Morel, E. D.

Cape, Thomas

Hartshorn, Vernon

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Chappie, W. A.

Hastings, Patrick

Muir, John W.

Charleton, H. C.

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Murnin, H.

Clarke, Sir E. C.

Hayday, Arthur

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Collie, Sir John

Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

Collins, Pat (Walsall)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Newbold, J. T. W.

Collison, Levi

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nichol, Robert

Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

Herriotts, J.

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Hill, A.

O'Grady, Captain James

Darbishire, C. W.

Hinds, John

Oliver, George Harold

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Hirst, G. H.

Paling, W.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

Parker, H. (Hanley)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Duncan, C.

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Phillipps, Vivian

Dunnico, H.

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

Philipson, H. H.

Edge, Captain Sir William

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Potts, John S.

Edmonds, G.

Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

Pringle, W. M. R.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Rae, Sir Henry N.

1950

1951

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

Webb, Sidney

Riley, Ben

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Ritson, J.

Stephen, Campbell

Weir, L. M.

Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Westwood, J.

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

Wheatley, J.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

Sullivan, J.

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

Rose, Frank H.

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

Whiteley, W.

Russell, William (Bolton)

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

Wignall, James

Saklatvala, S.

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Scrymgeour, E.

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

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Sexton, James

Thornton, M.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Tillett, Benjamin

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Shinwell, Emanuel

Tout, W. J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Trevelyan, C. P.

Wintringham, Margaret

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Turner, Ben

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

Simpson, J. Hope

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

Sitch, Charles H.

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

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Warne, G. H.

Snell, Harry

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.ߞ

Snowden, Philip

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Mr. Hogge and Mr. Neil Maclean.

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 TO 1922.
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Scunthorpe and Frodingham, in the parts of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln, which was presented on the 24th day of November, 1922, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Chudleigh, in the rural district of Newton Abbot, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 29th day of November, 1922, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport
1952
under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Hemel Hempsted and the parishes of King's Langley and Bovingdon, in the rural district of Hemel Hempsted, in the county of Hertford, which was presented on the 29th day of November, 1922, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Special Older made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts. 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the county borough of Booth and the urban districts of Litherland, Waterloo-with-Seaforth, and Great Crosby, all in the county of Lancaster, which was presented on the 4th day of December, 1922, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Ashley.]
The remaining Orders were, read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

EX-SERVICE MEN.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MENTAL CASES.
  MENTAL CASES.
  ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, ADMIRALTY.
  ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, ADMIRALTY.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  CIVIL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  KING'S ROLL OF HONOUE.
  KING'S ROLL OF HONOUE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  SPECIAL DIET ALLOWANCE.
  SPECIAL DIET ALLOWANCE.
  ADMINISTRATION, SCOTLAND (DECENTRALISATION).
  ADMINISTRATION, SCOTLAND (DECENTRALISATION).
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE.
  PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (IRISH MEDICAL BOARD).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (IRISH MEDICAL BOARD).
  IMMIGRATION STAFF, NEWHAVEN.
  IMMIGRATION STAFF, NEWHAVEN.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RECRUITING (PRISONS, WORKHOUSES, AND ASYLUMS).
  RECRUITING (PRISONS, WORKHOUSES, AND ASYLUMS).
  KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.
  KNIGHTSBRIDGE BARRACKS.
  NEAR EAST (REINFORCEMENTS).
  NEAR EAST (REINFORCEMENTS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PRIZE MONEY.
  PRIZE MONEY.
  CHATHAM DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
  CHATHAM DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  SALE OF BREAD BILL.
  SALE OF BREAD BILL.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  DISPOSAL BOARD.
  DISPOSAL BOARD.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  ITALY.
  ITALY.
  WOOL.
  WOOL.
  KEEPER OF COTTON MAEKS.
  KEEPER OF COTTON MAEKS.
  EXECUTION OF EX-MINISTERS, GREECE.
  EXECUTION OF EX-MINISTERS, GREECE.
  NEAR EAST.
  NEAR EAST.
HOUSING.
  UNITS OF OCCUPATION.
  UNITS OF OCCUPATION.
  INFANTILE MORTALITY.
  INFANTILE MORTALITY.
  CONSTRUCTION AND SLUM CLEARANCE.
  CONSTRUCTION AND SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SWILLEY ESTATE, PLYMOUTH.
  SWILLEY ESTATE, PLYMOUTH.
  UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
  UNOCCUPIED DWELLINGS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  EVICTIONS, ST. HELENS.
  EVICTIONS, ST. HELENS.
  WEST RIDING OK YORKSHIRE.
  WEST RIDING OK YORKSHIRE.
  BLIND WELFARE.
  BLIND WELFARE.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE, WILLESDEN.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE, WILLESDEN.
  CENSUS RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  CENSUS RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  OCCUPATIONAL MORTALITY.
  OCCUPATIONAL MORTALITY.
  COAL MINES (RATING).
  COAL MINES (RATING).
  IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY (VACCINATION).
  IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY (VACCINATION).
  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL.
  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  ELECTIONS (LOANED VEHICLES).
  ELECTIONS (LOANED VEHICLES).
  VOTERS' LISTS.
  VOTERS' LISTS.
  COST OF LIVING (CLOTHES).
  COST OF LIVING (CLOTHES).
  TRADE BOARDS.
  TRADE BOARDS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  SOUTH-WEST INDIA DOCK (IMPROVEMENT).
  SOUTH-WEST INDIA DOCK (IMPROVEMENT).
  OCKENDEN FARM COLONY.
  OCKENDEN FARM COLONY.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE POLICIES.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE POLICIES.
  FORESTRY.
  FORESTRY.
  WOMEN (DOMESTIC SERVICE).
  WOMEN (DOMESTIC SERVICE).
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
  OVERTIME.
  OVERTIME.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  TUBE RAILWAY EXTENSIONS.
  TUBE RAILWAY EXTENSIONS.
  CASUAL DOCK WORKERS, LONDON.
  CASUAL DOCK WORKERS, LONDON.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  WOMEN FISH CURERS, SCOTLAND.
  WOMEN FISH CURERS, SCOTLAND.
  JUVENILES.
  JUVENILES.
EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, (FREE PLACES).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS, (FREE PLACES).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES, DUMBARTON.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES, DUMBARTON.
INDIA.
  STATE RAILWAY ENGINEERS (PENSIONS).
  STATE RAILWAY ENGINEERS (PENSIONS).
  ACTIONS BY GOVERNMENT SERVANTS.
  ACTIONS BY GOVERNMENT SERVANTS.
  POLICE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  POLICE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
AGRICULTURE.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  ELECTRICAL POWER (WINDMILLS).
  ELECTRICAL POWER (WINDMILLS).
  WAGES.
  WAGES.
  SUGAR BEET.
  SUGAR BEET.
  RAILWAY ASSISTANCE.
  RAILWAY ASSISTANCE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  DISEASED ANIMALS (COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER).
  DISEASED ANIMALS (COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER).
SCOTLAND.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING, ARGYLLSHIRE.
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING, ARGYLLSHIRE.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
ALIENS.
  CARDIFF AND SOUTH WALES PORTS.
  CARDIFF AND SOUTH WALES PORTS.
  THEATRICAL PEBFOKMERS.
  THEATRICAL PEBFOKMERS.
  LEGITIMATION BILL.
  LEGITIMATION BILL.
  SHOP HOURS (BUTCHERS).
  SHOP HOURS (BUTCHERS).
  PRISONERS AS WITNESSES (HANDCUFFS).
  PRISONERS AS WITNESSES (HANDCUFFS).
  DEBTOR PRISONERS.
  DEBTOR PRISONERS.
  FINES (IMPRISONMENT).
  FINES (IMPRISONMENT).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND.
  DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  POLICE PENSIONERS, IRELAND (INCOME TAX).
  POLICE PENSIONERS, IRELAND (INCOME TAX).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  HONG KONG (OPIUM).
  HONG KONG (OPIUM).
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (MSORO NATIVES).
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (MSORO NATIVES).
TRANSPORT.
  HUMBEB ESTUARY (TRAFFIC FACILITIES).
  HUMBEB ESTUARY (TRAFFIC FACILITIES).
  MOTOR TAXATION.
  MOTOR TAXATION.
  HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC (ROAD MAINTENANCE).
  HEAVY MOTOR TRAFFIC (ROAD MAINTENANCE).
  BASINGSTOKE AND ALTON LIGHT RAILWAY.
  BASINGSTOKE AND ALTON LIGHT RAILWAY.
  GREECE (BRITISH NAVAL MISSION).
  GREECE (BRITISH NAVAL MISSION).
POST OFFICE.
  PRINTED MATTER POSTED ABROAD.
  PRINTED MATTER POSTED ABROAD.
  FACILITIES, HIGHLANDS of SCOTLAND.
  FACILITIES, HIGHLANDS of SCOTLAND.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME.
William Hesketh Baron Leverhulme, having been created Viscount LEVERHULME of the Western Isles in the Counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM.
The Right Hon. Arthur Hamilton Baron Lee of Fareham, G.B.E., K.C.B., having been created Viscount LEE of FAREHAM of Bridport in the County of Dorset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD BETHELL.
Sir John Henry Bethell, Bart., having been created Baron BETHELL of Romford in the County of Essex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 80 relative to Private Bills, with respect to the appointment of the Standing Orders Committee, be dispensed with in the present session of Parliament. There are, of course, no Private Bills this session. The Private Bills that are shortly to come before your Lordships will be deposited in the usual way under the Standing Orders, and will be considered by your Lordships in February. It is not necessary, therefore, in this session that we should have a Standing Orders Committee.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 80 relative to Private Bills, with respect to the appointment of the Standing Orders Committee, be dispensed with in the present session of Parliament.— (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EAST LOTHIAN (WESTERN DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Bill deemed to have been reported from the Committee.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POSTAL CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they can now say to what extent the postal revenue has increased since the recent reductions of postal charges; and whether the Postmaster-General can definitely state that the further reductions so urgently asked for by the united voice of business men in the interest of trade revival and increased revenue will be brought into operation before the close of the year.
By business men this Question is considered very important. I placed a Question on the Paper of the House before the end of last session in order that there might be plenty of time for consideration of the subject before Parliament reassembled. Since then we have had a General Election and a new Government. I hope the present Postmaster-General has had time, with the assistance of his permanent officials, to furnish himself with the necessary particulars, and that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory reply to-day.
In these days of unemployment, and having regard to the desire of the Government to provide work during the coming winter, I submit that there is no Department in the State more likely, or more fitted, to render invaluable service in this respect than the Post Office. It has a large and efficient staff, and its machinery is in working order. When I speak of machinery I do not refer to telegraphs or telephones. A further immediate reduction in postal charges would at once tend greatly to improve trade in all directions and bring about increased employment. I have often described the Post Office as our greatest commercial traveller. No other Department brings the manufacturer, producer and consumer so closely together. Therefore, the greater the facilities it offers the greater the volume of trade and employment.
Let me say how much the commercial community and chambers of commerce appreciate the great services rendered

291
by the late Postmaster-General in securing the reductions in the postal charges which they now enjoy. I do not see the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, in the House at the moment, but I should like to express my thanks to him for the practical assistance he rendered in connection with those reductions last autumn. Business men have been delighted with the recent speech of the new Postmaster-General, in which he expressed his belief in penny postage and his desire to bring it into operation again at the earliest opportunity. I am glad that he has endorsed the wise policy of his predecessor by reappointing that very able and strong Advisory Committee of practical business men.
I hope that he will have the courage of a Rowland Hill, to whom the country will ever be grateful for his splendid foresight and courageous action. The whole civilised world, indeed, is indebted to Rowland Hill for the introduction of penny postage. I urge the Government not to waste another six months but to improve trade, employ labour, and increase revenue, by at once further reducing the postal charges. I am not going into details this afternoon; I am anxious to hear the answer that will be given to my Question by the Government.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the particular reductions in postal rates to which the noble Lord has referred were those brought into force on May 29 last. They are as follows:—The postage of inland letters, weighing not more than an ounce, was reduced from 2d. to 1½d.; that of printed papers of the same category from 1d. to ½d.; and that of postcards from 1½d. to 1d. When those reductions were made, it was estimated that they would cost the revenue £6,190,000 in a complete year, after allowing for the additional revenue to be obtained from an increase in the volume of traffic which the lower charges were expected to produce. The reduced charges have been in operation for just over six months and, except in the case of printed papers, the increase in traffic has not come up to expectations. The noble Lord rather suggests that there has been an increase in the postal revenue, but that is not the case. The sacrifice in revenue which the reductions will entail will certainly be £6,000,000, probably rather more for the complete year.
292
In his speech the noble Lord suggests a further reduction in the postal rate in order to bring it down to the pre-war rate of one penny. If that were done, there would, no doubt, be a further increase in postal traffic, but it is equally certain that a further sacrifice of revenue would have to be faced. It is, of course, too early to estimate—we have not the annual figures yet—what the cost would be, but a rough estimate is that it would entail a cost to the revenue of about another £5,000,000. The Government have not yet had time to consider the financial issues involved in the proposal, and, of course, they cannot be dissociated from the prospect of next year's Budget. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I am unable to make any further statement on the subject to-day.
LORD ILLINGWORTH: My Lords, as I was Postmaster-General from the autumn of 1916 to the end of the financial year 1921, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few remarks on this subject. I was responsible for the increase in postal charges. During that part of the year 1916 for which I was responsible, and in 1917 and 1918, the profits of the Post Office were larger than they had ever been before, aggregating a sum for the three years of about £21,000,000. Early in 1919 it was apparent that that happy state of affairs was coming to an end; that we should have to face a loss. However, I deferred increasing the rates then in the hope that the increase of cost was merely temporary and would be soon reduced. Not only that, I had to consider that a heavy increase in the cost of postage would probably cause disturbance in some industries, more especially in regard to picture postcards and mail orders, which were then recovering.
I was much disappointed when the increase, instead of being temporary, continued. The cost of living went up by leaps and bounds. Wages were the largest factor in the expenses of the Post Office—it came to about 75 per cent. of the whole charges—and it was necessary that the wages of the Post Office employees, some 200,000, should be increased. As your Lordships are aware, Mr. Asquith's Government, before leaving office in 1916, set up an Arbitration Board to deal with the whole subject of salaries and wages of civil servants. That Board, in spite of any protest I could make, increased the wages of the Post Office people considerably more

293
than was done in most other industries. Moreover, every other administrative cost of the Post Office was more than doubled. The result was—if I may take simply the penny post and leave out an enormous mass of other details—that I first increased the penny post to three halfpence and then to twopence. Business people naturally came to see me and to protest, but when they heard my case they more or less accepted the position with a better grace than I had expected.
There was another point. Newspapers had been subsidised —it really amounted to a subsidy—by giving them services at a price lower than cost. This subsidy amounted to from £1,000,000 to £1,250,000 a year, and I may add that some of the larger papers in London were getting their telephones at something like ¼d. or less per call. The Cabinet had ordered various Postmasters-General for years to do away with this arrangement. Nevertheless, they did not do it, though I do not know why they should not, because after I proposed to do it the whole of the newspapers of the country took a great interest in my career, and in a very short time I found that I was as famous and as well known in the country as though I had committed some horrible murder. I persisted in it, however, and took away a subsidy of about £1,000,000.
After these few explanatory remarks, let me point out that there were only two courses open to me, as there are only two courses open to the present Postmaster-General. It was necessary either to increase the charges or to give a subsidy to the Post Office. From the figures which the noble Earl has given it seems that the present Postmaster-General is more or less in the same position; that is to say, if he wishes to reduce the charges he will have to put on a subsidy. That is really the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, who asked this Question, though I did not understand the noble Earl to state that the course which the noble Lord suggests would mean a subsidy for the Post Office. I to not propose to address your Lordships on the well-known evil of subsidies, but it would make extraordinarily good propaganda for the Communists. And let me remind your Lordships that there are more than one hundred Communist members of Parliament at present whose declared policy is war on private enterprise and the socialisation of the means of production,
294
distribution and banking. If in one Government Department we are to keep wages at a high figure without giving the slightest consideration to the price received for the services rendered, it would be a great point to help these Communists in their propaganda and their agitation for the socialisation of industry. They would say: "Why stop at the Post Office? Why not take coal?"
I think all your Lordships will admit that as a basis of industry coal is of far greater importance than the post. It is the basis of the cost of everything that is produced or carried in the country. They could have approached the Prime Minister, and it would have been very difficult for him to reply to their demand to nationalise the collieries and pay the colliers a higher wage without any consideration of the price received for the coal. That would be the beginning of a terrible thing, and one does not know where it would stop. We all look forward —I as much as any of your Lordships to the restoration of the old charges of the Post Office, but I trust that His Majesty's Government and the Postmaster-General will see that if any further reduction is made it is made on sound economical lines, and not by simply reducing postal charges and making up the deficit by way of taxation in various other directions.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down into the by-paths of political speculation in which he indulged on this matter, though I might, I think, observe in passing that I do not quite know why he describes as Communists a Party which I understand has refused to issue its Whip to the only avowed Communist in the House of Commons.
The noble Earl who replied on behalf of the Post Office indicated that the Government could not really deal with the subject at the moment, and that it would have to be raised again. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Southwark, will raise it again. When that time comes, I should be glad if the noble Earl could somewhat develop the figures which he gave to the House, and perhaps in another direction. He said that time estimated loss of revenue was £6,000,000 odd, as the result of the change that was made in May, and that, so far as the Government could see at present, that loss would probably be

295
exceeded. But I think we want to know a little more than that. I think we want to know in general terms whether the Post Office is being run at a profit or at a loss, because while it may well be undesirable to subsidise the Post Office unless there were some very special reason for doing so, it is, I venture to think, equally undesirable to use the Post Office as a revenue-producing industry, as something which will produce a surplus for the purpose of general taxation. In considering this question the House ought to be told whether the Post Office as a whole is being run at a loss or not, because if it is not, it seems to me that the reduction would be well justified. I think that on the whole it would be undesirable that the Post Office should be used to add to the general revenue by way of taxation, because this is indirect taxation of a particular class and, I think, an undesirable principle. Perhaps when the noble Earl next deals with the matter, he will be prepared with figures showing the actual profit and loss made in the various postal departments that are being dealt with.
I may add before I sit down that possibly some accession of revenue might be obtained if the Post Office were run a little better than it has been run lately. I have had innumerable examples of delay, quite unprecedented delay, both to letters and telegrams. I have had a telegram sent from a place fifty miles from London which arrived three hours after the time at which it was despatched; and only last week I had a postcard postmarked 2.15 p.m. on a Friday in one district of London, which was not delivered in a neighbouring district, rather less than a mile away, until Wednesday morning. That kind of thing does not encourage an extended use of the post, particularly among business people. Although I think the post may perhaps be well run in big commercial towns like Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool, there is considerable slackness nowadays, at any rate, in the way in which Post Office affairs are managed in smaller towns. I think that might well be looked into if it is desired to increase revenue.

RULES FOR PEDESTRIANS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, with reference to the statement made on July 6, that the chief
296
constables of the country would be consulted upon the question of the rule of the footpath, it is the case that the Chief Constables' Association have passed a resolution to the following effect:—
"That in the interest of public safety it was desirable to alter the present rule of walking on the footpath, and to use every endeavour to cause the public to. 'Keep to the left' instead of to the right";
and further to enquire whether, a similar resolution having now been passed by—

a House of Commons Select Committee,

a Ministry of Transport Advisory Committee,

the County Councils' Association,

the Association of Municipal Corporations,

the Association of Rural District Councils,

the Association of Urban District Councils,

the Municipal Tramway's Association;

the Home Office is now prepared to deal with the matter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a Question which has been brought up on several occasions in this House, but I make no apology whatever for returning to it to-day for two reasons:—(1) That the answers which I have received have always been of a very unsatisfactory character; and (2), that the increase in the number of accidents in the road is so great that it constitutes a problem that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. I may observe, parenthetically, that we are not yet in such a bad case as America. I observe that according to statistics taken, not over the whole of America but in certain States in America, they killed by motors last year not fewer than 20,000 persons, most of whom were children. In America they have even arrived at the stage of holding commemorative services for what are called "motor martyrs." But although we do not do things on that scale in this country, the figures with regard to this question are worth some consideration.
I observe that last year fatalities from road accidents numbered 2,815, and in London alone 581 people were killed and 49,476 non-fatally injured. If you take the average in London for the last eight years you will find that just under 700

297
people were actually killed and something like 15,000 people injured. These figures compare very unfavourably with Ore figures relating to railway accidents, because in this country last year the railways killed only 784 people and injured 19,000 odd. It is obvious that this ratio is likely to increase correspondingly with the increase of motor vehicles. We have something like a quarter of the number of mechanically propelled vehicles in this country, as compared with America, and therefore when we reach the same development we may anticipate four times as many accidents as now happen.
It cannot be denied, I think, that a large proportion of these accidents are due to the fact that we have two rules, one for the road and another for the footpath. When you come to think of it, can anything be more absurd? You cross the road, and you are confronted with a notice in the middle of the road directing you to keep to the left. You advance a few yards, or possibly only a few feet, and you are expected to keep to the right. You proceed along the street, and, if you take a tube railway, as likely as not you will find another notice inviting you to keep to the left. And we are not even consistent in our folly. I suppose the perambulator would be classed as a vehicle, but I have never observed that the perambulator paid any attention to any rule whatever on the subject.
The advantage of having a uniform rule for both kinds of traffic was recently brought home to me very convincingly. A few weeks ago I was in Constantinople. Anybody acquainted with that city knows that formerly the streets always presented a most chaotic and confused spectacle, and that it was almost impossible to make one's way without trouble, because you might encounter difficulties from anything ranging from a tramway car to a dromedary. Now, all that has been changed, because since we have been there, English police have assumed control of the traffic and enforced their rules. You now find Turkish policemen directing the traffic in the same way as it is directed by constables in London. The result is that although some of the streets are far more congested than are the streets of London, you can advance in perfect safety, because you are facing the traffic instead of having it behind you. Oddly enough, on my way home, passing through Vienna, I happened
298
to see a police notice in the papers stating that, owing to the increased frequency of accidents in the streets, in future persons who did not walk so as to face the traffic would be proceeded against.
Whenever I have brought this Question up in this House I have always received procrastinating answers from the noble Earl who represents the Home Office; he has assured me that there is some authority whom he must consult before any change can be recommended. When finally driven into his last ditch, which was on the last occasion, he said that one exceptionally important body must be consulted, namely, the Association of Chief Constables.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The district conferences.
LORD NEWTON: This important assembly, the conference of chief constables, must be consulted before a decision is arrived at. This conference has taken place. I do not know how many chief constables attended, the result of their decision is on the Paper, and it is in accordance with the decision of all the other bodies named on the Paper. I have a correction to make with regard to the list on the Paper. I believe it is a fact that the Association of Rural District Councils have not signified their approval of the proposed change, but if I have to leave them out I can add a not less important body, namely, the Metropolitan Police, who, although they have not officially declared their views, are, I am perfectly well aware, thoroughly in favour of the change.
The list on the Paper is fairly comprehensive, and it seems to me to include practically everybody concerned. If the House of Commons is not to count, and if the Ministry of Transport is not to count, and these various Associations are not to count, who is to count? What further authority is there to consult? I can only suggest to my noble friend, and I dare say he will use the suggestion as a further reason for procrastination, that he should consult the Stewards of the Jockey Club on the subject. The fact is, and it cannot be denied, that every responsible authority, with the one exception I have mentioned, and one other exception which I will proceed to mention, has expressed approval of the change. The

299
only responsible opposition conies from the City Commissioner of Police. I think it would be worth while paying his expenses and sending him to Constantinople, in order that he may learn a little elementary common sense.
There is a certain class of people in this country who invariably resist any kind of change, whether beneficial or otherwise. I am not quite old enough to remember the controversy as between sailing vessels and steamboats, or the fight put up in this country by certain soldiers in favour of muzzle-loaders as against breech-loaders, but I have a recollection of the controversy as to the colour that should be worn by soldiers, when it was laid clown that bright scarlet was least distinguishable and therefore the most practicable for military purposes. I am bound to admit that this reactionary City Commissioner of Police finds supporters amongst the general public. Gentlemen write to the Press and denounce this proposal as vigorously as if it were something in the nature of a capital levy. Others write to me occasionally and suggest that it is an insidious attempt on my part, and on the part of my friends, to introduce Bolshevism into this country. Still others write as if a very grave constitutional issue of policy was involved, and as if what we are proposing was little short of a constitutional outrage !
Personally, I am not clever enough to appreciate these arguments, and I am utterly unable to see what objections there are to the proposal. In the first place it is not going to cost anything, and that ought to be a recommendation to some people. It does not involve the sacrifice of any principle, so far as I am aware. It does not involve any loss of dignity, or self-respect, and it is actuated solely by a desire to promote the safety of the public. I do not wish to repeat the arguments used on several occasions before, but the fact remains that every single responsible authority, with the exception of the Association which I have named and the City Commissioner of Police, has reported in favour of the proposal. Nearly every local authority has said that it is perfectly ready to put it into operation as soon as unanimity is obtained, and all they require is a lead.
The lead obviously must come from the Home Office, and however reluctant they may be to act—for I have very little
300
doubt that my noble friend (Lord Onslow) will say that the Home Office is not vet prepared to consider favourably the subject without further consultation. I do not hesitate to say that this extremely modest and sensible change will take effect some day. Whether I shall be alive to witness it I do not feel quite sure. But I hope that, by dint of continually bringing the subject before the Home Office and before the House, some impression may eventually be made, and I hope almost against hope that on this occasion the noble Earl's reply may not be quite so unsympathetic as on the previous occasion.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I supported the noble Lord before, and I wish to support him again. I think he has made out his case. What is that case? He says the Chief Constables' Association have passed a resolution to the effect that in the interests of public safety it is desirable to alter the present rule of walking on the footpath and to keep to the left, instead of the right. That is a very important body. I have no doubt we shall be told that some members did not agree to this. Perhaps they did not, but the fact remains that they passed this resolution, and they are, I imagine, men to be treated with respect in such a matter. Then the noble Lord mentioned his visit to Constantinople, and told us that you can now pass with safety along the streets in that city because the public have been made to keep to the right. I know what Eastern cities are like, and I can realise the importance of that change. As he said, in Vienna the police are going to do the same thing.
The six important bodies mentioned by my noble friend which have passed similar Resolutions—the House of Commons Select Committee, the Ministry of Transport Advisory Committee, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Association of Urban District Councils, and the Municipal Tramways Association—went into the question thoroughly. You cannot wave their opinion aside, for they have gone into the matter with care and deliberation. In this great city the pace of the traffic is increasing every day and in a most dangerous manner. The truth is that when you step off the pavement on the right, with your back to the traffic, and a heavy motor omnibus behind you, if a person gives you a jolt you are very likely to be thrown under the wheels of the omnibus. The Home Secre-

301
tary must walk about the streets like any other person, and must therefore know as well as I do that the dangers are real and terrible.
The statistics that my noble friend has given show how many lives are lost through this cause, and that the traffic is getting faster and faster. With such facts before us I think it is evident that the public should be protected against itself. Is the Home Office going to do nothing at all, or is it going to take the lead? After the case has been made out by Lord Newton as clearly and convincingly as it could possibly be, you cannot take up anon possumus attitude.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend has said with his customary force and conviction. My reason for speaking on this point is that I was the first President of the London Safety First Council, a body which has done a great deal of very useful work, and which has been criticised for bringing this question to the front. The council in my time took no public steps in this direction, but very carefully analysed all the accidents in the streets of London, and it found that a very considerable proportion of them occurred from stepping off the pavement to the right with the traffic coming up behind.
Such accidents naturally happen as the result of the present custom of the footpath in London. But if you step off from the left you not only see the vehicle which is immediately coming, but you get a chance of seing the vehicle which is coming up behind that, and it is that which is very often the cause of fatal accidents. There is no question in this case as to what is right and what is wrong; theory and practice are in complete harmony. Walking to the right is obviously wrong, and there is no reason why you should walk to the right; walking to the left is obviously right, and it may save you from an accident. Now that we have at last got a progressive Government I hope that this question will be filially settled.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my noble friend in his interesting speech said that on the last occasion when he raised the matter he drove me into the last ditch, which was that defended by the Association of Chief Constables. I must beg leave to correct him. It was not the Association
302
of Chief Constables to which I referred on I hat occasion. What I said was that the Home Office would take the opinion of the district conferences of chief constables. That is a different thing. The Chief Constables' Association is an unofficial body, and it represents only city and borough chief constables. The district conferences of chief constables are eight in number, and this question has only been considered by three of them. At those three meetings there was considerable diversity of opinion as to the advisability of adopting the recommendation of my noble friend. One of the difficulties which would be experienced in endeavouring to effect this change is that it is not a matter in which uniformity can be enforced by legislation. All you can do is to endeavour to change the rule of the road for foot passengers by exhortation's addressed to them.
LORD NEWTON: That is all we want.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Quite so. And any attempt to do this could only be partially effective because you cannot enforce your exhortation. Therefore, if you attempt to make a change you will, at most, only succeed in obtaining a partial change, which will make a state of confusion worse than the present system. Then there is another difficulty. Noble Lords who have addressed the House on this subject have, I think, confined themselves to the dangers which are found in stepping off the pavement in cities. Supposing, therefore, you were able to introduce this change it would only apply to places in which a pavement existed. In the country the old custom would remain. There are no pavements and no footpaths in country lanes and the old custom would prevail. Therefore, you would still have a diversity of practice.
Since I last replied to my noble friend on this Question, as your Lordships are aware, a change has taken place at the Home Office and a new Home Secretary presides there. Since this Question was placed upon the Paper by my noble friend it has, I may say, received the attention of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, and he is of opinion that the advantages of the proposed change which have been so ably put forward by my noble friend and other noble Lords are not so clear as to justify him in taking any action in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I listened with some regret to the conclusion of the speech of the noble Earl who has just addressed the House. The matter seems to me to be one in which the public is very deeply interested, and perhaps the House will not think it amiss if I plead not only as one of the public but as a member of a particular class— a class composed of those persons who can walk about but are obliged to use a stick and depend a good deal upon the treatment that they receive from their fellow subjects who happen to be on the pavement at the same time. A short time ago the pavement was covered with inscriptions to the effect that we were expected to keep to the left. I, being an obedient and law-abiding sort of a person, immediately set myself to obey what I conceived to be the inspired instruction thus written on the pavement. The result was disastrous. I found I was driven not into my last ditch but into the gutter by other persons who were not so disposed to comply with orders as I was.
The noble Earl said that the result of any intervening in this matter would be to create confusion; but can any confusion be greater than that which prevails at this moment? There is an immense amount of traffic, and I would ask any of your Lordships to take a walk in any quarter largely frequented by people who are going out Christmas shopping. You will then see that nothing could be worse than the confusion which already at this moment prevails upon the pavement. I hope, therefore, that, after further consideration, His Majesty's Government may see their way to do something.
I would like, if I may, although it is not quite relevant, to correct or qualify a statement winch was made by my noble friend Lord Newton. He spoke of the perversity of high officials and he cited in particular a case in which what he called the War Office pundits years ago had expressed a preference for the red uniform on the ground that it would be the least conspicuous colour which you could exhibit in the landscape. I have at various times been one of what my noble friend calls the War Office pundits, and my recollection is that the red was preferred not because it was inconspicuous but, on the contrary, because it was a very conspicuous and distinctive colour and found particular favour with the nursery maids and other young ladies whose company the members
304
of the military forces were disposed to frequent. For that reason, and because it was thought that the abolition of the red colour would be detrimental to recruiting, a good many gallant soldiers were in favour of retaining it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess remarked that he had listened to the noble Earl's reply with some regret. I have no hesitation in saying that I listened to it with extreme regret. My noble friend has displayed a certain amount of ingenuity because he has drawn an elaborate distinction between a conference of chief constables and district conferences of chief constables. Will he give me an undertaking, as he is evidently bent upon retiring into further ditches, that when the district chief constables have been consulted the Home Office will consider the propriety of making this change?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will not fail to bring the suggestion of my noble friend before the Home Office.

NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—
1. Whether the naval disarmament Treaty has now been ratified by all the Powers concerned.
2. What steps have been taken by the ratifying Powers to carry out Articles III and IV, Part 2, of the Treaty.
3. Whether a Return can be given to Parliament showing the names of all British ships which have already been rendered "incapable of further warlike service."
4. Whether, in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty, two capital ships will be laid down this year.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that some of my Questions may seem a little belated after what has happened in another place, but I sent them to the Admiralty at the beginning of the session before any attention had been drawn to these matters, and the noble Marquess, most wisely, I think, asked me particularly to postpone them for a time. My object

305
is to try to make clear how the proceedings under the Treaty of Washington, and our battle fleet, now stand. I am sure that the Admiralty must be very anxious that the actual facts in regard to these two matters should be made as plain as possible.
As your Lordships know, the Treaty of Washington is a very precise, though somewhat complicated, instrument. We are allowed to retain for present purposes 22 capital ships; the United States may have 18, and Japan may have 10. All other ships are to be made unserviceable in six months and to be totally scrapped in eighteen months. There is also a limit to the total tonnage assigned to each Power, and in future no ship is to be over a tonnage of 35,000. There is a further limitation to the 16-in. gun as the maximum of the armaments of the future. It must be evident that the most important point at the present time is the offensive power and the nature of the design of the ships which are allowed to be retained under the terms of the Treaty. The battle of Jutland, with the terrible tragedy which occurred to three of our battle cruisers, revealed certain defects of design. These defects were remedied in all post-Jutland ships, which have their vitals much better protected and are better guarded against torpedo attack. It follows, therefore, that the number of post-Jutland ships must be at least one gauge of naval strength at the present time, and the battle fleet which possesses plenty of the post-Jutland type must have a great advantage over one which does not.
How do we stand at the present moment in this important respect? We have only one ship, the "Hood," which is of 41,200 tons and was classed at Washington as post-Jutland. The great size of the "Hood" was due, of course, to the effort to give her the high speed of 36 knots. But the "Hood" does not embody some of the improvements in design which were introduced subsequently to the great war, and she is not really a post-Jutland battleship at all. She is far inferior to some other ships which were designed later. Against our so-called post-Jutland battle cruiser, our one ewe lamb, the United States have three capital ships—the "Maryland," the "West Virginia" and the "Colorado." All of those ships are much superior to the "Hood," except in point of speed. The United States have two more ships—the "Tennessee" and the "California"—which are fully post-Jutland in design except that they have twelve 14-inch guns
306
instead of eight 16-inch guns. It is quite arguable that these ships have more offensive power than those fitted with the larger types of guns; but that is a question which I must not discuss at the present time.
The fact remains that the United States battle fleet, with five post-Jutland ships and a total of eight ships of 31,400 tons and over, is distinctly more powerful than ours, with only the "Hood" and the "Tiger" which are above 28,000 tons. The potential superiority of the United States battle fleet would be still larger unless they have fully carried out all the scrapping which is prescribed under the terms of the Washington Treaty. This marked superiority on the part of the United States causes me no anxiety. I do not believe for a moment that we shall ever be at war with the United States, and if it were not for the strenuous exertions of the enemies of the British Empire to create friction between us, I believe our mutual relations would always be of the most friendly character. But the late Government proclaimed that henceforth we were to maintain a One Power standard. My point is that we have not nearly got a One-Power standard at the present time, and that Parliament ought to be made aware of this great deficiency.
Japan is allowed ten capital ships, of which two are post-Jutland, the "Mutsu" and the "Nagato," and six are of 30,600 tons or more. It was the disastrous Dreadnought policy of 1905 which first started the competition in monstrosities, led to enormous expenditure, and finally made our battle line weaker in the great war than it would otherwise have been. It is a curious thing that that policy has now let us down badly, because the larger number of heavier ships is possessed by the United States and Japan, and not by us. Looking ahead, the terms of the Treaty allow the United States in 1925 15 pre-Jutland ships and 3 post-Jutland ships, but in reality there will be 5 post-Jutland ships, as I have already explained. We are allowed in 1925 17 pre-Jutland ships and 3 post-Jutland ships. Unless, therefore, we lay down our two new battleships at once we shall still have one indifferent post-Jutland ship against five efficient American ships, and we shall remain nowhere near the One-Power standard.
Last week I tried to explain the dangerous situation which might arise, in the event of war or threat of war, in consequence of

307
the Irish Constitution—the dangerous situation, I mean, from a naval point of view—and, taking this in conjunction with the figures that I have already given, I think your Lordships will see that never since the eighties of last century have we been so weak at sea as we are at this moment. I note the agitation which has been raised against the laying-down of these two ships. The distinguished Admiral, who relies confidently on the opinion of a midshipman, has again been on the warpath, and has a number of supporters who maintain that the battleship is now absolutely useless. I am quite prepared to argue that question, but I am sure that the Admiralty considers that all these theories are premature at the present time. I hope the noble Marquess who is to reply will be able to say that the two new battleships will be laid down as soon as possible.
I should like to point out that no equal expenditure would give so much employment of the kind that is most needed at the present moment. Everything about a warship entails skilled labour—skilled labour in every single trade—and there is a real danger that if these two ships are not constructed some special skill of a particularly high order may be permanently lost to the country. Of course, the construction of the Forth and Clyde Canal is a most excellent project, which would give a certain amount of employment, but not nearly so much of the kind that is most needed as would the work to be done on these two battleships.
A controversy has recently been raised in America as to the extent to which our scrapping policy has been carried out. My own information is that the Admiralty has most loyally carried out all this part of the Treaty, and I hope the noble Marquess will give us the Return for which I have asked. I think it is essential to put an end to any controversy of that kind. There is one other Question, of which I gave the noble Marquess private notice. Can he say when the Jutland charts, which were promised last session, will be made available to Parliament and the public? I beg to put my Questions.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW): My Lords, the noble Lord who has asked this Question amplified a little in his speech the points as they appear on the Paper, but I think it will be most convenient if
308
I deal first with the Questions as they appear on the Paper. The first Question was whether the naval disarmament Treaty has now been ratified by all the Powers concerned? The position is as follows. The Treaty of Washington has been ratified by the United States of America, Japan, and this country. It has not yet been ratified by France or by Italy.
The second Question reads: What steps have been taken by the ratifying Powers to carry out Articles III and IV, Part 2, of the Treaty? Articles III and IV, Part 2, of the Treaty, deal entirely with the matter of replacement of tonnage, and I think my noble friend must have been referring to a later part of the Treaty —namely, Sections III and IV, Part 2, Chapter II.
LORD SYDENHAM: It is Chapter II.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Those are the scrapping provisions, and it is to those that I will address myself. In this matter I am able to tell your Lordships' House that, so far as is known, the United States and Japan have not yet disposed of any ships, except possibly some ships of an obsolete type which would be disposed of in the ordinary course. But your Lordships, at the same time, will have in mind the fact that no contracting Power is legally bound to dispose of any vessels until all the contracting Powers have actually ratified the Treaty. With reference to our own action under the Treaty, I think I can best make that plain by answering, as fully as I can, the next Question of the noble Lord—namely, whether a Return can be given to Parliament showing the names of British ships which have already been rendered incapable of further warlike service.
Let me first read through the list of completed capital ships which fall to be scrapped under the Treaty—"Commonwealth," "Agamemnon," "Dreadnought," "Bellerophon," "St. Vincent," "Inflexible," "Superb," "Neptune," "Hercules," "Indomitable," "Temeraire," "New Zealand," "Lion." "Princess Royal," "Conqueror," "Monarch," "Orion," "Australia," "Agincourt," and "Erin." Having regard to the importance of this subject, if I am not wearying the House, I think it right to tell your Lordships, so far as it lies in my power to do so, precisely how far

309
this scrapping has proceeded. According to the terms of the Treaty there have been rendered incapable of service in the Royal yards, the following ships—"Neptune," "Orion," "New Zealand," "Monarch" "Conqueror," "Princess Royal." The "Agincourt" and the "Erin" are in the hands of the Royal yards, and are being rendered incapable of service at this moment.
The following capital ships have already been sold to ship-breaking firms for breaking up—the "Commonwealth," "Dreadnought," "Bellerophon," "St. Vincent," "Inflexible," "Hercules," "Indomitable," "Temeraire" and "Neptune." The noble Lord will observe that the "Neptune" appears in the first list and in the second as well, and this is explained by the fact that having been rendered incapable of service in the Royal yard she was subsequently disposed of to a private firm.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Has the noble Marquess the information in figures so that we could follow it more easily?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I am afraid I have not the numbers. I will count them up if you like.
LORD BUCKMASTER: No, no. But I thought if he had the numbers it would be more convenient to follow the information.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I wish I had provided myself with the figures; I agree that the subject would then have been much easier to follow, but a list which I shall presently give will, I think, show the situation in full.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Perhaps he can tell us how many are left?
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I shall come to that in a moment, and I will also read a subsequent Return which perhaps will satisfy the noble and learned Lord. With regard to the fourth Question of the noble Lord, his whole argument was really addressed to the importance of laying down these two capital ships. I am very disappointed that I cannot give him a definite answer this afternoon. He was good enough to give me early private notice of this Question, and also to postpone it at my request, in the hope that I might be able to give a definite reply. I am sorry to have to disappoint him. The position
310
is that the matter is at present being considered by the Cabinet and a definite announcement will be made before the end of the present session.
The list which I now propose to read will, I think, satisfy the noble and learned Lord, as it covers the figures in general and in a clear manner. I thought your Lordships might wish to have a precise statement as to the relative strengths of the Navies of the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain, in capital ships, if the Washington Treaty is ratified and if it is not ratified, respectively. Let me first give the strength in capital ships, assuming that the Washington Treaty is ratified. The United States of America would have 18 battleships and 2 building, a total of 20 capital ships. Japan, assuming that the Washington Treaty is ratified, would have 6 battleships and 4 battle cruisers, a total of 10 capital ships, and. Great Britain, under the same assumption, would have 18 battleships and 4 battle cruisers, a total of 22 capital ships.
If the Washington Treaty is not ratified the United States of America would have 20 battleships of the Dreadnought type, 6 battleships of the pre-Dreadnought type, 9 post-Jutland battleships building, 4 battle cruisers building, and 2 battle cruisers which are now being converted into aircraft carriers; a total of 41 capital ships. Japan, assuming that the Treaty is not ratified, would have 7 battleships of the Dreadnought type, 4 battleships of the pre-Dreadnought type, 4 battle cruisers, 2 battleships building, 2 battle cruisers building, 2 battleships projected and 2 battle cruisers projected; a total of 23 capital ships. Great Britain, assuming the Treaty is not ratified, would have 18 battleships and 5 battle cruisers, a total of 23 battleships.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: Can the noble Marquess give the figures separately of post-Jutland capital ships in the three cases? They are very important.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: The noble Viscount knows that as regards this country thee is one post-Jutland battle cruiser. I have not been provided with any precise analysis of the position of the United States of America, except that in the event of the Treaty not being ratified that country would have 9 post-Jutland battleships building and 4 battle cruisers building.

311
With regard to the final Question of the noble Lord, of which he was good enough to give me private notice, the Jutland charts and the narrative have been sent out to Lord Jellicoe in New Zealand. He has promised to return them with his comments as soon as he can. These will be made available as soon after we receive them as possible.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I have no desire to embarrass His Majesty's Government on any question, and least of all on such a question as the state of the Royal Navy, which has always been treated as being apart from and outside any kind of purely political consideration. Still less do I desire to embarrass my noble friend the new Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whom I should like to congratulate upon having attained a most interesting position—a position which was the first that I ever held in official life and of which I always retain the most pleasant memories.
But I cannot but express deep disappointment at the reply which he has given this afternoon, or rather the absence of a reply, to the main Question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Sydenham. The attitude which lie indicates that the Government is adopting with regard to the question of laying down these ships is one which, frankly, fills me with alarm. I have no desire, of course, to hurry the Government unduly, but I would remind the noble Marquess who is leading the House that this session is likely to be extremely short, and I earnestly trust that the announcement of the Government's policy with regard to a question of this importance is not going to be postponed until the last moment of the session, when it will be impossible to raise a debate upon it. I hope that at any rate the answer, whatever it may be, will be given in time for a discussion to take place in your Lordships' House as well as in another place.
I am naturally deeply interested in this question, for two reasons; not only because I have recently laid down the great office of First Lord of the Admiralty and am thoroughly familiar with everything that took place up to the time of my handing over my duties there, but also, in a very special sense, as being one of the signatories to the Washington Treaty. I can assure your Lordships that when Lord Balfour, Sir Auckland Geddes and myself appended
312
our signatures to the Treaty of Washington. we, together wit h the Dominion representatives, did so in good faith that our signatures would be honoured. We had a definite and categorical assurance, in taking over our plenipotentiary powers, that our signatures would be so honoured by our own Government and by our Sovereign. Certainly, we would never have put our hands to that document had we supposed for a moment that one of the most vital considerations which led its to accept the drastic scrapping proposals that were made at Washington would be held as a matter of doubt, possibly a matter involving a consideration as to time, means and so forth, by a British Government, after its accredited representatives had placed their signatures upon it. That was a consideration which was altogether outside our purview at that time.
If that be not a sufficient reason for asking His Majesty's Government to proceed without further delay with the laying down of these ships, perhaps I might be permitted to give one or two others, or rather to amplify some of those which have been already advanced by my noble friend Lord Sydenham. What I want to make plain, if I can, is that there was something in the nature, not only of an honourable understanding, but almost of a treaty obligation between the Government and the Board of Admiralty and the whole Naval Service in this matter. The only consideration which enabled the Board of Admiralty to agree to this scrapping, as the noble Marquess has shown, of 19 of our capital ships, was that the other signatories who ratified the Treaty were naturally expected to fulfil their corresponding obligations in the matter, and that on our part we should have the countervailing advantage of the new ships which would embody the lessons of Jutland, and would form, in fact, the spearhead of our Fleet.
As has been shown by the noble Marquess, the Fleets of the other great Powers, and notably the United States and Japan, possess such a spearhead. He showed that in actual fact at the present time the United States have three of these post-Jutland ships, Japan has two, and we have only the "Hood," which is admittedly only a hybrid, and does not fully embody those lessons. He further showed that if the Washington Treaty could not be ratified we should be in a position where the United States would have 16 of these post-Jutland ships, Japan would have 10—

313
counting those built and building—and we should still have only the one hybrid, the "Hood." I venture to say that that is a perfectly impossible and unthinkable position for the British Empire to contemplate.
On the other hand, if the Treaty be ratified, as I confidently believe that it will be effectively ratified by all the Powers concerned, even then the comparative strengths, as shown by the noble Marquess, are sufficiently alarming in themselves, and show that we shall maintain only by a considerable stretch of the imagination that principle of bare equality with the United States which was the whole basis of the Agreement to which we came in Washington. That being the position, I cannot believe that the Government are going to hesitate for more than a few days, possibly, to carry out what is not only an honourable obligation but a debt which they owe, not merely to their negotiators at Washington, but to the Navy, to the country and to the Empire, which is so vitally concerned in this matter. I cannot suppose that, after having taken whatever time is reasonable to consider this matter—and I think that already there has been more than sufficient time—they are going to reverse a decision which was deliberately come to not merely by the late Government, but by Parliament. This whole matter was debated in Parliament during the last session; these proposals were heard, and Parliament decided that these ships were to be built. Money was provided in the Estimates, and the Board of Admiralty, of which I was the head, took the consequential action of proceeding to call for tenders and to take all steps to have these ships laid down in the course of the present year.
My noble friend, Lord Sydenham, referred to an ancillary consideration, that of unemployment. Surely, at a time when the Government is naturally being pressed from every direction to do whatever it can to find useful employment for the large numbers who are out of work, it is not, for some reasons which I am wholly at a loss to understand, going to deprive of this work the districts concerned, which are dependent to a quite abnormal extent upon this class of work and where the keenest distress prevails at the present time. It was estimated at the Admiralty before I left that the building of those two ships would give employment for a period
314
of three years to an average of over 20,000 men, rising in the course of the winter of next year, which is likely, I believe, to be an extremely difficult time so far as unemployment is concerned, to 30,000 men, and, the winter after, that of 1924, to over 25,000. That, of course, is only a secondary consideration, but I venture to say it is an extremely important one, because if these men are not employed upon useful work of this kind they will have to be supported by doles and other undesirable methods, and there will be very little gain financially.
The point I wish to emphasise particularly at this moment is that there is no Parliamentary authority either for abandoning or varying the decision to build these ships. It would, if presume, be necessary, if such a disastrous decision were reached, to ask the new Parliament to reverse the decision of its predecessor last session, and if such a proposal were made I trust it would be made in sufficient time to be amply debated and resisted, as in many quarters it would be resisted to the uttermost, in the course of the present session. There is a good deal in the way of detail that I could urge in order to indicate the necessity of laying down these ships if the One-Power standard is to be maintained. But it would be sufficient if I mentioned only one consideration, which I am sure will impress your Lordships. It may be said that you cannot always expect to have the newest and the best, but there is this difference between the newest and the less new in the case of capital ships. The post-Jutland capital ships possessed by the United States and Japan are capable of outranging any capital ship which we possess in the British fleet, the result being that it would be possible, in the case of a fleet action, for those capital ships of other Navies to lie off at a safe range and destroy our best capital ships without the latter having any means of reply.
That is an intolerable position to contemplate when you consider the moral effect that such a position must have upon the personnel of the Fleet. It is surely our duty to provide the officers and men of the British Navy, who are the best in the world, with the very best weapons, if they are to maintain their pre-eminence and efficiency. To ask them, in sonic unhappy event, to go into battle armed with weapons inferior to those of the adversary is

315
asking of them something which we have no right to ask, and I cannot believe for one moment that any Conservative Government, which has always done its best to maintain the strength of the British Navy, would be responsible for anything of the sort.
I do not want to say anything on this occasion with regard to the technical implications of the Treaty and its schedules, but it is perfectly plain to me as one of those who signed the Treaty, and it was perfectly plain to the Board of Admiralty when I was associated with it, that it is not open to us under the terms of the Treaty to postpone the building of these ships. We have either to abandon them altogether, to tell the world and the Empire that we cannot afford to keep up the One-Power standard, and to be content to fall to the third rank of Naval Powers, or we must build these ships. Of course, it is open to this country to say that we cannot afford to keep up the One-Power standard, if it is so desired, but we are not able to postpone the building of these ships.
The schedule which was drawn up, and which formed the subject of prolonged negotiations and consideration at Washington, was based upon actual dates, and for this reason—unless the dates on which various Powers might lay down ships were fixed, it might be open to any Power to postpone, and to take advantage of that postponement in order to introduce even greater development of naval science, and to produce ships winch would not in fact bear any relation in strength to the ships of other Powers of which they were supposed to be the equivalent. If once you start upon a system of trying to postpone, in order to get better ships later on, you will be not only breaking the Treaty but arousing the suspicion of every Admiralty in the world, and, I think, giving ground, and good ground, for suspecting the good faith of the British Government and the British Admiralty in this matter.
Therefore, it is really a question either of abandoning or of commencing building at once. As regards the idea of abandonment, I can only say that I am quite unwilling to believe that this Conservative Government can be contemplating for a moment such a disastrous surrender, which would amount really to a betrayal of our whole position as the principal sea-power of the world. If that is an issue which is
316
under discussion, or even in contemplation, at the present time, then, as I have said, it will be necessary for the Government to make a full and frank confession of the position to Parliament, the country and the Empire, with all the consequences which may ensue, and to make it at a time and in circumstances which will enable it to be challenged.
I can only appeal to the noble Marquess who leads the House to take these facts into his most earnest consideration, believing, as I am sure he will, that I am not pressing them in any kind of factious spirit, but that it is a matter in which I feel a peculiar responsibility, for I make no secret of the fact that if it had been decided in another sense while I was a member of the late Government, I should have left that Government immediately. I feel sure that he will recognise that it is not a matter that can be postponed indefinitely, and I hope he may be able to give some supplementary reply, even to-night, which may allay some of the apprehensions that I genuinely feel, and which disturb me more than anything I have heard in this House.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, if what I say may seem to bring down the discussion to a lower level than that attained by the extremely grave speech to which we have just listened, it is not my fault or the fault of those on whose behalf I propose to speak. I know we cannot build capital ships for the purpose of giving men employment, and that we cannot build capital ships such as those mentioned in the fourth part of the Question if it is against our Treaty obligations to do so. I understand that the building of these two ships is not only permitted but even in a sense may be required by our Treaty obligations, though it is not likely that we shall embark upon the building of two capital ships which are not required by national safety.
There remains the question of unemployment, which concerns certain great communities, the names of which probably occur to some of your Lordships. I know of one such community, where war conditions had the effect, in the interests of the Government, of bringing a large abnormal increase to its ordinary population for the purpose of making munitions. But that large temporary increase of population still remains in that community, and is reduces to a state of unemployment by the mere cessation of the war. I am told—

317
and it was stated in another place the other evening—that in that large community at the present moment 167 persons out of every thousand are in receipt of relief of some kind, that is to say, money for which they do no work, because they must be kept alive; and that in that community, since the beginning of the operation of what was called the Trade Facilities Act, or, indeed, since the beginning of this specially created unemployment, no assistance of any kind has been given or promised from the Government for the relief of that unemployment. I hope that these facts will be borne in mind by His Majesty's Government whenever they come to a decision, and that, when they do come to that decision, they will give us an opportunity of discussing what they have done or not done, or what they propose to do.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord on the Cross Benches who brought this matter before your Lordships' notice may, I think, congratulate himself upon the importance of the speeches which have been delivered this evening. We entirely and fully recognise the spirit in which the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Lee of Fareham) has addressed your Lordships. Nothing was more gratifying than to hear him making the statement, in which we entirely concurred, that all these matters which belong to the welfare of the Royal Navy are outside ordinary political and Party considerations. That is absolutely the case. The speech which he delivered in that spirit was a very valuable contribution to the debate. He was afraid that there would be no opportunity of discussing this matter in certain eventualities, but I think the course which he took was the best one; having that apprehension, he made a sort of hypothetical speech at once.
I do not complain of it for a moment. He was able to convey to us many considerations which are of great importance, and which, I can assure him, will be very properly weighed by His Majesty's Government, and reported in the Office which he so lately adorned. He is quite right in saying that there is a necessity for an immediate decision under the Treaty. These ships must be begun, if they are to be begun at all, in the course of the present year. But he must not presume for a
318
moment that there is any question of a doubt. What was said just now by the noble Marquess next me (Lord Linlithgow), whom I am very glad to welcome as a colleague on this Bench, is merely that the matter has not yet come under the consideration of the Cabinet. That is true. The noble Viscount was surprised that that was the case, and I could not help wondering what must have been the method of managing the business in the Cabinet to which he belonged. My experience is simply overwhelming in the very few weeks in which I have been in office. And in no matter is that more true than in this vital question of national defence. I have personally consumed many inadequate hours in considering it already, and have totally failed to get up to date, if I may say so, in the proper consideration of some of the most vital matters which affect national and imperial defence. And therefore it did not surprise me in the least that we have not yet reached the point of discussing in the Cabinet the question of these two ships.
But I hope he will not presume for a moment that there has been any adverse decision. Very much the contrary. My noble friend stated what was absolutely true. Though, of course, it must have been very carefully considered in the Department, it has not yet reached the Cabinet table for consideration. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has answered a Question in another place only to-day, and he says a decision will have to be come to before the close of the present session; that is, within the next week. I enter into an absolute assurance to the noble Viscount that I will take care that he is informed at the earliest possible moment of when that decision will be announced, in order that he may take whatever course he sees fit, but I hope that he will not find that upon a matter of this kind there is any difference between any members of your Lordships' House as to what the national safety requires.
VISCOUNT LEE OF FAREHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess very much for his reply, which, so far as it goes, is entirely satisfactory to me.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for the clear answer he has given. He has given information this evening which is of the very greatest importance, and which clears up certain matters which were obscure. But

319
I confess that he has left upon my mind a rather depressing impression. If I counted rightly he told us that we had nine capital ships already disabled, and that ten more have been wholly scrapped. But I understand that the United States have not scrapped any ships at all. It does, therefore, seem to me that our large scrapping operation must have been somewhat premature. I assume, though the noble Marquess did not say so, that the United States have at least stopped further building on the ships they had on the stocks when this Treaty was made.
But the worst of it is that, as has been pointed out, if the Treaty is not carried out, the United States will have an enormous naval superiority over us—a superiority that we could not overtake, even if we desired to overtake it. Further, if the Treaty is not carried out, the Japanese, with ten post-Jutland ships to our one not very satisfactory "Hood," will have a more powerful fleet than ours. All that can be done is to build those ships. I am certain from what the noble Marquess has said that we shall get a decision from the Government very soon, and that it will be the only decision which to my mind it is possible for the Government to take.

THE LAW AND RENT INCREASES.
LORD ABINGER LORD ABINGER had on the Paper the following Question—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in many cases of small landlords great hardships are arising owing to a recent decision under the Rent Restrictions Acts by virtue of which demands are being made for repayment of increases of rents which were hitherto understood to be valid under those Acts; and whether they can see their way to grant a moratorium in such cases, pending the introduction of final legislation on the matter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question because I have been given to understand by many small householders that they are at present put into a position of very great difficulty owing to a recent decision that has been come to in His Majesty's Law Courts. I think the case itself began in Scotland, but it is understood to be also applicable to England. Briefly the position is this. Before the war men in an ordinary sphere of life who displayed thrift and energy in
320
very many cases put their savings into house property in the shape of cottages, which was considered a most satisfactory form of investment; they could always see it. They did not get a large rate of interest, but they always looked forward to obtaining a sufficient amount as a subsistence allowance in the shape of revenue when they arrived at an older age.
The war intervened, and, owing to the exigencies of the war, the Rent Restrictions Act was duly passed. That Act put these little men in this position. They were not able to raise their rent and they were not able to eject a tenant. Their savings, such as they were, are now completely at a discount, because, not being able to get possession of property of that sort, they are not in a position to sell it. Therefore, very large amounts have had to be written off their capital which it has taken them, perhaps, a long time to earn. That position, I understand, was recognised as a hardship and, since rates, taxes and repairs had increased enormously, it was decided that these people should be allowed to raise their rent by 30 per cent. I think that another 10 per cent. was afterwards allowed. I am not talking about the big landlords who can look after themselves quite well, and have lawyers and various other people to advise them, but of the small landlords. In very many cases throughout the large towns in England these little landlords approached their tenants. No objections were made and the increases of rent were paid. There were no protests, and everything appeared to be going on swimmingly until this decision was arrived at in Scotland which seems to have altered the position entirely, because now these unfortunate small landlords are inundated with solicitors' letters demanding the refund of the excess of rent that has been paid to them for more than a year.
It must, of course, be obvious to all your Lordships that many of these unfortunate landlords are not in a position to pay. If they were big landlords it would not really matter; the sums could be transferred from the debit side to the credit side and adjustment come to hereafter. But their position is that they are suddenly met with these demands and they are receiving these solicitors' letters. They understand Parliament is going to adjourn, and they want to know what their position is going to be between now and February; because in very many cases I am afraid it will be

321
a very awkward one so far as they are concerned. Therefore I placed my Question on the Paper in the form suggested, simply to impress the matter upon His Majesty's Government, and to ask them whether, in the circumstances, they could take any steps to remedy the grievance. Grievances of that nature have been remedied. Before, I believe.
I am given to understand that most of this trouble has come about through the very bad drafting of the Act. I am further informed that some of His Majesty's judges have said that it is an exceedingly badly drafted Act. I do not know whether that is so or not, but from personal experience of this House I can recall something which Your Lordships will remember quite well—that a similar, or morn or less similar, case arose during the tenure of office of the late Government. The noble Viscount who so ably addressed the House this afternoon on naval matters, brought in an Agriculture Bill and we talked about it and debated it for a considerable time. A good many of the clauses were intended to benefit certain tenants. The Bill was duly passed. No sooner was it passed than we were told that it would not benefit those tenants at all; that the Bill was, in fact, so badly drawn that the tenants would not receive any benefit. As a consequence an amending Bill was brought in. If the present position of these unfortunate small landlords is due to any fault in the drafting of the Act I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to help these unfortunate people. They have been put in this position entirely without fault of their own, and owing to the fact of their having been told, or it having been generally understood, that they were empowered to raise the rents.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies to this Question, may I express the hope that he will be able to give your Lordships some indication of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the continuation of the Rent Restriction Acts? The operation of those Acts has been most unfortunate. In the particular instance mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, I understand that the unfortunate decision was arrived at by a majority only of the Judges who were present, and that those who were most conversant with Scottish procedure and /or Scottish circum-
322
stances were entirely opposed to it. Therefore, it is very hard indeed that these Scottish landlords should be muleted in the way in which it is possible they will be if the decision is given effect to in Scotland.
There is another point to which I should like to call attention. The noble Lord said that the Act was passed owing to the exigencies of war. I never could understand that. These Rent Restriction Acts did not increase in any way the supply of houses in this country, and there is nothing to show that the ordinary law of supply and demand would not have been operative during the war. The whole of this difficulty has arisen owing to the discouragement of building by private enterprise. Now we have reached a position in which those houses that were built by means of the Government grant are let at a rent of perhaps one-third and in some cases one-fourth of their true economic value, while other people who were able, owing to their own energy and self-denial, to build houses are not allowed to get anything approaching an economic rent. Thence it is that the present shortage of housing accommodation in the country has arisen. I hope that the noble Viscount in his reply to this Question will give your Lordships some indication that these Acts, if they do lapse, will not be renewed, and that the law of supply and demand, the most just law there is, will be permitted to become operative.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord who has just sat down is aware that the Rent Restriction Acts do not expire until June next and that, of course, it will be necessary to consider in the meantime whether they shall be renewed, and if so, with what changes. A Committee has been appointed to consider and advise upon that matter and is engaged upon its duties. Until that Committee has reported it is impossible to say what decision the Government will recommend Parliament to take.
With reference to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Abinger, I agree that it is a very serious question. The position is exactly as he stated it. The Rent Restriction Act, speaking generally, forbade the raising of the rents of houses of a certain size. The Act of 1920 provided

323
that rents might be raised within certain limits on giving a notice, of which the form is contained in a Schedule to the Act. But it is also provided that rents should not be so raised unless a landlord would but for the Act have been in a position to obtain possession of his property by the time fixed for raising the rent. Some landlords or their advisers read those two sections together, as they have been read by the House of Lords in a recent decision, and they instructed their agents to give, or themselves took the course of giving, notice to quit, and with that notice to quit a notice to raise the rent when the time for quitting arrived. They followed what has now been held to be a right course.
Other owners of houses, large and small, took another course. They were advised, or they came themselves to the conclusion, that all they had to do was to give a notice to increase the rent, and they gave that notice. I believe, in many thousands of cases, that notice was accepted by the tenant as being sufficient. The tenant thought his rent was lawfully increased, and he paid rent at the higher rate. That went on in some cases for a year, or for more than a year, and during all that time these higher rents have been paid without complaint by the tenants. But some time ago the point was raised, first in England, and then in Scotland, whether that was enough, and after litigation it has been held by this House that the mere notice to raise rent was not effective. To be effective it should be accompanied by a notice to quit. Therefore, in accordance with the Act, all rents paid in excess of the previous rents merely on a notice to increase must be repaid by the landlord to the tenant, or, if not repaid, may be set off by the tenant against future instalments of rent.
I have not a word to say about the decision. I was not a party to it. I accept it as laying down what would be the effect of the Statute. Of course, it is true, as the noble Lord says, that for these landlords, and especially the small landlords, who took what has been held to be a wrong course, a very serious position has arisen. I have made special inquiry as to whether the landlords affected are the big men or the small men, and I am told by the authorities in the West of Scotland, where the point is specially important, that the majority are small owners—owners of one or more small houses. To them, I agree, it is a serious matter. It is very strange that,
324
although there are cases in England—the noble Lord seems to know some—where the point has arisen, there has been little complaint from England. I think that is due to the fact that the English Courts decided this point some time ago. Landlords took warning, and at once resorted to the proper steps, and no real crisis has arisen south of the Tweed. Oddly enough, in the East of Scotland, in Edinburgh and the district round Edinburgh, the same course has been followed, and, although there are exceptions, there are not very many cases of hardship in that district. It is in Glasgow, and in the district round Glasgow, and in the West of Scotland, that the decision has come as a surprise, and has produced something amounting to a crisis.
As to what course the Government is going to advise Parliament to take, the matter requires investigation. There are points that still require to be cleared up, such as the effect of the decision on rates, and matters of that kind. It has to be considered what course is to be taken, and whether it is right to alter the Statute because the effect of it has been misunderstood. With a view to arriving at a decision, His Majesty's Government have referred the matter to the Cabinet Committee for consideration and report. It is hoped their Report will be received before the commencement of the new session. I am afraid it is impossible to deal with the matter earlier, but an announcement has been made that if that Committee should recommend legislation then the matter will be taken in hand at once, and that, if legislation is proposed, Parliament will be asked to make it retrospective so as to date back to the present time.
It is thought probable that that announcement, which has been made and published throughout the country, will lead to this position— that tenants, who at present have this legal right, will not be induced to press it beyond what is reasonable, because they will know that if legislation is passed later, and if Parliament agrees that it shall be retrospective, it will date back to the present time. I am afraid that is the only answer I can give to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that the matter is thoroughly understood by the Government, and that they will do their best to find whether a grievance exists, and if it does, to suggest a remedy.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am bound to say that I think the answer of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is as satisfactory as could be expected in the strange circumstances of this matter. I should have regretted greatly if he had acceded at once to the demand that was made by the noble Lord who asked the Question, and, out of compassion, had promised that something should be done in a set of circumstances which, upon investigation, may not prove to be quite so meritorious as at first they seem. I admit that I am not greatly impressed with the statement about the person who has put his savings into houses, and who, it is suggested, has been greatly injured because he has not been allowed to use the peculiar position that the possession of small house property enables him to be placed in for the purpose of extracting the last farthing out of the wretched people who have to live in his houses.
After all, what have the owners of these houses suffered as compared with people who have put their money into other investments? Suppose that, instead of putting their money into cottages, they had put it into Government stock, they would have been worse off, because they would not be able to get as much as they got before the war. Or suppose that they had put it into industrial undertakings, unless they had put it into something that made a great profit during the war they would have found themselves much worse off indeed. All that has happened is that they have been restricted to that percentage on their investments that they received before the war broke out. It does not appear to me that that is a hardship at all, though I agree with what Lord Lamington said, that it is of the utmost consequence that you should allow free play to the laws of supply and demand.
But he will admit, I think, that you must allow the free play of the laws of supply and demand only when economic conditions are normal. To allow the free play of the laws of supply and demand when you have artificially restricted the output of houses, and consequently caused immense pressure upon the poorer population, does not seem to me to be a doctrine that is consistent with humanity, even if it is with economy. The result will be that you let unrestricted powers be placed in the hands of these landlords over the poor people who have to live sometimes in single
326
rooms and sometimes in very tiny houses. That will be conceded. There is no doubt about it, for one knows that at this moment the accommodation for the poorer people of this country is wholly and shamefully inadequate. Nobody disputes that.
I am glad, indeed, to hear that this matter has been the subject of very careful consideration, and I sincerely hope that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will not think that everybody is in agreement as to the desirability of removing from these poor people this small safeguard which at present this Act affords. I have only to add this, that the noble and learned Viscount himself will, I am certain, recognise that the legislation he is proposing is of a most unusual and drastic character, and that if it be proposed to introduce an Act of Parliament which is to enable people to be deprived of the legal rights that they at present possess merely because somebody has misunderstood what an Act of Parliament provided, it is a novel process in the history of legislation and one which may be productive of very grave mischief indeed. I trust that that matter also will be taken into consideration by this Committee.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I desire to thank the Lord Chancellor for the full reply he has given to my Question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, seems to object rather strongly to the idea that any of those people are suffering. Before the war they were earning small incomes; since the war they have earned nothing at all. We have discussed this question for years and the noble and learned Lord and myself would never be at one. The reason is plain. During the last Parliament he got up one day and apparently thought he was speaking for the whole House when he said: "I suppose all of us are more or less Socialists." All I can say is that a great proportion of the people of this country, and of Europe, are anything but Socialists. 1Ve strongly object to all these schemes.
The noble Lord who sometimes sits beside him, speaking yesterday on the Irish Bill, said that the stability of this country rested on the freedom and trust placed in the people. Certainly, and you cannot have freedom and trust unless you cease to penalise industry. The noble and learned Lord would like to see every industry and every person penalised. He would like to sit down in a beautiful law

327
court and make the people subject to the law. If he took any part in any industry—I do not believe he knows much about trade—if he, for instance, was selling a pair of boots he would cut the foot to fit the boot, not cut the boot to fit the foot. The answer given by the Lord Chancellor will be appreciated by many people in England and Scotland who do not desire such socialistic measures.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate my forbearance when I tell him that I could have pointed out that the whole of his speech has been out of order. I might have drawn attention to that a little time back.
LORD ABINGER: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I thought I had a right of reply. I hope your Lordships will forgive me.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that approval be given to four Special Orders under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922. They are purely formal, but if any noble Lord desires information on any of them I shall be quite prepared to give it.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Scunthorpe and Frodingham, in the Parts of Lindsey, in the County of Lincoln, which was presented on the 28th day of November, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Chudleigh, in the rural district of Newton Abbot, in the County of Devon, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1922, be approved. (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Hemel Hempstead and the parishes of King's Langley and Bovingdon, in the rural district of Hemel Hempstead, in the County of Hertford, which was presented on the 30th day of November, 1922, be approved—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the county borough of Bootle and the urban districts of Litherland, Waterloo-with-Seaforth and Great Crosby, all in the County of Lancaster, which was presented on the 4th day of December, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.