Sitting of 7 December 1922

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
MEMBEK SWORN.
Robert Richards, Esquire, for County of Denbigh (Wrexham Division), took the Oath, and signed the Roll.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

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

    MEDICAL BOARDS.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Minister of Pensions what is the present cost peal annum of the Irish medical board situated in Dublin; and how many patients did they examine during the period 1st July, 1921, to July, 1922?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The cost of the medical boards sitting at Dublin during the year in question was approximately £30,000, and during that period nearly 20,000 examinations were made. The average cost of each examination, as revealed by these figures, is, of course, exceptionally high and is to be accounted for by the abnormal conditions prevailing in Ireland during the period stated. The cost has already been greatly reduced.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that when a medical board reports that the disability of an applicant is attributable to War service the Ministry refuses to accept the
    1954
    opinion of its own officers, and opposes the application; if so, by whom is the opinion rejected; where it is rejected, is the applicant afforded another opportunity of appearing before another medical board; and, if not, what is the reason for refusing the opportunity?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member is under a serious misapprehension as to the procedure of the Ministry. The question whether a man is entitled to any compensation at all (as distinct from the question as to the extent to which he is disabled) has never been a matter to be decided by the original medical board which either invalided the man out of the Army or considered his case under an Article 9 claim. The question has to be determined in the light of the man's conditions of service, his medical history during service, and, in some cases, before enlistment, and other considerations which, in many cases, are not medical matters at all; and, so far as the matter is a medical one, the opinion of a specialist is often necessary. On the question of title to pension, every case is, of course, carefully considered in the Regional Office by medical assessors and other officers, in the light of all the evidence available, after the board has given its opinion. If the Ministry had made a rule accepting in all cases the opinion of the first medical board on the question of entitlement, a very large number of the eases now on the pension list would not have been admitted at all, because the opinion of the first board is probably as often unfavourable to the man as favourable. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is the case that where title to pension is subsequently questioned, on the advice of a specialist or otherwise, the Ministry do not decide the case without the man having an opportunity of stating his own case before a further special medical board. I would remind the hon. Member that in every case where the Ministry reject a claim, the man has a right of appeal to the independent Appeal Tribunal under the Lord Chancellor.

    PENSION RESTORED (MRS. M. MALLON).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Mary Mallon, 31, Hamilton Street, Govan, was awarded a pension on the 10th December, 1918, in respect of her

    1955
    brother, Private James Dunlop, No. 33,708, Highland Light Infantry; that this woman had to bring up the brother owing to the death of his mother and father, and when she married she took this lad into her home and continued to bring him up, and that Mrs. Mallon received a letter on the 17th November, 1922, informing her that the pension is withdrawn and no further grant or gratuity can be made to her; whether he can state why it is that this pension should have been paid for a period of four years on the ground that she was the nearest relative and had been responsible for his maintenance prior to his enlistment; and whether he will give instructions that this case be re-opened and the payment of pension resumed to this woman?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to say that it has been found possible to restore the pension in this case for a further period.

    EEGULAR AND TEMPORARY OFFICERS.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Pensions if he can remove the discrimination now obtaining between the scales of pensions and treatment meted out to regular officers compared with temporary officers suffering the same percentage of disability arising out of their service in the late War?
    Major TRYON: I cannot agree that regular officers are at a disadvantage as compared with temporary officers. In almost all cases regular officers receive half-pay rate as a permanent pension, even if disablement is slight or temporary. In cases of total disablement there is an addition of £150 to the service rate. Where the officer retired for reasons other than those of ill-health and was granted a service gratuity, but not service retired pay, he may receive as a concession disability retired pay of £100 a year.
    Mr. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information?
    Major TRYON: I have had my attention called to this complicated question which involves two Departments; but my information on the subject is what I have just stated in my answer.
    Mr. JONESfurther asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that regular officers in receipt of £100 per
    1956
    annum for total incapacity caused by service in the late War who are admitted to a Ministry of Pensions hospital for treatment necessitated by their disability are charged the sum of 3ls. 6d. per week, which is deducted out of their weekly pension of 38s. 6d., leaving a bare 7s. per week upon which the families of such officers are forced to exist: and will he inquire into this matter?
    Major TRYON: The hon. Member is, I presume, referring to certain exceptional cases of regular officers who have retired for reasons other than ill-health and have been granted service gratuities—generally in lieu of retired pay. The facts are as stated, but I may remind the hon. Member that the Special Grants Committee have power to grant allowances for wife and children to an officer under treatment for a disability due to War service who is in need.
    Mr. JONES: If case? of this kind are brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, will he give them his serious and favourable consideration?
    Major TRYON: As to that, I shall be glad to consider any case brought to my notice by the hon. Gentleman.

    APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in order to assist ex-service men and dependants in the most difficult task of presenting their cases before appeal tribunals, he can arrange that they shall have at their disposal free legal or expert advice and assistance, such as is afforded to defendants in the courts of law?
    Major TRYON: I regret that I am unable to recommend the adoption of this suggestion. The proposal has already been very carefully considered, both by the late Minister of Pensions and by myself, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, but was found impracticable. Apart from objections on the ground of the heavy expense that would be entailed, it is, in my judgment, neither necessary nor desirable in the interests of appellants to introduce into the procedure of the pension appeal tribunals, a system of professional advocacy.
    Mr. HURD: Would it be possible for the British Legion, or a body of that sort, to give, or provide, independent help for these cases?
    Major TRYON: Yes, Sir. The British Legion has rendered very valuable help in cases of the kind.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pensioners consider that unless they get legal advice they cannot get their cases properly considered.
    Major TRYON: On that I may say that I think it is undesirable to put in interposition of that sort. In the claims put forward we endeavour to bring out as clearly as possible the points in favour of the men.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Would the appeal tribunal be prepared to hear the presentation of the case put by, not a professional person, but someone nominated by the British Legion?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Does not the Ministry of Pensions encourage voluntary assistance?
    Major TRYON: In reply to the two right hon. Gentlemen, that is the case. We welcome any assistance given in a voluntary form to the applicants. We do not want to put ourselves in antagonism to the applicant.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the many cases of harshness, and even of injustice, in recent cases of appeal by pensioners before the pension appeal tribunals; that many men have had their pensions stopped or very much reduced, when quite unfit for work, owing to their wounds or disabilities; whether he can give the House of Commons the recent instructions sent to tribunals on the question of revisions; and whether he is considering the stabilising of all pensions?
    Major TRYON: I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion that the pensions appeal tribunals which are under the Lord Chancellor are either harsh or unjust. The tribunals are free to exercise an unfettered judgment on the merits of each case which comes before them, and I am informed that no instructions which would in any way tend to limit that power are or could be given to them. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and
    1958
    gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Stone on the 30th November, and of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to his own great kindness several of these cases have been looked into and the pensions rearranged? There are many cases where injustice has been removed owing to his own efforts.
    Major TRYON: I am not aware of the particular cases to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The procedure is as follows: When a claim is rejected by the Ministry and the man appeals, we again go into the case, and sometimes we are able to grant the application in consequence of new evidence. If we do not grant the entitlement the case goes on to the appeal tribunal, whose decision is final.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received from the metropolitan borough of Woolwich a copy of a resolution passed at a recent meeting of the borough council protesting against the action of the Ministry of Pensions in reducing the amount of pensions of disabled ex-service men, especially in those cases where a one-hundred per cent, pension had been granted, and reduced solely on the ground that the person is, in the opinion of the medical board, fit for light work without definition, thereby causing them to apply to the Employment Exchange for benefit and light work in competition with physically fit unemployed workmen who have not been compelled to change their occupation; and whether he will do his best to provide for the maintenance of men whose helpless condition has been brought about by their services to the State.
    Major TRYON: I have seen the resolution referred to. I have already dealt with this matter in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. J. Guest) on the 28th November. I may add that it is contrary to specific instructions for medical officers to certify men fit for light work, and I shall be glad to receive particulars of any cases in which the instructions on this point have been disregarded.

    23RD LONDON REGIMENT (G. F. GIBBONS).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Pensions if he will make inquiries into the case of Private George Francis Gibbons, No. 705594, 23rd London Regiment, of 22, Cassiobury Road, Waltham-stow, E.17, who served with the Colours from 3rd June, 1918, to 20th February, 1919, and who, previous to his enlistment, was in good health, and was passed into the Army in category Al, but who, since his discharge, has been most of his time ill, and has been certified as suffering from tuberculosis, due to service, by the local tuberculosis officer, and who is now a chronic case, and has not received any pension or gratuity; and will he reconsider his case with a view to granting him a pension?
    Major TRYON: The Pensions Appeal Tribunal have confirmed the decision of the Ministry that the disability claimed in this case is not connected with service. I am, therefore, precluded from re-opening the case.

    SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY (G. H. SPRUNT).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of George Henry Sprunt, of the Somerset Light Infantry, who was called up on 18th October, 1917, sent to France, where he served until March, 1918, after which he was sent to Egypt, demobilised 20th April, 1920, and at the end of which year he was treated by a local doctor for neurasthenia; whether he is aware that this man is now in Brentwood Asylum without a pension, is classified as a pauper on the West Ham rates, and his father called upon to pay 5s. per week towards his maintenance, the pensions appeal tribunal having disallowed his claim; whether he is aware that from 1915 to 1917 this man was in regular employment and in excellent health, and was passed into the Army as Al and served as such; and, in these circumstances, will the Ministry immediately remove the man from the pauper list and treat him as one of the men for whose sufferings the nation is responsible?
    Major TRYON: The decision of the Ministry that this man's disability is neither due to, nor worsened by, service
    1960
    has been confirmed on appeal by the independent pensions appeal tribunal, whose decision is final.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still stick to his statement that no man who has served overseas is treated in this way—as a pauper lunatic?
    Major TRYON: I do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring to in this particular case.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The other night the hon. and gallant Gentleman said something to the effect I have stated?
    Major TRYON: In the discussion in the House on ex-service men in asylums I held in my hand six or seven cases, and said that none of these cases had served overseas.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I will send the right hon. Gentleman the statement to which I refer. Do I understand this man in my question was not enlisted as A1; if he was so enlisted, is he not entitled to a pension, and will the right hon. Gentleman give his attention to that point?
    Major TRYON: I will send the hon. Gentleman the information for which he asks. I think I ought to say that I have already been asked to go into about 200 individual cases to-day, and therefore I am not immediately in possession of all the details of each case. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me I shall be very happy to give him the information for which he asks.

    12TH LINCOLNS (B. WOOLLEY).
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can say why a pension has been refused in the case of Private Benjamin Woolley, No. 9,773, 12th Lincolns, who is now confined to Mickleover asylum as a direct result of war experience, and whose wife and child are now in a destitute condition?
    Major TRYON: I am looking into this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. WARNEasked the Minister of Pensions how many claims for pensions under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant by widows whose husbands have died as

    1961
    the result of disability due to war service have been disallowed because these men survived for more than seven years after the date of such wound, injury, or disease?
    Major TRYON: About 70 cases of this nature have arisen up to date the majority of which, however, have already been dealt with by way of pension under Article 17.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will do all that is possible to facilitate a decision being arrived at in the case of Mrs. Lucy Tomlinson, of 476, Broomhill, Glossop Road, Sheffield (late of Pilsley, near Bakewell), widow of the late Kenneth H. Tomlinson, No. 71806, Sherwood Foresters, who died on the 27th September last of tuberculosis contracted while on military service; and whether he is aware that the pension was applied for through the Sheffield war pensions committee two months ago, since which time nothing has been heard by the widow of the application?
    Major TRYON: It has been found necessary to obtain further medical information before a final decision can be given. I will see that there is no unnecessary delay in connection with the case.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this woman is dependent on charity at present, and will he hasten up a decision?
    Major TRYON: We do all we can in these cases. On the available information the case could not be granted, but additional information may possibly enable a favourable decision to be arrived at.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions the number of widows of men who have died since the War who have claimed pensions from his Department during the last 12 months; how many such pensions have been allowed and how many refused; how many of such cases have gone to appeal; and can he state what the decisions on such appeals have been?
    Major TRYON: During the last 12 months about 10,500 applications by widows for pensions have been considered, and in 5,500 cases an award of pension has been made. About 4,000
    1962
    appeals by widows have been heard by the tribunals during the same period, and of these approximately 1,200 have been successful.

    DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that notice is being sent out to dependants receiving pensions in respect of the death of a son or other relative that the War bonus hitherto paid to them is to cease on the 31st March, 1923; what is the reason for such decision; and, seeing that it is contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of the decision he has recently announced in the House, can this be reconsidered?
    Major TRYON: The 20 per cent, bonus which is payable on that class of pension to parents which is based on the amount of the support given by the deceased son to his parent before enlistment, will, in accordance with the statement already made by me in this House, not be reduced in April, 1923. In the case of pensions based on physical incapacity and need, no bonus is ordinarily payable, because the pension is based upon the circumstances of the parent at the present time.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question as to whether the bonus should be stopped in these cases. This woman has a pension in respect of her son, and her only other income is 12s. a week unemployment benefit, and this will be discontinued in March next?
    Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member should send me the details of any particular case before asking me for information.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether any general instructions have been given to his Department to effect reductions in the email pensions granted to aged poor parents of deceased soldiers in cases of pecuniary need; whether he can state the number of these cases reduced during the six months ended 30th June, 1922; and, in view of the fact that the reductions in many cases are for sums less than 2s. a week, will he say what is the total saving to the State and the cost of inquiry officers and medical men and others employed to investigate these cases; and whether it is proposed to carry out this revision periodically?
    Major TRYON: No general instructions have been issued to the effect suggested. A new and improved scheme for the award and administration of this class of pension was introduced in the early part of this year. The effect of the scheme, which was generally agreed as equitable, was to increase substantially a number of the pensions while reducing some in which the circumstances did not justify the previous grant. I am not in a position to give the number of cases in which reduction or increase occurred as the direct result of this scheme. No additional staff was employed for the purpose. With regard to the last part of the question, I am glad to be able to say that one of the objects of the new scheme was to avoid the constant review of pensions which had been the previous practice. A pension is now awarded for a year at a time.

    EOYAL AIR FORCE (J. CORFIELD).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Private J. Corfield, No. 107,720, late Royal Air Force, now residing at Darleydale, near Matlock, who enlisted in 1914, was discharged in 1918, was married in 1916 and has three children; whether he is aware that in addition to his own pension he received a pension up to 15th November last in respect of his wife and children; whether he is also aware that the pension to his wife and children has now been discontinued; and whether he will take steps to restore the said pension?
    Major TRYON: I am inquiring into the facts of this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member at an early date.

    DRAFT BOOKS.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Pensions what amount was paid during 1921 as advances to ex-service men who were obliged to apply to local offices for assistance owing to delay in forwarding their payment books from the office in London to local post offices: whether, in these circumstances, the expense of travelling to the local pensions office is paid by the Ministry; and whether arrangements can be made to enable the post offices to continue payment pending the receipt of draft books?
    Major TRYON: The amount asked for in the first part of the question is £270,000, which, as I pointed out to the hon. Member last Thursday, arises largely from delay on the part of pensioners in completing their life certificates. Payment in the manner suggested would not be practicable, the Post Office officials not being in a position to decide whether the applicant is entitled to pension. The expense of travelling is not defrayed by the Ministry.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Would the Pensions Minister kindly look into this matter where hardship is imposed by having to travel to and from the local pensions office I Will he meet such expenses?
    Major TRYON: I will consider that point, but I cannot give any undertaking.

    LOCAL COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of pensions committees appointed under the the War Pensions Act, 1921, and the number of local and district sub-committees in existence previously: whether he is aware that as a result of the reduction of bodies, particularly in rural areas, ex-service men have been deprived of the advice and assistance of local representatives of the Ministry in preparing their claims; and whether he can state the number of soldiers' friends appointed by his Department in accordance with the promise to the House during the Committee stages of the War Pensions Act, 1921?
    Major TRYON: The total number of war pensions committees to be established under the War Pensions Act, 1921, is 166, of which 146 have already been established and the remainder will be established by the end of the year. There were formerly 383 local committees and 649 district and local sub-committees. I am not aware that as a, result of the reduction of committees ex-service men have been deprived of advice and assistance.
    One of the functions of the committees established under the Act of 1921 is to take steps to secure the assistance and co-operation of voluntary workers, particularly in rural districts, and the committees are now taking steps to this end. These voluntary workers will act in every way as soldiers' friends.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman hasten the arrangements, because I can assure him that there is hardship?
    Major TRYON: I have been going into that matter. I am proceeding with the formation of these groups of voluntary workers as rapidly as possible.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Minister of Pensions the number of officials employed by the Ministry in the administration throughout the country previous to the passing of the present Pensions Act and the number employed by the administration at present, with the comparative costs for the two periods; and the number of persons receiving pensions for the two periods named?
    Major TRYON: Excluding the staff of Ministry hospitals and other institutions, the total staff paid by the Ministry, including the staffs of local committees, at the end of the June quarter, 1921, was 23,329, and at the end of the September quarter, 1922, 19,509, a reduction in this staff of 3,820. The average monthly cost at the same periods was £476,000 and £343,000, respectively. The number of beneficiaries at those dates was 3,320,000 and 2,620,000, respectively.

    TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL DIET).
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions what type of case of tuberculosis in which a man is under treatment is entitled to special diet allowance in addition to the usual allowance?
    Major TRYON: Where a man suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is in receipt of full allowances under Article 6, he may in addition receive a special allowance if lie was previously in receipt of the allowance, as an advanced case, and the man's condition and circumstances are considered to justify it.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Seeing the great dissatisfaction which exists with regard to the treatment of these cases, will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to remove some of the harshness which surrounds them in order that justice may be done to them?
    Major TRYON: These cases were gone into a few weeks ago, and the hardships were met.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the case of ex-officers suffering from a 100 per cent. disability who are stated to be dying from this disease, and can no remedy be found?
    Major TRYON: I am not aware of any e ex-officers suffering for a 100 per cent, f disability who are receiving no assistance e whatever. If the hon. Member will send y me any such cases I will inquire into them.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday giving two such cases.
    Major TRYON: I will go into the matter, and send the hon. Member an answer.
    Major PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of gassed men as well?
    Major TRYON: Yes, I will consider that point.

    7TH DRAGOON GUARDS (T. PERRY).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Thomas Perry, No. 6891. 7th Dragoon Guards, residing at 8, Addison Street, Wednesbury, was, until recently, in receipt of a disability pension of £2 per week; that he suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis and gastric ulcer; that the medical board reported that the gastric ulcer had passed away but the pulmonary tuberculosis remained; that his pension has been reduced to 12s. per week; that the tuberculosis doctor at the Wednesbury Tuberculosis Board Clinic states Perry must not do more than two hours' light work per day; and whether in view of these facts, he will have this case reconsidered?
    Major TRYON: In the short time available I have not been able to complete my inquiries into this case. I will communicate with the hon. Member at an early date.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that there is a grave feeling of apprehension amongst a section of ex-service men employés of the Great Western Railway Company at Newport as to the right of the company's officials to inquire the amount of dis-

    1967
    ability pension they have received or are receiving; whether he can state the reason for such inquiries; and if he can give an assurance that his Department has not given any instructions in this connection?
    Major TRYON: I have no knowledge of any such action on the part of the Great Western Railway Company, and I can assure the hon. Member that no instructions in the sense suggested have been issued by my Department.

    CHILDREN (EDUCATION GRANTS).
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Pensions whether the Ministry intend to withdraw the grants made by the Special Grants Committee towards the education of children of soldiers who died in the War; and,, if so, before finally deciding, will he take steps to secure the opinion of the House on the matter?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to assure the hon. Member that there is no intention of withdrawing any educational grants properly given by the Special Grants Committee under their Regulations.

    WIDOWS AND ORPHANS PENSIONS.
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Pensions whether protests have been received from large numbers of ex-service men and others against the withdrawal of pensions to widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers died more than seven years after discharge; and will he consider the withdrawal of Article 11, which gives the right to do so?
    Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the detailed answer on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) on the 30th November, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. JARRETTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will state the estimated cost to the Ministry of the appeals by friends of the 700 ex-service men now or recently in asylums and chargeable to the local guardians of the poor; and whether, seeing that the cost of present-
    1968
    ing the cases of these unfortunate men before the appeal tribunals is an unnecessary public expense, he will, in the case of mentally deficient men received into the Service by mistake and retained even for a short time, agree that the responsibility for the error should be accepted by the Ministry of Pensions and not transferred to local guardians of the poor?
    Major TRYON: I regret that I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. For the reasons already stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham West on the 28th November, I do not see my way to accept the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether his decision to continue treatment to the 700 ex-service men who have become chargeable to the Poor Law as paupers, until the Tribunal have given their decision, includes the payment of allowances to wives and children on the usual scale: and whether this decision will have effect as from the date on which it was first decided to allow these ex-service men to become pauper patients?
    Major TRYON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can see his way to supply the names of the civil and Army practitioners who passed for enlistment, during the late War, men who have since been certified as insane and who are now treated as pauper lunatics?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): I have been asked to answer this question. I am afraid no records are available which would enable me to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.
    Mr. JONES: Is it not a fact that such cases were passed for enlistment and afterwards certified as insane? Would it not be as well to inquire into the whole question?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I am afraid that there are no records available.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would it be possible to obtain them from the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. JARRETasked the Prime Minister whether any protests have been received by him from local war pensions committees against the attitude of the Government in placing mentally deficient ex-service men on the Poor Law guardians, and the number of protests so received?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): As far as I am aware, I have received one protest. The Ministry of Pensions has, I am informed, received eight.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Minister of Pensions if he will agree to immediately set up arbitration machinery in his Department for the temporary ex-service staff; and that all breakdowns between the official and staff sides be referred to that body?
    Major TRYON: The existing machinery provides opportunity for the fullest discussion between the official and staff sides of all questions respecting the employment of the temporary ex-service staff, and I do not see my way to add to this machinery by setting up a special Departmental arbitration board.

  EDUCATION.

    MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that education authorities are in many instances contemplating the dismissal of married women teachers; that non-provided schools are expected to follow suit; that closing the doors to married women teachers will result in encouraging other employers of women labour to dismiss their married employés; and that, if this course is persisted in and universally adopted, it will result in dismissing possibly some of the best teachers; and whether, in view of the growing resentment that is developing amongst teachers on this account, he will take steps to advise local authorities to refrain from adopting this course?
    Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I can express
    1970
    no opinion. The principal reason for the action on the part of certain local authorities in terminating the employment of married women teachers is a reluctance to employ such teachers at a time when other teachers who are dependent on their profession for a livelihood are unable to find employment. I have no authority to prevent local education authorities from exercising their discretion in the matter, but I believe they will exercise it with discrimination and humanity.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Should it not be a question of getting the best teachers?
    Major PAGET: Is it not the fact that these dismissals have been made in order to provide employment for ex-service men? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]

    PROVISION OF MEALS.
    Mr. HILLasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the city of Leicester education authority has reduced its original estimate of £3,500 for feeding of necessitous children down to £1,000; and will he use his influence to get the decision reversed?
    Major BARNSTON: A return from the local education authority for Leicester, dated 29th November, 1922, puts the authority's revised estimate for provision of meals at £1,900. The figure £1,000 is the sum on which the Board have agreed to pay grant. I cannot adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    Mr. D. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is costing the town of Barrow at the rate of £19,000 a year to give school children even one meal a day?
    Mr. ALBERT BENNETTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Ministry has received from any education authorities protests against the limitation of the grant for the feeding of necessitous school children; if so, how many; and whether any of these protests come from authorities, and if so, which, in districts which are recognised as being necessitous areas?
    Major BARNSTON: The Board have received protests from 51 local education authorities. Of these, seven are from authorities of highly-rated areas in which an additional grant is payable under Article 6 of Grant Regulations No. 1, and

    1971
    which are usually described as necessitous areas for purposes of the Board's administration.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are not the education authorities bound to feed children who are too necessitous to take advantage of their education?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that in consequence of the attitude taken up by the Board of Education in reducing the grants for feeding children, the local authorities have been compelled to provide the children with the necessary food?
    Major BARNSTON: I will put that point to my right hon. Friend.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION (CIRCULAR 1259).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that Circular 1259 has aroused many protests from local authorities as calculated to hamper them in the provision of secondary education, he will withdraw this circular?
    Major BARNSTON: The answer is in the negative. I cannot defend the anomaly under which the Exchequer is liable to bear a larger proportion of the cost of a school which is aided by an authority, than of a school which is provided by the authority.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will my hon. Friend appeal to the Education Minister to withdraw a circular which, to say the least, is not worthy of such an enlightened and progressive Government as the present?
    Major BARNSTON: I will convey what the Noble Lord suggests to my right hon. Friend.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask why the questions to the Board of Education are not being answered by the Education Minister?
    Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend is engaged on official duties at Worcester.

    UNTRAINED TEACHERS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education if it is the present policy of the Board of Education that His Majesty's inspectors
    1972
    are no longer required or encouraged to submit reports as to the efficiency or otherwise of the untrained teachers appointed by local education authorities or by the managers of non-provided schools; and, seeing that such policy of the Board is calculated to involve a waste of public moneys through the employment of incompetent teachers, will he reconsider it?
    Major BARNSTON: The Board have not issued, nor do they intend to issue, any such instructions or suggestions to their inspectors; the second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London Education Authorities have engaged 100 new entrants as teachers, while many teachers are out of employment?

    HEAD MASTERS AND MISTRESSES.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the number of hours per day on duty, the length of vacation, and the salary earned by a headmaster and mistress of a public elementary school of over 200 scholars in 1922, as compared with 1913?
    Major BARNSTON: The usual period during which public elementary schools are actually open for instruction is five-and-a-half hours for older scholars and five hours for infants. The interval between school terms usually amounts to eight or nine weeks. With regard to the average salary, I cannot, without disproportionate labour, give separate figures for schools with over 200 scholars: the average salaries of head teachers of all schools were, in 1913–14, £177 for men and £126 for women, and in the current financial year, £411 for men and £327 for women.

    QUALIFIED TEACHERS.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the supply of qualified teachers is now greater than is the demand for their services; and, having regard to the cost to the taxpayer which their training has necessitated, what relief to the taxpayer under this head can be anticipated in the next financial year?
    Major BARNSTON: The question of the supply of teachers is receiving careful consideration. I anticipate that the sum which will be required for the training of teachers in the next financial year will be less than the sum required in the current year or last year, but I cannot make any definite statement in anticipation of the Board's Estimates.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is the supply of qualified teachers greater than the demand?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May it not be that the supply of teachers is too large at present because of the Government policy in enlarging classes and not giving the children in elementary schools proper education?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILES.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the number of juveniles out of employment, he will, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, institute classes similar to those provided during the period of demobilisation after the War?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Labour if, in his contemplated schemes for dealing with unemployment, he is making any provision for the training, education, or employment of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 18, and, if so, what; and is he aware that the children are leaving the elementary schools at the rate of 50,000 a month and that in many cases no occupation can be found for them, with disastrous consequences on their future?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. As stated yesterday in my reply to the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), I am at the moment considering, in consultation with, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, what steps can be taken to deal with juvenile unemployment, but I am not yet in a position to give any further information.

    INSURANCE BY INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. D. SOMERVILLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the
    1974
    fact that the Federation of British Industries and the National Confederation of Employers are meeting this month to consider the whole question of insurance by industries and to report on it, he will reconsider his decision not to investigate and, if advisable, legislate on this proposal next year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: While it is right that it should be investigated, I do not think such a proposal could be carried out except in normal times.

    UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS' PETITION.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if he will give the House an early opportunity of discussing the petition from the unemployed marchers asking that representatives of the organised unemployed may be hoard at the Bar of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of Members on both sides of the House have signed the petition asking that this may be done?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am aware of that.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman definitely made up his mind that he is not going to receive a deputation under any circumstances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think any statement could be more clear than the one I made to the House on that occasion.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to listen to a small deputation of Members from all parts of the House on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am always willing to see deputations of Members of the House on any subject, but in the present pressure of business, apart from anything else, I cannot promise to do so on a subject which has already been so much discussed.

    SOUTH WEST INDIA DOCKS, POPLAR.
    Mr. MARCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether overtures have been made to his Department for financial assistance to enable certain

    1975
    improvements to be carried out at the South West India Docks, Poplar, thereby creating work for the unemployed; whether his Department proposes to give such assistance; and, if not, will he bring these, proposals to the notice of the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment?
    Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend understands that the late Government was inquiring whether the Port of London Authority were in a position to put in hand any of the developments which they had in contemplation, including the scheme referred to, and, as stated in reply to the hon. Member's question yesterday by my hon. Friend, further inquiries are being made.

    PAPER MILLS.
    Mr. HALL CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee has reported in favour of a guarantee for a bond issue of 18,000,000 dollars in respect of the erection of a mill in Newfoundland for the production of newsprint paper; whether such Report has been approved by His Majesty's Government; and whether he is aware that on the 23rd October, 1922, there were 4,419 workers in British paper mails on the books of the Labour Exchanges as totally unemployed?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade on Tuesday night.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (PILOTS' CERTIFICATES).
    Captain BRASSasked the Secretary of State for Air what percentage of officers in the Royal Air Force hold aeroplane pilots' certificates?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a reply that was given upon this subject on 27th February last. The percentages do not seem to have materially altered since that date, but I will send my hon. Friend the most recent statistics in the course of a few days.
    Major PAGET: Does not the question refer to the existing number of officers and not the number a year ago?

    AIR STATION'S, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any further progress has been made as regards using the River Thames, near Westminster, for an air station: whether it is proposed now to have such a station on the River Thames; and, if not, is it proposed to establish an air station at any other place near the centre of London so as to save the delay in reaching the present station at Croydon?
    Sir S. HOARE: The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative, but any machine can alight on the Thames at Westminster provided that prior sanction is obtained. With regard to the third part, the possibility of establishing an air station closer to the centre of London than Croydon is being at present explored by the Civil Aviation Advisory Board.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. HARRISONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to carry out such of the economies recommended by the Geddes Committee as were not effected by the late Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these recommendations are being carefully considered by the Government.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is going to re-introducc the Economies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Pill early next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. HARRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange to let the House have, in the form of a Command Paper, the result of the inquiries made by two Departmental Committees in the last Parliament and the result also of the researches now being conducted by the Government, so that the information may be available for Members before the discussion of the Estimates next year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will see how much of that information can be given.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be able to effect such economies as to be able to reduce taxation in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

    IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. JARRETTasked the Prime Minister whether, when sending invitations to the Governments of the Dominions to the proposed Imperial Economic Conference, he will request them to bring considered schemes of development in the different Dominions in addition to proposals in connection with the stimulation of trade between their countries and Great Britain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The invitations to the suggested Imperial Economic Conference were, as I have already informed the House, sent out to the Dominions and India last week. I think that it would be premature to make any statement as to the agenda of the Conference until the replies have been received, but I can assure the hon. Member that the important subject to which he refers has not been lost sight of.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of including in any conference which may take place on trade questions the, representatives of those great British communities upon whom in important overseas markets, as those of South America, the task of re-establishing and sustaining the trade of Great Britain and the Dominions rests?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that it would be wise to enlarge the scope of the Conference in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) ACT.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister if, when he is considering the extension of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provi-
    1978
    sions) Act, 1921, he will at the same time take into consideration the desirability of giving corresponding relief to local authorities outside the Metropolitan Poor Law area?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER (for the Minister of Health): If the hon. Member has any practical suggestion to make for giving effect to this proposal, my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider it.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that proposals have been laid before the Department that would enable these grants to be made, and will he ask the Minister to refresh his memory as to what has happened?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not think my right hon. Friend's memory needs refreshing on this subject.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Where is he?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: If, however, the hon. Member will present personally any suggestions, my right hon. Friend will, as I have said in my reply, be glad to consider them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will he go to a necessitous area for a constituency?
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government in tends, during the present Session, to bring in legislation extending the life of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921?
    Mr. AMMONasked the Prime Minister whether he will, before this Parliamentary Session ends, introduce legislation that will carry over Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, to the re-assembling of Parliament, in order to safeguard against the bankruptcy of the poorer boroughs which would follow should the Act lapse at the end of this month?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: As I have previously stated, the general question is receiving consideration at the present time, but it will not be possible to initiate legislation in the present Session. If the Government decide that legislation is required it will be introduced next Session and made retrospective.
    Mr. TURTON: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake, in the event of legislation being introduced and being retrospective, as promised, that the Government auditor shall not make his visit before the Royal Assent is given to any such action?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also represent to the Minister, who is not here, this I Will the Minister of Health continue to make the necessary money advances to enable the poorer boroughs to carry on their work until the legislation is passed? Will you inform the right hon. Gentleman that these poorer districts are unable to pay unless the money comes from the Common Poor Fund or from the Treasury, as now?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I will let my right hon. Friend know that this evening.

    LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if the British Government has agreed to the decision not to accept representatives of the Republic of Georgia at Lausanne unless they come as part of the Russian delegation; and, if so, is the British Government aware that the people of Georgia do not recognise the Bolshevist invaders and that the present occupation of Georgia by the Bolshevists is a gross violation of pledges given guaranteeing the independence of the Republic?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The invitation to the Georgian Government to send representatives to Lausanne was conveyed through the Russian Government, with the suggestion that Georgian delegates should accompany the Russian delegation. This plan was adopted because the only means of communication with the Georgian Government lies through Moscow, and also because Georgian interest in the Lausanne negotiations is analogous to that of Russia. His Majesty's Government declined to admit the right of the exiled Georgian Government to representation at the conference. In regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given
    1980
    to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) on the 19th December of last year, and to that given to the hon. Member for Clitheroe on 2nd March last.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Minister to refer to questions asked in the last Parliament?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the position of the negotiations at Lausanne in regard to safeguarding the absolute freedom of the Straits?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Negotiations in regard to the Straits question are still going on and I can make no statement at present.
    Captain BERKELEY(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the British Foreign Secretary, made yesterday to the First Commission at Lausanne, that with reference to the International Commission for the demilitarisation and control of the Straits it has yet to be decided whether or not it shall work under the auspices of the League of Nations; and whether, in view of the excellent results achieved by the League Demilitarisation Commission in the case of the Aaland Islands, he will instruct the Foreign Secretary that it is the wish of this country that the work should be carried out under the auspices of the League.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The statement reported in the Press by the Foreign Secretary, of which I have no official information, does not preclude the association of the League of Nations, and I am sure the House will feel that while these very difficult negotiations, in which so many nations are involved, are going on, it is impossible for me to make any statement.

    MINISTER OF HEALTH.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the serious disabilities under which many questions affecting the administration of matters connected with poor relief, health, and housing are dealt with in the absence

    1981
    of the Minister of Health from the House; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this state of affairs, in view of the problems confronting many local authorities at the present time.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I quite realise the disadvantage of the absence from the House of my right hon. Friend, but I hope that it will not be of long duration.
    Mr. THOMSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of answering questions himself in the absence of the Minister of Health? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement that the present Minister of Health has resigned his position?
    The PRIME MINISTER: None whatever.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Minister for Health should become a Member of the House of Commons; and, if so, when?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, as soon as arrangements can be made.

    SOUTH AMERICA (BRITISH MARITIME INTERESTS).
    Lieut.-Col. Sir P. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the report that a Naval Commission from the United States comprising 30 officers will arrive in Rio de Janeiro in January; and whether any steps are being taken to study and to protect British maritime interests in Brazil and in South America generally?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. I understand that the American Naval Mission to Brazil, consisting of 16 officers and 19 Chief Petty Officers, is due to leave the United States of America for Brazil on the 9th December. With regard to the second part of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that it was only owing to the financial exigencies of the time that the South American Squadron was withdrawn. Two battle cruisers were, however, sent to Rio de Janeiro during the recent Brazilian Centenary Celebration, and the
    1982
    question of His Majesty's ships visiting South American ports at more frequent intervals is being carefully considered. The re-appointment of Naval Attachés to South American countries is also being reviewed.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of a senior naval officer as accredited Naval AttachétoBrazil?
    AMERY: That is in the answer I have read.

    CURRENCY (DEFLATION).
    Mr. W. GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that our exchange with the United States was at the highest point since the War on Monday last; that, so far as can be ascertained in comparison with other countries, we have most unemployment, bankruptcies, and suicides; and if he proposes taking any action in the matter of arresting the deflation in our currency with a view to helping employment?
    Mr. BALDWIN: In view of the relative steadiness of commodity prices in recent months, I am not satisfied that deflation in our currency is now in fact taking place. The action which the Government, propose to take to meet unemployment has already been explained to the House.

  IRELAND.

    BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the subject of the Irish Boundary Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General said on this subject in the course of the Debate on the 28th November.
    Captain BENN: Are we right in assuming that Article 12.of the Treaty stands and binds the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly; we accepted the whole Treaty; but, as my right hon. Friend said, I think that nothing but disadvantage can come from discussion of it at the present time.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS (EVACUATION).
    Viscount CURZON(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that statements have been made in an Irish newspaper (the "Irish Times"), of 4th December, to the effect that on Saturday morning 65 wounded British soldiers were removed in ambulances to Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, and transferred to s.s. "Anglia" en route to England, and that of these 30 were stretcher cases; whether he has any statement to make?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): These soldiers were not wounded, but merely some of the sick who are being evacuated from Southern Ireland in the ordinary course in connection with the withdrawal of troops from the Free State territory.

    CABINET SECRETARIAT.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Prime Minister what is the actual number by which the personnel of the Cabinet Secretariat has been reduced since the 1st November, 1922; what particular position in the Secretariat staff was held by each person whose services have now been dispensed with; how many persons whose services have now been dispensed with have been transferred to other Departments; and what saving will be made by reason of the reductions effected?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is 35: of the 35, I was an administrative assistant, 19 were clerks, 6 typists, 5 messengers, and 4 cleaners; 19 persons have been transferred to other Departments. A saving on the Vote of, approximately, £20,000 per annum will be effected by the reductions already made or in contemplation.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Has the former practice of using the Secretariat for conducting foreign negotiations been abandoned?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Absolutely.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that it has ever been used for that purpose?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. FOOT: Are we to understand that the £20,000 is irrespective of the cost of
    1984
    those who have been transferred to other Departments, or is that a net saving?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have read the answer.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    REPARATION (BALFOUR NOTE).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the limitation imposed upon the London Conference in July and August by the issue of the Balfour Note, he is now in a position to state that the Government is no longer bound by that declaration, so that the forthcoming Conference of Prime Ministers may be enabled not merely to deal with temporary expedients but to discuss the lines of a permanent settlement of reparations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already said that I am prepared to discuss the question in all its aspects at the forthcoming meeting of Allied Prime Ministers.

    PARIS MISSION.
    Mr. MORELasked the Prime Minister whether Sir William Tyrrell was recently in Paris on behalf of His Majesty's Government; whether his mission concerned France's projected plans in connection with the Rhine provinces and the Ruhr; whether, in the course of his stay in Paris, Sir William Tyrrell saw the President of the French Republic; why this Foreign Office official was employed instead of the usual channel of communication; and whether he will inform the House what agreement has been suggested or arrived at between the two Governments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot undertake to give the House information respecting the movements of individual British officials. With regard to the last part of the question, as I have already stated, no agreement has been arrived at or even suggested. This is the subject which will be considered at the forthcoming Conference of the Allied Prime Ministers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we are entitled to know what the policy of the Government is on this very vital question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: How can I express the policy on proposals which are going to be made to me by other Governments before I have seen them?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say what are the views of His Majesty's Government, or have not they got any?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They have many views, and it would take a very long time to express them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement, before the House rises, with regard to these very important matters. We have not heard the views of His Majesty's Government on the questions of reparation and inter-Allied debts. I will not press it unduly, but I think my right hon. Friend will see that it is rather important that the House should hear from his own lips what are his views and the views of the Government on these questions, and that there should be an opportunity for us to discuss them before we separate, seeing that my right hon. Friend is about to attend an International Conference.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No one has had more experience than my right hon. Friend, both as to answering such questions and putting them. My answer must be what his would be in similar circumstances. I will do my best to make a statement if it be possible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have an assurance that this country will not be committed to a line of action by the Prime Minister before the House knows what that policy is?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House, of course, has the right not to be led into any new policy without being informed; but it is obvious also that no Government can carry on negotiations if it is to tie itself in every detail before they are begun.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to press my right hon. Friend too far, because I know the difficulties. I am not asking whether he is going to make a statement before he meets the Allied Prime Ministers on Saturday. That is not what I am asking. I realise the impossibility of that. I want TO ask whether it has not been the practice, after a Conference of Prime Ministers,
    1986
    for the Prime Minister of the day to make a statement to the House of Commons as to what passed, and whether he will not follow that, I think, reasonable practice and state to the House of Commons, within the limits of discretion, what the policy of the Government is.
    The PRIME MINISTER: What the right hon. Gentleman suggests is perfectly reasonable and I shall certainly adopt it. As to the extent of the statement, it must, of course, depend upon circumstances.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to press my right hon. Friend further, but if he finds it possible to make that statement, will he make it under conditions which will enable the House to debate it if they think it necessary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: For the information of the House, I may say that I have already made arrangements that this matter may be discussed, if desired, on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the question of inter-Allied debts also be discussed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The two things stand together.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    REPEAL.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expression of opinion in this House and the country against the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will appoint a Committee to investigate and report upon the advisability or otherwise of repealing this Act in the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

    DUTIES COLLECTED.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount collected by way of duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act up to and including the 1st day of December, 1922; and what proportions of the total amount have been collected from goods imported from France, America, Belgium and Germany?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The total amount of duties collected under the Safeguarding

    1987
    of Industries Act up to and including the 1st December, 1922, was £432,575. The detailed information required in the second part of the question is not yet available, but I will communicate it to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    COAL INDUSTRY (DISTRESS).
    Mr. BARKERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the distress existing in the coal-mining industry, due to the fact that wages are very much below the rate paid in 1914, compared with the purchasing value of money in 1914 and 1922, and that tens of thousands of miners have been unemployed for over 18 months, he will, in the light of these experiences under the system of private ownership and control of the industry, bring in legislation for the nationalisation of the mines and the State ownership of minerals, as recommended by the Coalmining Industry Commission appointed by the late Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. BARKER: Was not that the suggestion of the Sankey Commission, and not my suggestion; and have not the Government pledged themselves to carry out the Sankey Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member, I think, is wrong in a matter of detail. What I am answering is his suggestion that something should be done.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it not the fact that in the King's Speech in 1920 the Government expressed the intention to nationalise the minerals, was not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Government at that time, and will he, now that he is the head of the Government, carry out the suggestion that he was prepared to support in 1920?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that, at the time the Sankey Report was presented to this House, the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it would be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's memory may be pretty good,
    1988
    but it is not good enough. That referred, not to the Report as a whole, but to certain definite recommendations made in it.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it a fact that neither in letter nor in spirit have the Government fulfilled the promises made which have already been referred to?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There has been difference of opinion on that subject.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INDEMNITY (SEAMEN).
    Mr. BOWDLERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that France and Belgium have already passed legislation giving effect to the draft Convention relating to unemployment indemnity for seamen in case of loss of ship, which was agreed to at the Genoa International Labour Conference in June, 1920, and that the Minister of Labour gave his assent to this Convention; and whether, in these circumstances, he proposes to introduce a Bill giving statutory effect to the Convention?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. Bills have, I understand, been prepared in France, Belgium and some other countries on this unemployment indemnity question, but I am not aware that they have been passed. The question of introducing legislation here is being considered by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour.

    BANK OF ENGLAND (DIRECTORATE).
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the President of the United States has recently appointed a representative of agriculture on the Federal Reserve Board of the United States; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to reform the Bank of England so as to give producers and workers a share of representation on the court of directors?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Bank of England is a private corporation; and I am not prepared to interfere by legislation in its constitution.

  GREECE.

    M. GOUNAEIS' NOTE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGGasked the Prime Minister whether there is any record of the letter alleged to have been addressed to Lord Curzon by the late M. Gounaris on 19th February, 1922, regarding the condition of the Greek army in Asia Minor and of Lord Curzon's reply; whether the records, if any, substantiate the version of this correspondence published in the Press; and whether the records show that this correspondence was communicated to Lord Curzon's colleagues and considered by the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is doubtless referring to the note from M. Gounaris of 15th February, which was communicated to the Cabinet, as well as the reply returned to it. Some extracts from M. Gounaris' note have been correctly reproduced in the Press.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the expediency and the necessity of laying before the House, papers with regard to the whole of these events in the East, which are necessary to form any just conclusion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to lay particular papers would be useless, but before making any such promise I should have some idea as to the scope and period during which he wishes that papers should be laid.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With regard to the question on the Paper, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he has made inquiries as to whether that document was circulated to the Cabinet and that there is a record of it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can say quite definitely that I sent the question to the proper source and got the reply that it was circulated to the Cabinet.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will there be an opportunity of discussing the Greek and Turkish question—the events leading up to the disaster that brought an end to the Coalition?
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Is there any record of the circulation of this document to the late Cabinet either in the Cabinet
    1990
    Secretariat or in the Foreign Office, and, if so, in which?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was from the Foreign Office that I got it, but I shall ask the Cabinet Secretariat to make sure.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some of us are very much surprised to hear that any such document was circulated, though our memory may be at fault.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to say I do not think there can be any possible mistake, because the records of the Foreign Office are that it was circulated.

    NON-TURKISH PLEFUGEES.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I sent a private notice question to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to an alarming telegram as to the present position of refugees from the Turkish dominions, but as he has not received it may I put the question to-morrow?
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I am very sorry that my hon. Friend's notice has not reached me. I shall do my best to answer the question to-morrow if he will put it down.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. FRANK GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is necessary to have a separate department for the purpose of Super-tax; and can ho state the cost of such a department to the country?
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of reorganising the administration of Income Tax and Super-tax, in order that both taxes may be assessed at the same time by the same officials?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There are obvious advantages in the present system of the separate administration of the Super-tax, for example, complete secrecy and uniformity of treatment and practice. Some countervailing advantages might no doubt be expected under a system which enabled liability to Super-tax to be dealt with locally, but even a partial decentralisation of the Super-tax would involve rearrangements of and additions to staff at considerable cost. In these circum-

    1991
    stances, quite apart from any other considerations which might have to be reviewed at a later stage, I cannot see my way to introduce any proposals in the direction suggested in the questions. If the hon. Members' questions are to be taken as connoting the merging of the Income Tax and Super-tax charges into one, I would refer them to paragraph 573 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax (Cmd. 615 of 1920). They will find there set forth reasons which, in my judgment, preclude the adoption of any such proposal.
    Mr. GRAY: Is it not a fact that the activities of the Super-tax Department are based solely upon information received from the Income Tax authorities and constant inter-communication which passes between the two?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That may be substantially true, but I do not think it alters the answer.
    Mr. F. GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the numbers of applications received by the Inland Revenue authorities for the year ending 5th April, 1922, for the repayment of Income Tax deducted at the source; the estimated cost to the Inland Revenue relating to these claims; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation removing the complications and defects of the present law relating to Income Tax?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The number of claims for repayment of Income Tax received in Great Britain in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1922, was 1,525,413. No record is available as to the proportion of these claims that related to Income Tax deducted at the source, nor is it possible to isolate the cost of dealing with claims from that incurred in the other duties of the Inland Revenue Department. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that necessary reforms of the Income Tax were authoritatively reviewed by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, which reported in 1920. Many of the proposals of that Commission have already been enacted; others I hope to find an opportunity of proposing in due course.
    Mr. GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the total cost?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down?
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of graziers in Scotland, he will consider any alteration in assessment to Income Tax in the case where the Tax Commissioners assess both tenant grazier and the landlord when the grazing is let for the season, but the landlord only when he grazes his own land?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The tenant graziers to whom I understand the hon. Member to refer are not assessable under Schedule B of the Income Tax Acts, but are assessable under Schedule D on their profits like other traders.
    In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the decision of the Irish High Court in the case of McKenna v. Herlihy, which is reported in 7 Tax Cases at page 620. I see no adequate reason for introducing an alteration of the law in this connection.
    Sir KEITH FRASERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of his decision to appoint a committee to consider the simplification of Income Tax forms and the reduction of their number, he will state the terms of reference to the said committee; and whether it will be empowered to take evidence?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not yet in a position to make a further statement.

    EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expenditure and revenue from the beginning of the financial year up to the end of November: and how the figures compare with the Estimates for such period?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The figures of revenue and expenditure from 1st April last to the 2nd December as compared with the Estimate for the whole year will be found in the usual weekly Exchequer statement, which was published in the "London Gazette" on the 5th instant and in the Press. No estimates are made for broken periods; and I fear I cannot undertake at present to forecast the outturn of the year.

    ENEMY ACTION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any sums have been advanced by His Majesty's Treasury on account of German reparations for relief of sufferers by enemy action at sea during the late War; what the total amount advanced is; how much has been paid out; who is administering the fund; and how seamen who are suffering from the effects of enemy action at sea, or the widows of such seamen who have died, should apply for relief from the fund?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A sum of £5,000,000 has been voted to meet claims in respect of compensation for suffering and damage by enemy action, including claims from sufferers by enemy action at sea. About £50,000 has been paid. Applicants should communicate with the Reparation Claims Department of the Board of Trade, Stamford Street, S.E.I.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any truth in the report published in the Press sometime ago, that the Sailors' and Firemens' Union was given the administration of a part of this money?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that question.
    Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman done anything with regard to the promise he gave me to consider the speeding up of the settlement of these claims?
    Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Royal Commission, formed to consider the question of German reparations, may be expected to issue their Report; if he is aware that the fishing industry of the town of Brixham is suffering severely, owing to the number of boats sunk by enemy action and the impossibility of replacing them owing to lack of capital; and can he hold out any immediatae hope of the payment of a portion of the indemnity by the German Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Every endeavour is being made to hasten the Report of the Royal Commission.

    CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the removal of the provision excluding married women from remaining in the Civil Service; and whether he is aware that the movement on the part of local education authorities and municipal bodies to dismiss their married women employés is being attributed to the example set by the Government in dismissing its women employés on marriage?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The position of the Government in this matter was explained in the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould).

    BEER, SPIRITS AND TABLE-WATER DUTIES.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the amount received from the duty on beer from 1st April, 1922, to 25th November, 1922; how far this amount falls short of the Estimates as covering this period of the financial year; if he will take into favourable consideration in the preparation of next year's Budget a substantial reduction of the present high duty on beer of 100s. per barrel;
    (2) whether, in view of the adverse effect on the Scottish whisky trade of the present high duty on spirits, whereby much unemployment is caused, and in view of the fact that the diminished output of spirits is prejudicing the British yeast trade, he will, in the preparation of his forthcoming Budget, consider the desirability of reducing the spirit duty from 72s. 6d. per proof gallon to, at most, 50s. per proof gallon?
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the repeal of the table-water duties, the effect of which has been to compel hundreds of firms in this trade to shut down, and in consequence thousands of the employés have been thrown out of work?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friends may rest assured that in formulating proposals for meeting the expenditure of the coming financial year careful attention will be

    1995
    given to all relevant considerations affecting the various duties. The receipt from the Beer Duty in Great Britain and Ireland from 1st April to 30th November, 1922, was £71,016,000, which is in excess of the proportion of the Estimate for the year.

    CURRENCIES AND EXCHANGES (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).
    Mr. A. GREENWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Bank of England has agreed to act on the recommendation of the Genoa Conference that it should summon an international conference of central banks to consider the stabilisation of currencies and exchanges; if so, when the conference is likely to be held; and what is the reason why this step has been delayed for so many months?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Bank of England intend to act on the recommendation of the Genoa Conference, and I hope the meeting may be possible before long.

    NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE TURF ASSOCIATION, LIMITED.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a betting business has been registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts under the title of the National Co-operative Turf Association, Limited; and whether the Government will take immediate steps to strengthen the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts to secure the protection of the public?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on the 29th ultimo.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it absurd to recognise, under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, a society formed merely for the purpose of spotting winners and backing losers?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There is no doubt that there is no legal ground on which this registration could be refused.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister say what is the business for next week? Will he also say how far he proposes to go with the Orders to-day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to get the business which I have already stated to the House for to-day and to-morrow carried in the two days. I do not think it is possible to carry everything that appears on the Paper for to-night. The business for next week will be:
Monday: Importation of Animals Bill, Committee, and, if there should be anything left over from Friday, I hope we shall be able to take it.
Tuesday: Importation of Animals Bill, Report and Third Reading; Supplementary Estimates, Reports of the 7th and 8th December, if not taken on Friday.
Wednesday and Thursday: Consolidated Fund Bill, Second and Third Readings.
Friday: Lords Amendments to Bills, and Prorogation.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether if the first two Orders take until midnight it is proposed to take Supplementary Estimates to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are meeting the general convenience of the House in finishing our business on Friday in next week. That cannot be done unless there is good will in the House. I hope we shall have it.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not essential that Estimates should be taken at a reasonably early hour, and could not some of the other Orders be taken later, if necessary, so that the Estimates could come on at a reasonable time?
The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Member that it is the desire of the Government, that everything should be taken at a reasonable time, but we have made what seems to me the best arrangements possible if we are to finish next week.
Mr. MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister give the House any idea now as to when he proposes to ask us to come back for the next Session?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather that the hon. Gentleman would ask me that question some day next week.
Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that, as far as possible, the Supplementary Estimates which are taken late to-night should be those of lesser importance, so as to enable us to deal with the more important Estimates to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: As a rule it is the practice—and I am sure that it will be done in this case—to take them in the order in which they are announced.
Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. May I ask a question as to questions affecting Scotland? On no day, so far as I can gather, during this Session have Scottish questions been reached. Would it not be possible that on at least one day in the week Scottish questions should appear earlier on the Paper so that they can be reached?
The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend has already drawn my attention to the fact that Scottish questions were
not being reached at all, and he has arranged to take them third on Tuesdays.
Captain BENN: Are not Scottish Members under the double disadvantage that they have no Scottish Minister to interrogate, and no day on which to interrogate them?
The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to press the matter further, there is also the disadvantage that we have a Government in which there are not enough Scotchmen.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Importation of Animals Bill and the Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
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, 256: Noes, 146.

Division No. 22.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Cassels, J. D.

Fawkes, Major F. H.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Apsley, Lord

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

Foreman, Sir Henry

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

Chapman, Sir S.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Clarry, Reginald George

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Ganzoni, Sir John

Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

Clayton, G. C.

Gardiner, James

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Gates, Percy

Becker, Harry

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Gilbert, James Daniel

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

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Goff, Sir R. Park

Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

Gould, James C.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

Berry, Sir George

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

Greaves-Lord, Walter

Betterton, Henry B.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Gretton, Colonel John

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

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

Blundell, F. N.

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

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W.(Liv'p'I, W.D'by)

Brass, Captain W.

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Halstead, Major D.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Briggs, Harold

Edge, Captain Sir William

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Harrison, F. C.

Brown, Brig. Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Ednam, Viscount

Hawke, John Anthony

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

Elliot, Capt. Walter E (Lanark)

Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

Bruford, R.

Ellis, R. G.

Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

Bruton, Sir James

Elveden, Viscount

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Buckingham, Sir H.

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

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

Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

Hewett, Sir J. P.

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

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

Hiley, Sir Ernest

Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

Hinds, John

Butt, Sir Alfred

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

Button, H. S.

Falcon, Captain Michael

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

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Hood, Sir Joseph

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

Shepperson, E. W.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Murchison, C. K.

Skelton, A. N.

Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

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

Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

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

Sparkes, H. W.

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

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

Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.

Hudson, Capt. A.

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

Stanley, Lord

Hughes, Collingwood

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Hurd, Percy A.

Nield, Sir Herbert

Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

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

Paget, T. G.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Parker, Owen (Kettering)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

Jarrett, G. W. S.

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Jephcott, A. R.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Penny, Frederick George

Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Peto, Basil E.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

King, Capt. Henry Douglas

Pielou, D. P.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Tubbs, S. W.

Lamb, J. Q.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Privett, F. J.

Wallace, Captain E.

Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Waring, Major Walter

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

Raine, W,

Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Lorimer, H. D.

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Wells, S. R.

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Lumley, L. R.

Rentoul, G. S.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

M'Connell, Thomas E.

Reynolds, W. G. W.

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

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Whitla, Sir William

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

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

Windsor, Viscount

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

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

Winterton, Earl

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

Wise, Frederick

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

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

Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Russell, William (Bolton)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

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

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Shakespeare, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

NOES.

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

Falconer, J.

Lee, F.

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

Foot, Isaac

Linfield, F. C.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Lowth, T.

Attlee, C. R.

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

M'Entee, V. L.

Barnes, A,

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

McLaren, Andrew

Batey, Joseph

Groves, T.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Grundy, T. W.

March, S.

Berkeley, Captain Reginald

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

Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

Bonwick, A.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Bowdler, W. A.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Mathew, C. J.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hancock, John George

Maxton, James

Broad, F. A.

Harbord, Arthur

Middleton, G.

Brotherton, J.

Harris, Percy A.

Millar, J. D.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Morel, E. D.

Buchanan, G.

Hayday, Arthur

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

Buckie, J.

Herriotts, J.

Mosley, Oswald

Burgess, S.

Hill, A.

Muir, John W.

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Hillary, A. E.

Murnin, H.

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Hirst, G. H.

Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Nichol, Robert

Cairns, John

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

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Chapple, W. A.

Hogge, James Myles

Oliver, George Harold

Charleton, H. C.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Phillipps, Vivian

Clarke, Sir E. C.

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

Pringle, W. M. R.

Collins, Pat (Walsall)

Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

Richards, R.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Darbishire, C. W.

Jowett, F. w. (Bradford, East)

Riley, Ben

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Ritson, J.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Kenyon, Barnet

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Duncan, C.

Kirkwood, D.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Dunnico, H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon, George

Rose, Frank H.

Edmonds, G.

Lansbury, George

Salter, Dr. A.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lawson, John James

Scrymgeour, E.

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

Leach, W.

Sexton, James

2000

2001

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Sullivan, J.

Westwood, J.

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Wheatley, J.

Shinwell, Emanuel

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

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thornton, M.

Whiteley, W.

Simpson, J. Hope

Tout, W. J.

Wignall, James

Sitch, Charles H.

Trevelyan, C. P.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Warne, G. H.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Snell, Harry

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

Snowden, Philip

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

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Spencer, George A, (Broxtowe)

Webb, Sidney

Stephen, Campbell

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Weir, L. M.

Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to East Lothian (Western District) Water." [East Lothian (Western District) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
EAST LOTHIAN (WESTERN DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In moving the Second Reading of this Bill; I do not think it is necessary that I should go at any length into the past history of the question. It is sufficient to say that by the Act of 1894 Canadian cattle were excluded from this country except for immediate slaughter at the ports, and that during the War a statement was made by the Minister of Agriculture of that day that the Government intended to remove that embargo. Last Session the question was brought to a head both in this House and in another place. Perhaps I might read to the House the Resolution that was then passed by this House. It was passed on the Motion of a private Member, and the Debate was free from what I may venture to call the malign influence of the Whips. The result was that by a considerable majority the House passed the following Resolution:
  "That this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when the embargo on the importation on Canadian cattle should be removed."
  Following on that Resolution, arrangements were made by which my predecessor entered into negotiations with representatives of the Canadian Government to arrive at an agreement as to the best way of dealing with the question. I may say that, in that Conference between the Ministers of the two countries, it was assumed that the House of Commons, and, I may say, also another place, having given this decision, it would not be fair in any Measures that were passed for the admission of Canadian cattle, that we should impose such conditions as to make their admission really nugatory. The Conference was conducted in the most amicable spirit. Both sides wished to make arrangements for the admission of these cattle which should not put impossible terms upon the Canadian importer, and yet should impose such conditions as, in the opinion of our
  2050
  veterinary advisers, were thought the minimum conditions to ensure safety after the importation of such animals into this country. I should like to say, briefly, what are the terms of the agreement then arrived at. They were:
  "That Canadian store, cattle should be admitted provided that they are shipped direct from a Canadian port to a port in Great Britain, are kept under veterinary observation for three days immediately before embarkation, and during the voyage are thoroughly examined by a veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada, and are landed at specified landing places in this country and thoroughly examined by the Ministry's veterinary officers.
  "That movement from the landing place is to be controlled by licence as is the movement of cattle imported from Ireland, thereby involving the detention of the animals on some farm or other premises for six days, although they may pass to such premises through one market.
  "That all imported animals are to be tagged or otherwise marked, and a fee not exceeding 6d. an animal is to be imposed to cover administrative expenses on this side.
  "That Canadian cattle capable of breeding can only be landed on the authority of a general Order made by the Minister and laid before both Houses of Parliament—an essential part of such an Order being that the animals must be accompanied by a certificate that the animals have within one month before shipment been tested effectively and have been found free from tuberculosis.
  "That the Canadian authorities would modify their conditions of importation of British animals so soon as the necessary Order authorising the importation of Canadian breeding stock into Britain conies into force, in order to make the Canadian and British conditions reciprocal.
  "That the Minister should retain the power to suspend importation if cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, or foot-and-mouth disease should appear in Canada, or to deal with any suspected outbreaks of disease found in any cargo, and that compensation should not be payable in case of slaughter at the place of landing in consequence of the discovery of disease."
  The new Government intend to carry cut the agreement reached by their predecessors, and this Bill is necessary to carry out the conclusions of that Conference. I want to say a word about what I know will be a vexed question in this Debate, namely, animals landing from Ireland. It is the fact that, in considering the possible causes of the widespread nature of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the early part of the year, the veterinary officers of the Ministry came to the conclusion that the

  2051
  spread of infection was largely due to the system by which large consignments of Irish cattle are imported into this country by dealers and hurried from market to market during the course of a few days, with the result that, if infection be picked up by any large consignment of cattle, it is quickly distributed over a wide area. In order to prevent such spread of infection in the future, an Order was issued last July which regulated the importation of Irish store cattle and required that the3' should be moved only under licence and should be detained for six days after arrival in this country. As the result of that outbreak, a Departmental Committee was set up, and that Committee has presented an interim report. They recommend that this restriction on the movement of Irish cattle, which was originally imposed as a temporary measure, should be made permanent, and the same principle has been adopted in the arrangements for the importation of cattle from Canada. The Order, I know, has been the subject of a good deal of criticism, principally from Ireland, but I am convinced that the Regulations imposed represent the minimum safeguard necessary to prevent the recurrence of foot-and-mouth disease, such as that which devastated the country in the early part of this year. I may say that that outbreak cost the country nearly £1,000,000. The fact that such a wide outbreak of this disease should be possible and that it should be possible to spread in the way that it did in the early part of this year destroys the confidence of the breeders of our pedigree cattle, and, at a time when agriculture its not too flourishing, it would be a very unwise thing to lessen in any way the confidence of those who are engaged in what is, perhaps, the most lucrative and most successful part of the whole of our agricultural industry.
  I want to say a word as to the circumstances under which this Bill is introduced. I am quite aware that a Bill of such importance should take a rather longer time than that which can be allotted to it this Session. I am quite aware that there are many who would prefer that such a Bill should be more in accordance with the steady, I might almost say the leisurely, procedure to which we are accustomed in the case of a Bill of any magnitude. This is being
  2052
  done to meet the very strongly expressed wishes of the representatives of Canada. They attach enormous importance not only to this Bill being passed but to its being placed on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. There are few of us who, in our Election speeches and Election addresses, did not say something about the importance to be attached to the goodwill of our great Dominions and Colonies. This is being done because one of our great Dominions is asking for it. It is for that reason and that reason alone, that I am asking the House to consent to a degree of haste which I would join in deprecating on most occasions. This applies especially to the proceedings in Committee on the Bill. I have had experience enough in this House to be aware that any very small section of hon. Members who wish to prevent us carrying the Bill this Session can do so, and can do so without resorting to what could legitimately be called obstruction. I suggest to them that to do such a thing would not be in the wider interests of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have already stated why. The contentious issue in the Bill is a fairly simple one. It is that relating to Irish cattle. On that part of the Measure I would be quite ready to consult with hon. Members as to the easiest way in which we can raise that direct issue. I own that it is a direct issue and one that will have to be settled in this House. I think it can be raised fairly simply, and I would suggest to hon. Members who are particularly interested in that part of the subject that it would be possible to decide how to raise it as a direct issue, and that in view of the wider interests involved they should, as far as they can see their way, concentrate upon that direct issue and not put other obstacles in the way of getting the Bill through this Session.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take powers to supervise the stabling accommodation on the ships, so that these beasts may not suffer injury in heavy weather?
  Sir R. SANDERS: That is done already.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: It would have been much more agreeable if I could have congratulated my right hon. Friend that in this, his first considerable appearance in the House, he had been able to make a

  2053
  motion more in consonance with agricultural opinion. I am sorry that he has been placed in the invidious position of having to press a Bill which I am not sure that his own Department agreed with, and one which certainly the great bulk of the agriculturists of the country do not approve. I agree that the late House came to what I think was a lamentable decision. But they came to it. Still, that does not bind this House or those of us who opposed this legislation in the last Parliament. For 26 years we have had legislation in force which has maintained that no live cattle shall be brought into this country except for slaughter. That legislation has worked well, despite the fact that it was passed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had a cheap and abundant supply of meat, save during the submarine season. On that side of the House and on this I have said that the farmer cannot expect protection, in the ordinary sense of the word, for his products. He cannot expect protection from competition, but he is entitled to ask of this House and of the Government and the country that he should have protection from disease. No one has spoken more strongly against protective duties on food than I have. This is quite a different matter. Even in the case of dogs coming into the country admission is not allowed from any part of the world without a long period of quarantine. There is no distinction of country in their case; whether they come from a colony or a foreign country the law is the same.
  This Measure is brought in at a most inopportune moment. My right hon. Friend, in moving the Second Beading, has given a good reason. He said that in the early part of this year there was a devastating attack of foot-and-mouth disease in this country, despite all the regulations, and that it cost the country something like £1,000,000 for the slaughter of animals. I understand that from 13,000 to 14,000 animals were attacked and that 22,000 or 23,000 were slaughtered. At such a moment as that, when there has been more disease than we have had before, the Government come along and say that we must repeal the legislation which worked well up to the time of the War, and that we must give a free entry to store cattle. The live stock of this country is valued at something like £300,000,000. We have
  2054
  the finest cattle in the world, and it is our duty to preserve it from disease. My right hon. Friend talks about a pledge. There was an Imperial Conference in April, 1917, in the very worst month of submarine warfare. We had Lord Long and Lord Ernie going to that Conference. I should say that a couple of confused and scared country squires went to the Conference and made pledges which apparently they did not understand, and because of that we are asked to repeal the legislation passed in 1896. There was no consultation with the Department; there was no consultation with the House of Commons; there was no consultation with the agricultural authorities of the country and no consultation even with the War Cabinet. Because this couple of gentlemen went to the Conference and made the pledges the whole of the agricultural industry is to be affected.
  Of course we are told that there will be risks to the Empire I have heard those things before; ever since I have been in this House I have heard that the Empire is going to pieces because some parish pump runs dry, and a man meekly says, "Oh, the Empire is going to pieces." Frankly, I do not believe it. I believe that the Canadians, if they had at placed before them that this is a Measure of protection against disease in this country, to be applied against all imported cattle, would see the justice of our contention. We were told, not by the right hon. Gentleman, that this was a Measure to prevent the Meat Trusts from getting control over the meat supply of this country. Quite the contrary. The Meat Trusts have the control of the overseas supply of meat. What they have not is the control of the supplies of homegrown meat. Therefore, it is essential that we should have as much home-grown meat as possible. I can quite understand that the Board of Agriculture cannot be very fond of this Measure, for I have never seen a more confused, windy and wordy mass of verbiage than this Bill of 12 Clauses and one long Schedule.
  Let me examine some of the conditions which my right hon. Friend proposes to put into the Bill. First, cattle must be marked if they come in. There must be three days' separation before shipment. They must be examined by a veterinary surgeon to see that there is no mange.

  2055
  The ship is to be cleansed 28 days before carrying the cattle. The cattle must be examined during the voyage. The ship must make no call at any other port, and the cattle must be landed at a specified place, and if disease is found there is to be detention and slaughter. That is the first Clause of the Bill. The second Clause seems to render all those provisions void by the action of the Minister. It says that the Minister may by Order authorise any Canadian cattle, whether store cattle or not, to be landed in Great Britain otherwise than in accordance with the first Clause. I do not understand what is meant by that. It appears that Clause 2 contradicts Clause 1. The matter goes further. The Minister may admit cattle for distribution over this country, not only from Canada, but from any other British Dominion. He can do that by his own order. Hon. Members who have been in this House as long as I have will know that immediately there will be the greatest possible political pressure put on the Minister to admit cattle from all parts of the British Dominions.
  Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: From what other countries can they come?
  Major Sir KEITH FRASER: From South Africa, where the rinderpest comes from.
  Mr. LAMBERT: If the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington (Sir N. Moore) says that it is not necessary to admit cattle from other Dominions, I would ask why this second Clause is put into the Bill. Under it cattle can be admitted from parts of the Empire other than Canada. When cattle are to be brought from Canada the ship cannot call at any port on the way, but in other cases the ship may call at any port at the discretion of the Minister. There will be pressure put upon the Minister to admit cattle from other parts of the world, I am certain. Let me come next to a point of fairness. There is no quarantine in this Bill. We were all led to expect by the late Minister of Agriculture that there would be quarantine. There is no doubt about that. Surely it is only fair that cattle coming from Canada should have the same number of days' quarantine, as cattle going from Britain into Canada. I
  2056
  have the regulations here. The importation of cattle from England and Wales has been prohibited by the Canadian Government since the 5th August, 1919, and of cattle from the whole of Great Britain since the 31st January, 1922, because of foot-and-mouth disease. In normal circumstances, when the Canadians are buying cattle from this country, from our pedigree herds, which are the cleanest cattle in the world, they impose a 30 days' quarantine. Why should not that same number of days' quarantine be imposed upon Canadian cattle coming into this country? What answer can there possibly be to that question?
  Sir R. SANDERS: I stated just now that Clause 2 applies not to store cattie but to breeding cattle, and the Canadian Government has undertaken that whatever regulations we make will be reciprocal. They will make the same regulations for our breeding cattle that we make for theirs.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I quite admit that that seems to remove one of the grounds of criticism against the Bill. I cannot see for one moment why our cattle should have a 30 days' quarantine imposed upon them in Canadian ports, while no quarantine is imposed on Canadian cattle in Liverpool and elsewhere. That, however, does not apply to the cattle brought here for fattening purposes—the stores—and therefore we have this curious imbroglio, that store cattle, coming here for the purpose of being fattened, can be admitted freely and without quarantine, but the other kind of cattle may not be. I do not quite understand where my right hon. Friend draws the distinction between the two classes of cattle because Clause 2 says:
  "The Minister may. … by Order authorise any Canadian animals, whether store cattle or not, to be landed in Great Britain otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding Section of this Act."
  That seems to include all cattle, and I candidly confess I do not clearly under stand it, but I suppose we shall have more light thrown upon the meaning of the Clause in Committee.
  Sir R. SANDERS: It is to be done by a separate Order, and such Order has to lie for 21 days on the Tables of both Houses, and it can be thrown out by either House.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Then what is the use of all this long windy harangue in Clause 1? That is what I am really asking, but I will not press my right hon. Friend now and probably it will be made a little more clear in Committee. I object to this Bill, and I think many agricultural friends on both sides of the House will agree with me when I say that, agriculture has been too long the shuttlecock of the politicians. We have had many speeches by many Gentlemen wringing their hands over our grievances and our distresses, but they have not done anything to help us. The last four years have been singularly unfortunate in that respect. We have had imposed upon us the "stranglehold," as it is called in Smithfield, of the railway rates. The Government shattered the confidence of the arable farmers by first passing and then repealing an Act designed to give them security. Now we have legislation which will almost reduce to despair that sturdy race of men who breed and own to-day those splendid flocks and herds which are the pride of Britain and the reservoir of the bloodstock of the world. I oppose the Bill.
  Captain C. CRAIG: Ulster Members have already this Session found themselves in the very unpleasant position of having to acquiesce in legislation which they felt to be distinctly inimical to the interests of their country. On two occasions we have had to do so in connection with the two Measures dealing with the setting up of the Free State and the carrying out of the Treaty. We acquiesced in those Measures for a variety of reasons. To-day we again find ourselves in an unpleasant position. We are asked to acquiesce in the passage of a Bill, one of the objects of which is the removal of the embargo at present existing on the importation of Canadian cattle. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has said. I think it a great pity that the House should have passed the Resolution dealing with this matter last Session, and I think it a great pity that Canadian cattle should be allowed to enter into this country. But I realise that the House did pass the Resolution favouring the introduction of these cattle into this country, and my friends and
  2058
  I are of the opinion that the pledge then given should be fulfilled.
  If this Bill only dealt with the entry of Canadian cattle we should support it, I will not say joyfully, but we should support it. This Bill, however, contains far more than the powers authorising the importation of Canadian cattle. In fact, it may be said on the one hand to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle and on the other to impose a very serious embargo on the importation of Irish cattle. It contains restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle which have never hitherto been imposed except as a temporary measure at times when foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent in this country, or when there was fear of foot-and-mouth disease being introduced. So long as the Bill contains these other provisions, placing oppressive restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle, I am afraid we shall be unable to vote in favour of it. We strongly object to these restrictions. They are contained, not in any particular Clause, but are the effect of provisions in different Clauses throughout the Bill. May I explain shortly for the benefit of hon. Members who do not know the exact, position of affairs that for the last 30 years—from the time an embargo was placed on Canadian cattle—Irish cattle have been admitted to this country perfectly freely and without any restriction, save certain veterinary inspection on landing. While that is the case, it is also true that the Board of Agriculture always had the fullest possible powers to impose such restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle as they thought fit if the exigencies of the moment demanded it. If there was foot-and mouth disease in this country or if there was foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, they instantly prohibited the importation of Irish cattle. On the other hand, as soon as this country or Ireland, as the case might be, became free from the disease, importation without restriction was resumed.
  When I tell the House that for 28 years prior to June, 1912, there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland of any sort or description, the House will understand how correct was the attitude which the Government of the day took up in regard to Irish cattle. Ireland has been infinitely more free from foot-and-mouth

  2059
  disease during the last 30 years than this country. Out of the last 32 years, for 28 years Ireland was free from it altogether. There have been three outbreaks in late years, but, in comparison with the great outbreak which took place in this country at the beginning of the present year, they were small and were soon localised and stamped out. It has been said by the Minister of Agriculture that Ireland is at present subject to restrictions, similar to those which it is proposed to make statutory by the Bill we are now discussing. That is quite true, but I suggest it is most unfair, unnecessary and expensive that the six days' detention should be made permanent and statutory. Perhaps the House is not aware of how largely Ireland figures in the cattle trade and in the meat supply to the population of this country. Of every five animals killed for food in this country, at least three have their origin in Ireland. The House will understand what an enormous business this is, and will realise that any restrictions, more than are absolutely necessary for the protection of this country from foot-and-mouth disease, must add to the cost of Irish cattle, and therefore raise the price of meat. The object of every hon. Member, I presume, is as far as possible to reduce the price of meat as of other foods.
  It was with the object largely of reducing the price of meat that the House passed the Resolution removing the embargo on Canadian cattle. We opposed the removal of that embargo last Session because owing to it a very large trade in store cattle has grown up in Ireland. Permission to land Canadian cattle is bound to affect adversely people in Ireland engaged in that particular trade. We never suggested that the introduction of Canadian cattle was going to ruin our trade or even seriously affect it, but that it will be a competitor with us there can be no doubt. At the same time, I desire to point out—to emphasise my argument that it is grossly unfair that the removal of the Canadian embargo should be taken advantage of for the purpose of putting further restrictions on Irish cattle—the enormous extent of this trade of ours, as compared with any trade that may be done in store cattle with Canada for a
  2060
  good many years to come. I am informed by those who have studied the statistics that the value of our trade in store cattle with this country is between £35,000,000 and £45,000,000 a year. On the other hand, the number of cattle likely to be imported from Canada during the next five or ten years is not likely to exceed 200,000 head, and if you allow £20 per head, which is an outside figure, the total amount of the Canadian trade would only come to about £4,000,000–that is to say, one-tenth of the value of the trade that is done with Ireland. I repeat that, if you take into consideration the disparity between those two figures, it is outrageous, when there is no necessity for it further than there is at the present moment, that there should be any further restrictions put upon the importation of Irish cattle.
  I will not go into the question as to whether the six days' detention which it is proposed to impose upon Irish cattle is of any practical use in preventing foot-and-mouth disease either being brought into the country from Ireland or from being spread. I am told, by people who know more about this question than I do myself, that it will have no effect whatever in that direction, but friends of mine who will speak later, and who are more familiar with the question than I am, will develop that point. I submit, if I may say so without offence to anybody, that this proposal is very largely the result of panic. There is no doubt that this country was greatly shocked, and the agriculturists were greatly concerned, by the serious outbreak which occurred last year. It is a well-known fact, of course, that great pressure is brought to bear upon the Ministry of Agriculture in this country when restrictions have been imposed on the importation of our cattle, and when the necessity for those restrictions seems to us to have disappeared, and I believe—and I challenge my right hon. Friend to deny it—that this opportunity has been seized by the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture to have this detention of Irish cattle made statutory, so that it will be impossible to bring pressure to bear on the Department to have the time made shorter or to have the restrictions withdrawn altogether. I have pointed out what a huge trade the Irish store cattle trade is, and how seriously it will be affected, because, even

  2061
  although it only costs a few shillings a head for each of these beasts to be detained for six days, in the aggregate it amounts to a very large sum of money, and our contention is that, except in times like the present, when there is still possibly a danger of the disease being taken about the country, it is quite unnecessary. Especially is this so when the whole of Ireland is admittedly free from any of these contagious diseases.
  The Minister of Agriculture said that for the purpose of concentrating on this one question, which is the only part of the Bill to which Irish Members object, it might be possible to arrive at an agreement by which, in Committee, we could concentrate on one single Amendment on this point. I am quite willing to fall in with his views, if we can arrive at such an agreement, though I see difficulties in the way, because if the worst came to the worst, if we found that it was impossible to obtain the complete removal of these restrictions, we might feel that as a last resource we should perhaps accept a shorter term of detention than the six days mentioned in the Bill. At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman will consult with me, I shall be very happy to try to arrive at some formula by which we can discuss this whole matter when the Bill is in Committee. We have undertaken to close this Debate by 8 o'clock, and so I will not detain the House unduly, but I would like to say a word or two about the pledge which the late Government is supposed to have given to the Canadian Government. This question of pledges is a very difficult one. In the first place, how far is a Government entitled to pledge the House of Commons and the country to do certain things? If this question of the imposition of further restrictions on Irish cattle had been brought afresh to the House of Commons and put before it on its merits, I have not the slightest doubt that I would be able to carry the day. The House, I believe, sees that it is not fair to ask Irish cattle to submit to a number of restrictions which are quite unnecessary because, for some reason or other, the Government have come to an arrangement to that effect with the Canadian Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Ireland is a Dominion.
  Captain CRAIG: My part of Ireland is not a dominion. My part of Ireland is as much a part of this country as the constituency which the right hon. Baronet represents, and while I may be pleading for other parts of Ireland, and as the greater always includes the less, if I am doing the South a good turn by getting these restrictions removed, I shall be very glad. I say that if this question were treated on its merits in the House of Commons, I have not the slightest doubt we should win, because it would be, seen to be grossly unfair that we should have these unnecessary restrictions imposed upon us. I object strongly that the House of Commons should be told that, whether these restrictions are fair or unfair, they have got to vote in favour of them simply because some Government gave some pledge to some other Government, a pledge that we have had no information about and of which we know very little. That is not, to my mind, the way in which business ought to be done. I would like also to give another reason why I think the House should refuse to put these extra restrictions on our cattle. They are put on ostensibly because the Ministry of Agriculture think they are a further safeguard and that they are necessary to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. The House will perhaps remember that in our discussions on the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Bill a day or two ago, a provision was introduced into that Bill by which the Imperial Government takes the place in Ireland of what was known as the Council of Ireland, a body which was to be set up, and one of whose duties was to look after, all matters connected with diseases of animals. By that Bill the Government of this country keeps in its own hands for five years full control and full charge of all matters dealing with diseases of animals, so that for the next five years at least the Government of this country has the fullest powers of inspecting animals in Northern Ireland, keeping its own inspectors there, making Regulations as to the embarkation of animals, and supervising them in every way, so that in fact it has as complete control over the health of animals ii Northern Ireland as it has over animals in this country. That is a point, I think, which again makes it more unnecessary that any

  2063
  additional restrictions should be put upon the importation of our cattle.
  I hope I have made it quite clear that this is really a very serious and oppressive proposal from the point of view of a very large section of Irish people. This store cattle trade is, as I have shown by the figures which I have quoted, a very important trade, and I might say further that the rents of farms in Ireland, which, as the House knows, are fixed by Land Courts, have been very largely fixed on the price of cattle, and the annuities which are paid under the the various purchase Acts in that country—the Wyndham Act and others—also depend to a very large extent on the price of cattle. If this Bill passes, the House of Commons is deliberately doing something which will tend to make it difficult, if not impossible, for many persons to continue to pay the annuities which they are paying to the Government for the purchase of their farms. In fact, there are so many arguments against the proposal of the Government that I hope the House will agree with me that these provisions ought to be taken out of the Bill, and I submit to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, just as the House was untrammelled when it came to the decision which it did last Session, by the absence of the Whips at the doors, on this occasion, which, after all, is a corollary of that decision and which flows out of it, the House should be left an absolutely free hand.
  Mr. HARBISON: 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."
  I take upon myself the responsibility of moving this Amendment, and I do so perhaps upon different grounds from those already put forward. I should like to say at the outset that I represent the largest agricultural constituency in the three Kingdoms. I represent the unanimous vote of at least 90,000 farmers, who are existing on the trade they are doing between Tyrone and Fermanagh and Northern Ireland and England in store cattle. I have taken this responsibility on my shoulders because I believe
  2064
  that the existence of these poor, small farmers—and 80 per cent, of all our farmers are small farmers—depends upon the trade with this country, and if this embargo be put upon the trade from our country to England, these men may have to seek other occupations by which to earn a livelihood. But I deal with this question from a higher standpoint than that. Within the last 48 hours a document has been signed by His Majesty confirming a Treaty that was entered into between this nation and ours, and I think one of the fundamental principles underlying that Treaty was that there should be free trade between England and Ireland. I propose this Amendment in the belief and the conviction that this embargo, this unnecessary embargo, is being put upon our country in violation of the principle that underlies the Treaty between England and Ireland.
  5.0 P.M.
  When this question of the embargo on Canadian cattle was being discussed in this House last Session, my colleagues and I from the North of Ireland joined together in opposing the removal of the embargo. We thought then, and we think still, that it was a bad thing, both for England and for Ireland, to allow these Canadian cattle in, but: this House by Resolution determined to raise that embargo. To that determination we bow and agree, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has stated in this House to-day that this embargo that is now being put upon Ireland was by virtue of an agreement with the Canadian Government. Not only are they lifting the Canadian embargo, but they are placing upon us an embargo at the dictation of Canada. One would think that where the interests of a country, or of a person in the case of a personal transaction, were being jeopardised, the country or the person would be called into consultation before the burden was imposed. A Government has been set up in Southern Ireland for the last 12 months. That Government had full power, so far as this question was concerned, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, why was not the Irish Government consulted? Why was not the Irish Department of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland consulted? This thing has been done over

  2065
  our heads. It is the most tyrannical piece of legislation that has been introduced in this House in my memory, because it strikes at the very root of a key industry—the only industry, I may say, worth talking about in Ireland. As has been stated, our exports this year were something like £.35,000,000 worth of cattle. I have been informed by experts well able and competent to give an opinion that the loss to us in Ireland through placing this embargo upon our cattle will mean, at the very least, £3 per head of the cattle exported.
  The right hon. Gentleman admitted, as we all admit, the loss entailed through the horrible outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. I sympathise with the English farmers, but it is not our fault. They try to lay it at our door that our herds are transmitting and spreading disease. I will put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. How is it that we in Ireland have no disease, or, if an occasional outbreak occurs, we can stamp it out almost instantaneously? There must be something wrong about the Ministry of Agriculture in this country, and they are not carrying out their work as the Irish Board and the Northern Board are carrying out theirs. In Ireland, when an outbreak occurs, as it occurred about a year or a year and a half ago in County Wicklow and other places adjacent, immediately the outbreak was discovered the Board sent down an official, and what did he find? That every farmer within a radius of 50 miles constituted himself a volunteer detective to prevent the spread of the disease, and the disease never spread, but was killed on the spot. Action like that is better than all the embargoes, and more effective. I would therefore advise the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider his decision on this matter, or at least postpone this Bill until an opportunity has been given to the Irish Government to have a consultation with him, and, if necessary, have the Canadians in consultation as well, and he will find that there is a modus operandi for getting over this difficulty.
  There is no hurry in this matter. What is the reason for all this rush in this short Session, when we can get no time to discuss things? Would it be any disadvantage to Canada if this were adjourned for three months? Not a single
  2066
  Canadian beast can be imported into this country before next September. Then what is the rush about? Let us examine the subject like honest men, sincere men, who wish to do justice both to Canada and to Ireland. Let us discuss it freely and fairly, and in due season. I think that a vital mistake is being made from England's point of view as well as from Ireland's. What will be the inevitable result—as true as geometry? If this embargo be put on, it is as inevitable as to-morrow's sun will rise that the price of meat will rise. This £3 per head, which, I understand, will mean something like £5,000,000 a year, is a loss greater than the £1,000,000, which I hope will never occur again. Who has got to pay that £5,000,000 a year, the cost of deterioration and charges on the animals? The consumer will pay it, and, consequently, a rise in the price of meat will follow.
  I have given my reasons for assuming the responsibility of moving the Amendment that is on the Paper in my name. I am firmly convinced, in doing so, that I am acting in the interests of this country as well as my own country. I think the Board of Agriculture here are making a vital mistake, and, before it is too late, I ask them to reconsider their decision, and either give us more time for this thing, or let the Bill drop, or, in the further alternative, strike Ireland out of the Bill. But, so long as the Bill stands as it is, I take the responsibility of moving the Amendment in my name.
  Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This is the first occasion on which I have really regretted my election as a Member of Parliament, not because my nerves overcome me, but because that fact entails the absence of a very distinguished member of the Government who is an expert in the particular matter now before the House. The history of the last four years is the history of the rise and fall of agriculture, and among the blows to which agriculture has been subjected, there has, I think, been none more severe to one section of the agricultural community than the Resolution that was passed in the last Parliament on the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle. I may say that this question has been a political question;

  2067
  it is no question of economics. This fact was recognised by hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen who are on the other side of the House at the time of the agitation last year. When the Commission was sitting, the Attorney-General took the case for the English farmer, and, in the course of his address before the Commission, he said:
  "The question has been used as what, in my submission, was a very illegitimate weapon in recent political electioneering."
  I do not know how far this question has affected electioneering in the recent General Election. I know that certain hon. Gentlemen have been returned with a mandate to support this Bill, and to allow the introduction of Canadian stores. I have not. Personally, as far as my own agricultural interest is concerned, it would suit me very well if the embargo were removed, and Canadian cattle allowed to come to England, because I am sure the importation of Canadian stores into England would increase the market in Canada for the pure-bred stock which we produce in Somerset. However, that is not the question at present. The question at present is the Bill before the House, and I am seconding the Amendment that the Bill be postponed for three months, not on the ground that I wish Canadian stores to be excluded from England, but on the ground that this Measure has not been sufficiently considered, and it is not right that it should now be rushed through the House at the tail end of a very short Session. We are asked to conclude this Debate by dinner time, and I am not going to keep the House long, for that very reason. But it does not seem to me to be right that a Measure of this importance, which is really a reversal of the whole agricultural policy of the Government of this country, should be rushed through in the course of the next few hours.
  The objects to be obtained by this Measure were three. First, there was the Imperial object. Canada was feeling-disgruntled, because of a certain slur thrown on her cattle, and, in order to remove that feeling, a certain promise was made by a Member of the Cabinet. I have every sympathy with Canada in this matter. It is notorious that her cattle are very free from disease. There are certain diseases prevalent in Canada—diseases, I may mention, which
  2068
  are not included in the Bill—epizootic abortion and tuberculosis. Both of these diseases have been carefully excluded from the provisions of this Bill. However that may be, Canada can compare with us very well indeed in the way of healthy cattle, and it is not for that reason that we can venture to exclude her stores. The second reason was to increase the supply, and to reduce the price of meat. It was pointed out before the Royal Commission that stores are not meat. It is only when you get stores on to your land and fatten them that they become meat, but the common impression is that their introduction will reduce prices, and increase the supply of fresh meat. The third reason was to increase the area of arable land. I suppose the idea is that when you put a store on to grass, you proceed to collect the manure on the grass and carry it to the arable land, and so manure your arable land. One hon. Gentleman will explain that in his part of the country there is very fine grazing, and that the Canadian stores put on weight very quickly. He is quite right, but how that will increase the area of arable land I fail to see. You cannot do it. It is quite certain that no farmer will plough up his grass in order to plant turnips to feed cattle. That is certain, especially with the present cost of labour.
  Turn to the Bill itself. I have seen criticisms, first of all, that the safeguards are entirely insufficient. If you read, as doubtless all hon. Members will have read, the Report of the Commission, you will find that there is a boundary line of 3,900 miles between the United States and Canada. Of that boundary line 1,700 miles are water, and the remaining 2,200 are dry land. To prevent American cattle crossing the border line there are 85 quarantine stations of which some are on the Great Lakes; so that it will be simple for any American who desires to do so to introduce his cattle over that border line without being stopped by the Canadian Customs. That actually happens. Read the evidence before the Royal Commission and you will see that Dr. Tolmie describes how the cow-punchers go about chasing these cattle back over the border. If that goes on now, it will go on much more if the American desires to send his cattle through Canada as stores to England.

  2069
  In the United States of America they have diseases of every description. They have diseases of which we have not yet had experience. There is one termed Texas fever. Are we going to run the risk, as we should under the Bill as at present drafted, of allowing these cattle to come in as Canadian stores? Mention has been made of two diseases, tuberculosis and epizootic abortion. The latter of these is probably the disease which is at the moment causing the most loss to the British farmer; more loss than by tuberculosis, than by foot-and-mouth disease, or than by any other disease whatever. It in a disease which can be identified and diagnosed without difficulty, and I consider that the Bill when it goes on the Statute Book as an Act should contain a provision for examination for epizootic abortion in these stores. You will also notice in the Bill that tuberculosis is not one of the diseases for which the veterinary surgeon has to look. We have tuberculosis in this country, but that seems no reason whatever why we should import it from other countries as well. Also, if we are going to take steps to render our herds immune from tuberculosis, we want additional danger avoided as far as possible.
  There are other matters in the Bill open to serious objection. There is the matter of shipment. If hon. Members look at Section 1, Sub-section (2b iii), they will notice the provision in regard to disinfecting certain ships. If hon. Members will read that portion of the Bill carefully they will find that it is not the ship that has brought the stores over from Canada to England, nor is it the ship which has had mange cattle on board. Every farmer knows that mange and ringworm persist in buildings and in wood, unless those buildings and that wood are very carefully disinfected. Here there is no necessity for disinfection if it is more than 28 days since the vessel was used for cattle. There are matters like that which require very careful examination and amendment before the Bill is finally passed. There is also the question of cruelty, which has doubtless been brought to the notice of hon. Members in the coin so of the last few days. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture who said that arrangements had been made on board ship to avoid that. Hon. Members will know it is quite impossible to avoid it.
  2070
  I myself have spoken to cattlemen who have come across on these cattle ships, and their description of the sufferings of the animals on board during a storm are literally horrible. Certainly some provision ought to be made in this Bill before it passes to make certain that so far as in us lies we prevent cruelty on the voyage from Canada to Liverpool or Glasgow. We have, then, this cruelty. We have the danger of disease. But there are other things to provide against. One of these is the Meat Trust.
  This matter was raised before the Royal Commission. Any hon. Member who has been in Canada will know that that is a real and serious danger to this country. In the ranching district in the West of Canada there is a very well-known—I was going to say notorious, but he is not a notorious character, but a well-known man—Mr. Pat Burns. He is an Irishman. He went out there an uneducated boy. Owing to his extraordinary brain he has arrived at the top. He is a multi millionaire. He controls the whole of the retail meat trade of Western Canada. Not only does he do that, but he is in intimate connection with the Chicago Meat Trust. Now hon. Members perhaps begin to see what is going to happen. What is going to happen is this: Pat Burns is going to control the store traffic to England, and, in connection with the Chicago Meat Trust, can regulate the price of stores. Dr. Tolmie himself said that were the American market out of the way the stores they could provide would range from 200,000 to 400,000–
  Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: They will not control the price.
  Mr. SIMPSON: It is not a question of controlling the price over here immediately. They will raise and lower the price, and raise and lower it until the British breeder ceases to do business. Then they will have you. That is going to be the difficulty. The difficulty that by regulating the price of these stores they are going to destroy your English breeding trade and get it into their own hands.
  Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: The hon. Member's statement is absurd. He is not consistent.
  Mr. SIMPSON: That I consider to be a great difficulty in connection with

  2071
  this case, and that is a matter which I think should be dealt with in the Bill. We should be satisfied that it shall be certified to us if we take stores from Canada that we are going to get a regular supply. The trouble, let me say in conclusion, is that this thing, is being rushed. Let us have time to consider it. I am not opposing the entrance of Canadian store cattle on any ground of Protection. I think that if we can get healthy stores at a reasonable price free from control of price we should take them and be thankful. But in view of all these difficulties it is not fair to the House that the matter should be pressed forward in the manner it has been.
  Mr. JAMES GARDINER: I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken part in this Debate on the admirable manner in which they have put their case, and I think, if I might individualise, I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated the case for Ireland in a most effective manner. I am one of the few Members of this House who has had practical experience of feeding Canadian and Irish cattle for quite a number of years, and I therefore claim the privilege of saying a few words on the subject. The first point that I should like to make is this: We were told in the last House, when the question of Canadian cattle was proceeding, that if we were dependent upon Canadian cattle wholly and one day they failed us we should have no store cattle for the farmers of this country.
  However that may be, I would like to point out to hon. Members that the number of store cattle coming from Ireland to Great Britain is diminishing every year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I refer to the number of store cattle. The number of cattle coming from Ireland has not decreased. It is increasing; but the store cattle are decreasing. I do not blame our friends for that one single bit. It surely is in the interests of Ireland that they should feed every beast they can feed, and so secure the greatest amount of profit for the agricultural portion of the community. But the fact is, that the number of stores coming from Ireland is decreasing each year. When it comes to be a question of whether there is more disease in Ireland than in Canada, my experience leads me to say that the
  2072
  Canadian cattle in every case were absolutely free from disease, while I am sorry to say that my experience in feeding Irish cattle has been there were a great many wasters in every lot we purchased. The right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench spoke of security and about the fact that the balance was constantly wavering so far as agriculture is concerned. It has been the case of one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow. I quite realise that this House is not bound by the decision of the former House; but I do say that for the agriculturists of this country, and in view of the position of the farmer, a continuous policy is exceedingly desirable. Farmers have arranged in the belief that Canadian stores are to be admitted. We surely need continuity in this direction. To suggest the exclusion of Canadian cattle on account of disease is not stating the case fairly.
  There were one or two points made, particularly by the hon. Member who sits just behind me, about certain diseases that were prevalent in Canada. He mentioned, among others, abortion. I wonder if that hon. Member read that part of the Bill which says:
  "The expression 'More cattle' means castrated male or splayed female bovine animals."
  I wonder if he would tell me how it can be possible for any of these animals to abort? So far as tuberculosis is concerned, there is no doubt at all it is one of the things we suffer from in this country, and we want to do everything possible to eradicate it. The argument that the Canadians impose a 30 days' quarantine on breeding animals that go from our country to Canada is perfectly correct, and if hon. Members would just realise for a moment the kind of stock Canadians rely upon from this country, they would possibly see the reason for so doing. One of my neighbours sold a shorthorn calf to a Canadian breeder for 6.600 guineas. It is perfectly well known that in every industry there are one or two men who do wrong things; that, unfortunately, amongst the pure breeds there are men interested who occasionally fake their animals, and thus defeat the tuberculin test, which pronounces whether or not there is tuberculosis in the animal. Would it be unreasonable for any hon. Member who has to buy an animal at

  2073
  6,600 guineas to have an independent test when he knows that faking is going on on this side? I do not suggest that it is extensive or common; it is not. But such things have been known, and we know perfectly well that animals have been exported with the tuberculosis test absolutely perfect and on the other side have been found to be diseased. When the animal was slaughtered it was absolutely a mass of tuberculosis.
  If Canada is going to give us the same treatment that we mete out to Canada, I do not think there is much reason to complain. Then, about the question of the six days' detention. That is very important. I suggested in an agricultural county the other day that this six days' detention was not so effective as we should like it to be. In any case, what about the present conditions? Wan there not a meeting held in Dublin of Irish merchants, only a few weeks ago, at which they resolved that they would sell no cattle in Scotland or England; that they would not offer them for sale until they had been detained for six days? A Scotsman who purchased cattle direct and sold them without the six days' detention was told that he would never get another animal unless he conformed to the custom. He was fined £100, and he bad to join the body of men who were sending cattle over with those conditions attached. Therefore, as a matter of fact, that six days' detention is in existence, voluntarily for their own purposes. If any hon. Member is afraid of disease in this connection, then I think I ought to be. I am sorry that I was foolish enough in the days of agricultural prosperity to buy a number of shorthorns at fancy prices, consequently, if there is any real danger by the importation of Canadian cattle, I should be the first to suffer. I am, however, satisfied that no such danger exists, and I am satisfied that with the good relationship existing between Canada and this country in regard to the sale of live stock we shall export some of the best of our breeds to improve the breed in Canada, and we shall have a result creditable to Canada as well as to the United Kingdom.
  The question was raised of the borderland between Canada and the United States. I may say that one of the most perfect systems exists there, and no
  2074
  animal can pass through without being detected. I am not saying a word against Ireland. Irish cattle are good as a rule, but they are subject to certain diseases the same as other cattle, and I am afraid that there is a good bit of tuberculosis amongst Irish breeds as well as amongst the breeds in Great Britain. The common experience of my own country is that in buying a wagon of Irish cattle as a rule you have at least one animal which is not what it ought to be, and it has to be sold or slaughtered because of something radically wrong with its constitution.
  Another argument used was that about the cruelty in the ships. I wonder if any hon. Member present has seen a shipment of Irish cattle coming over to this country in a storm. I maintain that there is far more cruelty under those conditions in the traffic from Ireland to this country with the kind of steamers used than could over occur on the magnificent steamers which carry the animals over here from Canada. We have had the cattle very much mutilated, some of them dead, and damaged whilst being conveyed from Ireland. With regard to what has been said about gathering the manure, I may say that we do not have our grass land in that condition. We believe in ploughing up grass land. We believe that the man who causes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before is a benefactor to his country. I think more attention should be paid to the grass land, because many of the agriculturists, both in England and Scotland, leave their grass land lying too long and going to waste, getting befogged with weeds and other growths, and that is very detrimental, and in a few years' time you have only one blade of grass where formerly six existed. That state of things should not be, and if we are going to maintain our prosperity in this direction we want as many cattle as possible.
  Last year we had not sufficient cattle, the reason being that there was not a sufficient supply of stores available. We ought to be able in this country to feed all the cattle Canada can send us in addition to what we get from, Ireland, and nothing in the nature of importation of Canadian or Irish cattle should interfere with us increasing the number of animals we breed on our glens. The special cattle we breed in this country will always

  2075
  be paid for on a different scale from the larger and coarser animals from abroad. Therefore, there is ample security in that direction for those who are at the present time breeding cattle.
  One point I have always wondered at is that our friends from Ireland are sellers of cattle, and they are not going to import cattle. We are buyers of cattle and desire to secure them at a fair and reasonable price, and so be enabled to sell the meat at a reasonable price to the consumer. Why should the sellers object to the buyers being able to have a wider and a broader choice? Why should the purchaser not be able to purchase what he believes to be is in his own interest, and for the benefit of the country? Although there are some things in the Bill that require to be altered in Committee, I for one support wholeheartedly the Measure that is now before the House.
  Mr. BARNES: In the consideration of this Bill up to the present we have listened to the Debate from the point of view of the expert knowledge of the farmers. I want to consider this question from the point of view of the consuming population in our great towns, and give their view in regard to this great question of the importation of Canadian cattle. Yesterday we were discussing the depression in the agricultural industry. I have considerable sympathy with the difficulties of the agriculturists, but I can conceive no greater disaster to the agricultural interests of this country than to bring those engaged in it into direct antagonism and opposition to the great industrial centres of England. In all my connections with these matters the attitude of mind of the farmers and the agricultural interests on many large questions appears to me to be the greatest danger to agricultural prosperity.
  In this matter of the importation of Canadian cattle, I want hon. Members to appreciate that, at the present moment, owing to the non-importation of Canadian cattle, the agricultural interests of this country are in a depressed condition I want to state, further, that in the past two or three years hundreds of thousands of British working men who previously purchased English meat and English-grown commodities have been driven into
  2076
  the consumption of imported meat and imported commodities. On this point I speak from experience as the chairman of a large co-operative society. I am speaking now from the point of view of endeavouring to give some of the actual and practical experiences of those who wish to help British agricultural development in connection with the consuming population of our towns.
  Before 1914 my own society, who were originally large importers of Colonial and foreign beef and mutton, commenced upon a policy of trying to turn the purchasing public on to English meat. Eventually we were successful in making our shops all English meat shops, and we eliminated entirely what is termed foreign and colonial imported meat. What is the position to-day? There is no individual in the town who purchases imported meat because he prefers it to English meat. Therefore the agricultural community should bear in mind that, as far as the desires of the purchasing public of the towns are concerned, they wish and desire to have home produced commodities. During the last two or three years—I leave out the War period—when the War control of meat passed away, we attempted to revert once more to having only English meat in our butchers' shops, but we found that as the amount of wages of our industrial population was steadily-decreased, and as unemployment was allowed to develop, we were compelled, because of the economic conditions of the mass of people in our great industrial centres, to revert, once more to imported meat in our shops.
  Therefore this question of the importation of Canadian cattle and the prosperity of the agricultural industry in this country are wrapped up indissolubly with the prosperity of our town populations. If your town population cannot afford to buy English meat and English-grown produce this House can adopt any measures they deem fit from the point of view of endeavouring to safeguard the farmer, but I say that ultimately the pressure of public opinion in your towns will bring more adversity to the agricultural community than the adoption of a wise Measure of this description. I have already demonstrated the interdependence of agricultural prosperity on town prosperity. At the present moment the

  2077
  greater part of the needs of this country are met by imported colonial and foreign meat, and it is slaughtered abroad.
  That means that the town industries of this country lose the following advantages. We lose the industries that are semi-dependent on the slaughtering of cattle. We lose the first source of control of hides, skins and the by-products of the slaughtering of the animals. We also lose some of the valuable manures which are the immediate result it the slaughtering of cattle. Besides this, the town population lose a source of food supplies, and a cheap form of food, in the shape of cooked meats, dripping, fats and things of that description. The actual sale of the joint is not necessarily the most valuable transaction to build up prosperity. After the animal is slaughtered the wealth that results from the slaughtering in this country is quite a considerable factor.
  Therefore, I submit that the importation of Canadian cattle—I leave out the Irish question, because I hope the difficulty of Ireland may be overcome in Committee—should not be permitted to interfere with the broad principle of the importation of Canadian cattle, which is the primary object of the British consumers connected with the Co-operative movement. This is a form of wealth that can he retained as a direct result of the slaughtering of cattle here, which, I submit, will indirectly increase the prosperity and the purchasing power of our town populations, and, in addition, it will re-act favourably on the agricultural community. The only difference between the production of the beast from its inception in this country and the importation of the store cattle is that even at the present moment the British meat rearing industry and home-grown produce only satisfy a limited demand. Therefore, I submit it is in the interests both of the agricultural community and the millions of people in our great industrial towns that store cattle should be imported from Canada, fattened on English grass land, and ultimately sent to our markets. You employ labour here in the fattening of the cattle, and you will employ additional labour in the slaughtering of the cattle and the utilisation of the by-products from the slaughter, and ultimately the British consumers, if at the present moment they
  2078
  cannot afford to purchase the prime joints of English-reared cattle, surely the second proposition of purchasing joints from cattle grazed in this country, which produces a better quality of meat, is the thing which should have the serious consideration of the House.
  As one who represents the co-operative movement, and who by experience has been much in direct contact with the farming community—for, as far as we are concerned, we purchase a considerable number of cattle direct from the farmers and we also purchase large quantities of milk and of corn and other cereals direct from them—I say that no section of the town community understands the problem of the farming community like the cooperative movement, and it would be absolutely fatal if the farming interests in this country attempted to develop a sectional prosperity with the result that the interests of millions of people on whom ultimately their prosperity must depend are prejudicially affected. When the agricultural interest is in direct opposition to town interests, you cannot find any instance where ultimately the interest of the masses of the people in the towns do not dominate the situation. If we are to rebuild British agricultural prosperity on a now foundation, I submit the- surer way is to harmonise and not antagonise the interests of the countryside and town communities. From that point of view, I appeal to those who represent agricultural constituencies to agree to the importation of Canadian cattle, because ultimately, in our opinion, it will increase the prosperity of the towns, and so far as it increases the purchasing power of the town populations, that is the safest and most definite and most permanent form of increasing agricultural prosperity.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on his most interesting and informative speech. I think the agricultural community can agree in principle with all he said. As to the facts there is one consideration he left out of account, but which has to be taken into account in considering this matter. His arguments were founded on the supposition that the introduction of Canadian- cattle will be necessarily additional to the stores now produced in this country. If that should be the case his case is well founded—if it

  2079
  should not, then the argument is gone. I do not say the supposition is correct: that remains to be proved. It has been thought by many representatives of the agricultural community that the introduction of Canadian stores may result in an even greater diminution of stores produced in this country, and if that were to happen—and many agricultural people hold the view that it will happen—my hon. Friend will see that the results which ho hopes to obtain will not be obtained because there will not be more animals slaughtered in this country. Subject to that, I think agriculturists will agree with the speech, and will appreciate the sympathetic spirit the hon. Member has shown towards agriculture.
  I should like to say one or two words on the general aspect of this Bill later on. But I will first deal with the matter on which this House feels most keenly. I desire to place the real position before the House in regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Captain Craig). If what he suggested were the case, I would support him in the Lobby. He put his case most temperately, and if it had fallen to my lot to put a similar case I am afraid I should not have been nearly so temperate. But can it be supposed by agriculturists here that because an agreement has been made between the British and Canadian Governments Irish stores which are introduced into this country are to be penalised? That is the case my right hon. Friend put forward. It is an absolute and complete misapprehension of the facts. This six days' detention, which is the point raised by my right hon. Friend, has nothing whatever to do with the agreement between the Government of this country and the Government of Canada. My right hon. Friend suggested that the question was one which should be discussed on its merits. I invite the House to consider it on its merits only; not as part of any agreement but simply on the facts, and I will do my best to place those facts before the House. This six days' detention has nothing to do with quarantine. It has nothing whatever to do with the introduction of disease. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said as to Ireland being free from foot-and-mouth disease. But he also said that these were restrictions proposed to be put on Irish cattle. I cannot agree
  2080
  with that, because they are not. They are restrictions on all imported cattle. They are not aimed at Ireland in any way. For my part I deeply regret that they should in any way interfere with the Irish trade. All that it is necessary for me to say is that these restrictions are made in the interests of the protection of the flocks and herds of this country, not against the introduction of disease, but against the spreading of it.
  I have been sitting for many weeks on a Committee which was charged, with the approval of this House, with the duty of examining into the causes and history of the very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease that occurred at the beginning of the present year. This morning we completed our labours, and our Report has been handed to the Minister of Agriculture. So far from this particular provision having arisen out of the Agreement with Canada it simply arises from a definite recommendation made by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Committee, after examining into the whole of the facts of this outbreak which cost the country a million sterling. The position is this, that, most unfortunately, it is quite impossible to prevent sporadic outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this or in any other country from uncontrollable causes. That is stated in the Report. Whether by birds or air borne in some other way we are always liable to foot-and-mouth disease from uncontrollable causes. That being so, it is perfectly clear that our first line of defence against an outbreak from uncontrollable causes is to restrict it as far as possible to the area where it has occurred. That is not the second line of defence; it is the first. We followed most closely the history and facts of this outbreak. It was first traced at Hull market; where it originally came from it has been impossible to discover. Before the outbreak had been traced—we had to trace it back—and before it was known at the Ministry of Agriculture that the outbreak had occurred at Hull, infected animals had gone from Hull to Newcastle and Gateshead markets. They infected the railway loading docks at Newcastle. Newcastle and Gateshead are great centres of the Irish cattle trade, and the consequence of the infection being in those markets was that some 500 Irish cattle, which came into those markets which

  2081
  were partly unsold and partly, to a very limited extent, sold for resale in other markets—practically the whole of them which were unsold went to other markets, so that before the disease had been properly located at all, this infection was spread from Hull to Newcastle, and from Newcastle to York, Northallerton, Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster, Chester, Preston and other markets in England, and to Berwick, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, Paisley and Greenock in Scotland.
  6.0 P.M.
  That is a very comprehensive statement. Within a few days the Ministry of Agriculture was called upon to deal with outbreaks which occurred at the rate of 200 or 300 a day. The outbreak was spread entirely, as stated in our Report, by the herds of Irish cattle which were distributed from Newcastle and Gateshead markets. Not one of these cattle introduced the disease into this country. They came into this country free from it. They went to the markets and picked up the disease there, and spread it from one end of the country to the other. The precautions which we have recommended are contained in an interim Report presented to the Ministry of Agriculture. I want to again say that it is not the Irish trade only which is aimed at; it is all imported cattle. The difference between the trade in imported cattle and that in I home-bred cattle is simply this, that the trade in home-bred stores is a local trade. The animals are taken from the breeder to the market and there they are bought by the grazier and taken to his land to graze. The imported cattle, Irish or other, are the property of dealers who have no premises, nowhere to put the cattle. They bring them in large numbers into the market, and, if they cannot get the price which they think they ought to get in that market, they simply disperse them to other markets all over the country, when they may have, by some unfortunate chance, picked up the germs of disease at or in the neighbourhood of the first market to which they were taken. In order to deal with that, which has cost us £1,000,000, the Committee have recommended to the Minister what is proposed to be carried out in this Bill, if the House is good enough to approve of it.
  There is no question of any additional quarantine. The cattle are treated on landing in exactly the same way in which
  2082
  they have always been treated. They may be taken to any market to which the dealer who owns them may like to take them; but, when he has sold them at that market, then, to whatever premises they are taken afterwards, they will have to stay there for six days. The object is that, if they should have picked up the disease in the market, they may not be rushed from market to market and spread it from one part of the country to another. That is the sole object of this Regulation. As to the question of cost, my hon. Friend, to whose speech I listened with great interest and with approval of it from his point of view, said that the cost of this would be a few shillings per head. Of the two hon. Gentlemen who followed him, one said that it would be 3s., and the other said it would cost £5,000,000. May I point out that, where an animal is taken to any market to which it is allowed to go, and is sold to a person who is going to graze it, it does not cost an additional farthing owing to the six days' detention. That does not affect it in the least. The only animals that are affected are that proportion of the herd of Irish animals in the hands of the dealer which are not sold to any farmer who is going to graze them, but which he holds back from sale at that market. We have heard a good deal from hon. Members opposite about the holding back of various commodities from sale. Unless the dealer holds them back from sale, I venture to state what is obviously the fact, that not a single farthing of extra cost will be imposed upon him or upon the animal by this Regulation. The animal will simply go to the premises of the purchaser, it will naturally stay there until he has completed it for the market, and obviously he cannot complete it for the market in six days. There is, therefore, no alteration whatever. If, however, the dealer, instead of selling that animal to a grazier who is there ready and anxious to buy it, refuses to sell it, holds it back, and sends it away to some other market for sale, then he must keep it there for six days before he sends it away, in order to avoid the possibility of disease being spread from one place to another.
  That is the position as plainly as it can be stated. May I say that the Committee included a very respected Member of the Labour party, Mr. W. Smith, as their representative. He, with all of us, supported this proposal which we have laid

  2083
  before the Minister, and if he had been of opinion that it was going in any way to increase the cost of the food of the people of this country, or to hold up an important and valuable trade such as the Irish trade, I am quite sure he would have been the last to support it. I have his authority for saying that it has his Strong support, and the Report was the unanimous Report of the Committee. I venture to recommend it to the House merely on its merits, as an absolutely necessary precaution against the spread of disease in this country, while at the same time deeply, regretting if it should in any way interfere with the Irish trade. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree with me that, where it is absolutely necessary to impose a Regulation of this kind in order to prevent the spread of disease—not introduced from Ireland, but which may happen from some uncontrollable cause to break out in this country—then, with every sympathy with him, it is the duty of this House, first of all, to safeguard our own flocks and herds in this country from the danger. I was rather struck, in view of what my hon. Friend says, to read what happened at a meeting of Irish cattle dealers in Dublin on the 19th October last. At that meeting the following resolution was passed:
  "We recognise the good results accruing from the united stand taken in defence of our common interest, and hereby pledge ourselves to expose stock for sale only after six days' detention; and we call on our fellow-traders to loyally co-operate in giving effect to this decision."
  It is somewhat remarkable that the Irish traders in Dublin should have passed that resolution. I do not profess quite to understand it, but it does not seem to be quite on all fours with the case that has been put to the House.
  I hope I have made that part of the case clear. I should now like to say one or two words on the general issue of the Bill. I was one of those who, on behalf of the agricultural interest, opposed the change which this Bill implements. Not only, however, were two Resolutions passed, one by this House and one in another place, affirming the principle which this Bill carries out, but, more than that, the question was a national question. I am not quite sure that the methods by which it was made a national
  2084
  question had my entire concurrence. I think I have heard them called a newspaper stunt—I am not quite sure. At any rate, whatever the methods were, there was.a national decision on the question, although, as I have suggested to the House on several occasions, when national decisions are taken in this industrial country, the position of agriculture is not always sufficiently considered. The fact being, however, that there was a national decision, which has been acted upon, moreover, by an agreement entered into with the Canadian Government, I would say, speaking as far as I am able on behalf of the agricultural industry, that we have to accept that decision. We do not agree with it, and if the matter were open we should oppose it, but we have to bow to the decision of the nation and are prepared to accept it. Accordingly, I for one do not propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, although I voted against the principle upon which it was introduced when the matter was before the House.
  I would, however, venture to point out that there may not be quite the results from this Bill that are expected, and I am rather inclined to doubt whether the anticipations will be realised of a large import of cattle at a cheap rate, and, above all, of cheaper meat. The figures for cattle imports into this country recently from Canada are rather peculiar. I see that in 1921 the numbers of cattle which came in from Canada during the months of September and October were 5,025 in September and 7,733 in October, while in September and October of this year the numbers were 2,982 in September and 733 in October. There were, therefore, during October of this year, less than one-tenth of the cattle imported from Canada that came in during October of last year. The number that came in during October of this year from the United States was 235, and there were, as I have said, 733 from Canada. That is as compared with over 10,000 which came in in October of last year. That rather looks as if the British store was holding its own. I am very doubtful, therefore, whether this Bill will produce the expected results, but that is on the lap of the gods, and I can only assure the House that, so far as the agricultural community is concerned, it will do nothing whatever to obstruct the fair and reasonable working of the Bill.

  2085
  There is one consideration which I desire to press. I listened, as I have already said, with much interest to the hon. Member who last spoke. I am sure that he and the House will agree with me that the passing of this Bill makes it all the more necessary to ensure that the purchaser of meat in every shop in the country should have what, no doubt, ha has in the business controlled by him, namely, the right to know what he is buying. If we are to have these different classes of meat in this country, and if, as I entirely agree, people prefer British meat, then, when they are prepared to pay for it, they ought to get it. There is no doubt whatever that a great deal of substitution is going on. I for one should be satisfied, and I should say that the agricultural interest in this country would be largely satisfied, if, before we part from this Bill, we get from the Government Bench an undertaking that next Session that Merchandise Marks Bill will be introduced which was dropped last Session, and which contained most valuable Clauses making it obligatory on those who sell meat to label their counter or label the meat, so that people may know what they are buying. Since the agricultural community is prepared, in the national interest, to sink its own interest, we do think we may ask—in, as we believe, the national interest as well as our own—for that bit of consideration in return. I hope my hon. Friends from Ulster—
  Mr. J. JONES: And from the rest of Ireland, and England, too.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: From all parts of Ireland—will understand that this restriction of six days' detention is not six days' quarantine. It is six days after sale, while quarantine is before sale.
  Major Sir K. FRASER: Is it six clear days?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think it is, but I do not know what the exact interpretation may be. I hope that my hon. Friends will not imagine that if it in any way interferes with their trade we do not regret it, but it is necessary to protect our flocks and herds in this country, not against the introduction, but against the spread of disease, should it unfortunately break out.
  Mr. FALCONER: I am not going to detain the House by discussing all the different points which have been raised, or, indeed, any of them. In the short space of time that is left to the House, it would be wrong of me to do so. I intervene solely for the purpose of saying a few words upon the weight of opinion which is in favour of this Bill in the part of the country which I know, namely, the East Coast of Scotland, where, from one end to the other, the farmers buy store cattle and turn them into beef. Our interest in the Bill, undoubtedly, is to get the best supply of store cattle that we can get from anywhere. We are also more interested than anyone—more even than the people who are selling—in securing that no disease shall be introduced with those cattle. I have not a word to say against the long history of the trade in cattle between Ireland and Scotland. It has been of great advantage to both countries, it has been very ably conducted, and over and over again, when I was in this House before, I have advocated the removal of all unnecessary restrictions which would interfere with the flow of that trade. I am of the same opinion still, that there should be no unnecessary restrictions. I say that although I support the Bill. With regard to the question of Canadian cattle, the only thing left is what are to be the conditions under which they are to come in. Notwithstanding the desire that there should be no competition from Canada, Member after Member has recognised that the time has passed for arguing against it. No man can look a Canadian farmer in the face after all that has taken place and say he is not to be allowed to sell cattle to Scottish or English farmers. Even if you were tempted to do it you find yourself up against the report of a Commission, which was undoubtedly fairly conducted and which arrived at a conclusion which must be binding upon this House. More than that, I think we reach higher ground altogether if it is going to be suggested that this country, on one pretext or another, is going to break faith with Canada. A pledge made by the Colonial Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture cannot be thrown over as if it were, in the language of my right hon. Friend below, mere ordinary gossip. If you were to break faith with Canada you might arouse feelings there which it would be very

  2087
  difficult to lay to rest. With regard to the restrictions, I am bound to say, having considered them and discussed them with people of authority and vast experience in connection with the cattle trade, I am satisfied that they are not unnecessarily restrictive as regards the Canadian supply. There is, perhaps, only one point on which I shall have to consider more carefully my view if we are to do what I think is absolutely right. I do not myself see the necessity for restricting the importation of Canadian heifers for breeding. It may be the Board of Agriculture have advice that there is a special danger attaching to the introduction of breeding cattle. I am old enough to remember the time when we had Canadian cattle in and I also remember that some very excellent cows were got from Canadian heifers that were brought over. That, however, is a very small matter in the present case.
  May I say a word with regard to the Irish restrictions. That, I admit, is a matter for the Board of Agriculture to adjust. At present, I am sure no one would suggest that we should abolish the six days' detention. After the experience, which has been so clearly and graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), no one who knows about cattle would suggest that we should abandon the six days' detention at present. I am almost persuaded that it is a desirable thing even in ordinary times. If it is not desirable just now it will be desirable in the fullness of time when the whole control of cattle management in Ireland passes out of the hands of the Board of Agriculture in this country. It is essential that the Ministry of Agriculture should be held absolutely responsible for protecting the herds of the country against disease, and when he ceases to have any power or authority over contagious disease in Ireland, as I understand in time will be the case, the six days' detention will be absolutely necessary. My attitude hitherto has always been against restrictions and in favour of freedom as far as possible, and I do not at all agree that you must have your trade so controlled as to ensure that you will never have foot-and-mouth disease. That is impossible. All experience is against it. There must and will be a risk if you are
  2088
  going to have a cattle-feeding industry in this country at all. While you must do everything you can to catch it and assist in getting rid of it at the earliest possible moment, you cannot destroy the whole industry of feeding by diminishing the supply of stores merely because you think it possible that foot-and-mouth disease may be introduced. Taking the point of view of the hon. Member who spoke for the co-operative societies and the consumers, the man who is manufacturing the beef entirely agrees with the man who has to sell it, and I endorse every word he says. Our people are only too anxious to get the best raw material in order to supply the cheapest and best home-fed beef to the consumers of the country.
  Mr. BRUFORD: For some years, as a farmer, I have fought against the admission of Canadian cattle, but in view of the pledges which, I understand, were given on behalf of this country, although they may have been given by a couple of scared country squires, as they were alluded to just now, they were given, I understand, by members of the English Government. A further pledge has been given by the present Government to the Canadian representatives sent to this country. I firmly believe in carrying out a word once given. I believe in honouring your bond, even if it against your interest. That is the reason why I am to-day supporting this Bill, although I honestly feel it to be against the interests of English agriculture. But I feel that the people of the country are against the embargo, and it is useless for agriculture to kick against the pricks. If we show the people of this country that we are reasonable, that we only ask for reasonable conditions, and that we look at the matter from a broad point of view, we shall do more to get them with us than we shall by resisting their desire. I am very pleased to hear the expressions of sympathy with agriculture from the Labour Benches night after night. After all, it is to their benefit to support agriculture. We are the people who produce their food, and unless they give us good conditions we cannot pay our people good wages. May I point out to the country, before the Bill is passed, the risk they are running? We may get disease brought in, and if we do it may cost us not one but several millions. If they like to run that risk I have nothing to say.

  2089
  The people of the country have been told that the price of meat will drop 6d. a 1b. directly this Bill becomes law. They must not place any reliance on that promise. It will not, in my opinion, make one single farthing difference to the price. Beef slaughtered in this country is subject to the law of supply and demand, and that is governed by the price of chilled meat, which, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, cannot, in many instances, be told from English meat. Some of the salesmen on the meat market in London assure me that they themselves cannot tell good chilled meat from English. I am not talking of frozen meat. That is another matter. But a good deal of chilled meat is of as good and edible a quality as English meat. I should not be surprised if the price falls when the Bill is passed. It could fall to-day if the Butchers' Association would only agree to drop it. To-day I believe a good joint of beef costs is. 6d. a 1b. Last Saturday I stood in Taunton Market and saw bullock after bullock, the finest English beef grown, that is Devon steers, sold at 18s. a score—that is 10¾d. a lb.—and plenty of it at less. If the price comes down it will simply be a move on the part of the butchers, who have been clamouring for this Bill. They will say, "See what the Bill has done," but it will not be the Bill, it will be law of supply and demand.
  I am supporting the Second Reading, but I make the demand from this House that they assist us agricultural Members in seeing that we have proper safeguards against disease. Our breeding herds are the most valuable in the world. England is the stud country of the world to-day, and if we once allow disease to spread amongst our herds we shall lose the valuable market that we have. If the House will not give us proper safeguards, I shall vote against the Third Reading. The breeding industry is the sheet anchor of agriculture. It is the only thing we have to look to, and I implore hon. Members to see that it is safeguarded. Subject to that, I think agricultural Members will support the Bill. I have heard what has come from the Irish Benches. Ever since I was a boy I remember that Ireland has always been the oppressed country. I know many Irishmen, and they are very good fellows indeed, but they are the most difficult fellows in the world to understand. They are grumbling about
  2090
  our asking them to allow their cattle to be detained for six days. That restriction is on to-day, and much more stringent restrictions were on in May, or something like that. An hon. Member said they had had a wonderful trade with England this summer. That has been done under the restrictions which the Government is now proposing in this Bill. What have they to grumble about? I implore the Irishmen to withdraw their opposition and to join us in supporting the Bill. I have had the same resolution sent to me that was sent to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), which was passed by the Irish cattle breeders, upholding the six days' detention. I urge the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and then to see that proper safeguards are put into it. If we are to allow breeding cattle to come into this country, I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will see that they are tested against epizootic abortion as well as tuberculosis. The former disease is far more dangerous than the latter.
  Mr. BROAD: This is the first occasion that I have attempted to gain the ear of the House, and I ask for the kindly consideration for which the House is noted. Particularly do I require that consideration, because, although this is the first occasion that I have addressed the House, I shall not be representing those hon. Members with whom I am associated as a Member of the Labour party. I hope, at the least, that the decision on this Bill will be postponed for three months. In the Debate very little mention has been made of the circumstances under which the embargo was placed on the importation of store cattle in 1894. It seems to me rather remarkable that each generation finds it necessary to buy its own experience, and to buy it dearly, and I believe we shall, from the national point of view, be re-buying the experience dearly which our fathers had in years gone by. We must recollect that it was not alone the agricultural interests which brought about the embargo on the importation of store cattle, but it was the indignation of everybody who had the heart to feel for suffering, at the horrible experiences which the animals underwent in coming across the seas in those days. Most of us have taken some brief journey by sea, perhaps when the weather has not been too favourable, but we have had some sort of comfort on

  2091
  the ship. These cattle were brought over packed together, and because a cargo of cattle is light, superstructures were placed on the boats, the boats were top-heavy, and they rocked all over the place. Of course, we cannot command the weather.
  The experience which these poor creatures will have to go through in coming from Canada will be worse than in the past, because since that time the Plim-soll line has been submerged by the Lloyd George line. Those of us who live in London, and who know the lower reaches of the Thames, have seen these boats with their great wooden structures and the cattle packed together so tightly that they cannot fall. Some of us have met men who came over on the boats, and they have told us that sometimes these poor creatures were so weak that if they fell down they could not get up, and they were trampled upon and had to be thrown overboard. At times the deck structures were carried away, and other ships coming over the same track two days afterwards have seen these poor creatures either swimming about or floating dead in the water. Do we want to resume these horrors, even if it does reduce the price of our meat? Is it not a price too dear to pay that our nature shall be brutalised by having this kind of traffic? It may be said that cattle already come over to be slaughtered at the docks. They do, to a small extent, but they have to be brought over under very different circumstances. Why cannot cattle be brought over fat and slaughtered profitably? If they were brought over here fat, they would be in such a state that if they were killed at the docks they would not be fit for human consumption, and could not be put in the shops.
  It is said that this proposal will be in the interests of agriculture, while it is also said that it will be against agriculture. It means that by the importing of these Canadian cattle you will have a great deal more grazing going on in the country than at present, or else it will be against the interest of the cattle breeder if the stock which he raises has to be replaced by imported stock. What does that mean from the economic point of view. If as a result of importing stock cattle you are going to diminish the amount of cattle bred in this country, it will have a very great influence on the supply of dairy products. I would rather
  2092
  see milk down one penny per quart than beef down one penny a pound. I am speaking as a Londoner who knows nothing about farming, except what I have read in books, and what I have seen when cycling about the country. In the year when the embargo was put on I was working in Dorsetshire at an engineering works, and I spent most of my leisure time cycling about Dorsetshire. I hardly saw a tilled field anywhere. Cottages were empty, and some villages and hamlets were practically in ruins. The old men said: "There is no farming here now, it is all grazing." As one went through the villages one could only see old men, children and women. The boys had either joined the Navy or drifted to the towns.
  Half the trouble in Ireland in our generation and the generation before has been due to the fact that the people were turned out of the countryside to make room for cattle. In the interests of the nation it is necessary that we should have a virile agricultural community. Are you going to get it if you turn the country into mere grazing land? You have practically no labour employed in that direction. It may be all right for the farmer to get better returns from grazing than dairying or cultivating the land, and it may be right for the landlord to get bigger rentals, but is it right for the community? We cannot under present farming conditions maintain our present population in foodstuffs. Therefore, we ought to use the land we have so that we get the most labour possible and not the least labour possible on to it. It is said that this withdrawal of the embargo is not going to be a big thing, and that a great many cattle are not coming over from Canada. If that is so, it is not going to be much in the interest of the landlord or of the farmer, and it is not going to have much influence on prices. If you extend this principle to Canada you cannot say, without very grave considerations against it, that it should not be extended to South Africa. There are some people who are Free Traders, and who make a fetish of Free Trade, and they will claim, in the name of the glorious principles of Free Trade, that this importation of cattle should be extended to the South American Republics.
  If we allow our land to be turned mainly into grazing land, with very little breeding

  2093
  of cattle, and very few cattle capable of breeding, what will be the result if we ever again are in the position in which we found ourselves in 1914? Shall we be safe from the point of view of food supplies? A Friend from Ulster seemed to put a semi-protectionist point of view. What we have to consider is not the protection of this interest or that interest, but the protection of the welfare of the whole community, and to see that the land in future is not so occupied as to make it the easiest means of livelihood for the farmer or the landowner, but that it should be used for the welfare of the whole community. We have heard so much lately about redundancy of populaiton and emigration. Why not colonise England? Farming to many has been sport, a pastime, or something to give them a standing. A great portion of our country has been merely a playground for the wealthy. The very inflated prices which the farmers have had to pay have been because the War profiteers have been out for buying land and not for the benefit of the countryside. It is about time we put a stop to that, and colonise this country with our own men.
  We heard the other day something about the development of farming in Denmark. That development took place on the basis of dairying and co-operation, and it means that if co-operation, the proper collecting, grading, packeting, and marketing of produce is to be effectively done here, it must be done on a co-operative basis over the whole countryside. We are suffering to-day on the countryside. We have not been able to repair the damage done by the free importation of cattle previous to 1894. I hope we shall not go through the same experience again, and that we should not look at agriculture simply from the point of view of meat salesmen or of the shipping people who want to utilise their hulls, or from the point of view of the farmer. If we look at agriculture from the point of view of developing our countryside and renewing our stock so that we can become an A1 nation we shall see to it that this Bill is turned down from every point of view, in the interests of the nation and in the interests of our common humanity, because of the suffering and horrors and misery involved.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I opposed the introduction; of Canadian cattle last Session, but I do not propose
  2094
  now to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, although I have not changed my opinion, nor do I oppose the agreement which has been arrived at between my right hon. Friend and the Canadian Government, always supposing that that particular agreement was fair and reasonable, but I object very strongly to this Bill, which will require very great amending in Committee. I could have introduced a one-clause Bill which would have had the same effect as this Bill. I am perfectly well aware of Clause 9, but I will deal with that later. My Bill would have the same effect, and would have been in this form: "The provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Disease of Animals Act, 1894, shall be repealed, and the Minister of Agriculture may permit the importation of any cattle from any overseas dominion or country subject to any Regulations that he may think fit to make." Because that is the Bill. This is, I am afraid, the result of the association of my right hon. Friend with the late Prime Minister. The late Prime Minister introduced into this House the fatal habit of bringing in Bills which contained all sorts of Clauses doing certain things, but which also contained certain provisions which gave power to a Minister to do whatever he pleased. I have always objected to that. I object to these methods of bureaucracy, and I am extremely sorry that my right hon. Friend has fallen into the bad ways of the late Prime Minister. But I do not think it is the fault of my right hon. Friend. I think that it is really the fault of the officials, who do not want to part with any power which they have got, and therefore put into a Bill these Clauses, which give power to a Minister to do anything he likes. Take Clause 1, Sub-section (2) of this Bill. It provides that
  "(b) The Minister must be satisfied
  (i) that the cattle were for a period of three days immediately before shipment kept separate from other animals, and were examined from time to time during that period by a duty authorised veterinary."
  and so on. What has that got to do with the Minister? When we pass an Act of Parliament which lays down what is to be done, it is not for the Minister to say whether it is being done or not. The result of this provision would be that if I thought that certain persons were not complying with the conditions laid down,

  2095
  and brought an action against these persons in reference to the matter, they could say that the Minister was satisfied that the provisions were carried out, whether they had or had not been carried out, and if such an action came before me as a judge I should be obliged to refer to the Act and say that the matter must be determined by the question as to whether the Minister was satisfied, and that that must be an end of it. Coming to Clause 2, we find it provided:
  "2. The Minister may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by Order authorise any Canadian animals, whether store cattle or not, to be landed in Great Britain otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding Section of this Act."
  So the preceding Section of this Act is no good, because the Minister may authorise the importation of animals otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Section. The officials very carefully protect themselves and my right hon. Friend and his successors. If we look at Clause 3, we see it provided:
  "but except to such extent as the Minister may by Order direct, the provisions of the Third Schedule to the principal Act shall not apply to animals brought to Great Britain from Ireland or any part thereof:"
  Then it continues:
  "Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth disease exists or has recently existed in, or that adequate provision is not made for the prevention of the introduction of any such disease into, any part of Ireland, he may by Order prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals or any class of animals brought from Ireland or any part thereof, or may apply the said provisions to animals or any class of animals so brought with such modifications, if any, as he may think necessary or expedient."
  There again all the other provisions are no use, because the Minister may let in animals if he wishes, or he may keep them out if he wishes. It is made certain that there is nothing to prevent the Minister from doing anything if he likes. Clause 8 is very nice Clause. It enacts that whenever an Order is made it must be laid on the Table of the House for a certain number of days. For the information of new Members, I may explain that the protection of laying an Order on the Table is perfectly useless. The new Member has first to find out whether the Order
  2096
  is on the Table. Then he has to get a sufficient number of people to stay in the House after 11 o'clock at night to back him up, which is a difficult thing to do, and then the representative of the Government, or somebody of that sort, rises in his place and points out that there are not 40 Members present, and the hon. Member has to go away, having done nothing. Clause 8 says
  "Before any Order is made under the preceding provisions of this Act, a draft of the Order shall, unless it is either an Order suspending the operation of any of the provisions of this Act—."
  So that my right hon. Friend and his successor can, if he desires, suspend the whole Act. He can make an Order suspending it for a very long time, suspending it for five years if he wishes, and he can do it without laying the Order on the Table, or paying any attention to anyone, with the result that that sole safeguard is wiped out by this Clause. But in order that there may be no mistake it is provided in Clause 9 that the Minister may alter the Schedule. Sub-section 2 says
  "(2) The Minister may by Order alter or modify any of the said provisions if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, and the alterations or modifications are such as in his opinion will not diminish or prejudice the protecton against the risk of the spread of disease which is afforded by the said provisions as enacted in the said Schedule, provided that no such alteration or modification shall reduce the period of detention prescribed by such provisions."
  This last safeguard is useless, as Clause 8 says that the Minister may suspend the operation of any ct the Clauses of the Act. I should not have risen, as there is an arrangement to have the Debate concluded at 8 o'clock, if I did not think it necessary that the House should know what I am going to do if it passes the Second Beading of this Bill. I should put down very simple Amendments to leave out all these Clauses which give him all these powers, and to leave the Bill in the state which declared that certain things are provided by Parliament and that Parliament has determined them to be the law.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I desire to take this opportunity of congratulating the Government upon having lost no time in introducing this Bill during the present Session. It is very much overdue. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced it laid stress upon the pledge which had

  2097
  been given at the Colonial Conference in 1917, and went on to insist upon the extreme urgency of carrying this Measure, even although it involved our rushing the Committee and other stages through the House. The pledge which was given in 1917 ought to have been fulfilled there and then. Already we have had five years' delay, and I can only say to my right hon. Friend that now, when we have reached the stage of fulfilment of the pledge, we recognise that this Government, has shown more wisdom and greater courage than the late Government in introducing this Bill at the earliest possible moment. I am glad also to acknowledge the fact that the pledge given in 1917 was endorsed by the House last year, and that we have had, as shown by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), a national decision upon this question. It ought to lead generally to its acceptance by the House, while I believe such will be the case all over the country. This Measure is giving effect to what is the real desire of the people of this country upon this important question. Speaking as a representative of a constituency in Scotland, I submit that there is a very strong body of opinion amongst all sections of the community in favour of this Bill. Some of my hon. Friends on the Labour benches have put the point of view of the consumer, and have done so very well, although the remarks of the hon. Member who spoke last from those benches rather suggested to me that his opposition to the Measure was based on somewhat of a misapprehension as to what its effects would be on the supply of food and on the question of employment. I will refer to those points later on.
  There are three main grounds on which this Measure will commend itself, not only to the House, but to the whole country. The first is that we shall have at last fulfilled the very definite and categorical pledge to the Dominion of Canada, and have removed the undeserved stigma which has for many years rested upon Canadian cattle. In the second place, we shall have given effect to what is the undoubted desire of the great body of consumers all over the country, in securing by this Measure a larger supply of food and a better supply of milk, both of which facts were conclusively proved in the evidence
  2098
  taken by the Finlay Commission. At the same time—I think this is not the least important—we shall be able to take a step forward in the direction of scientific agriculture. That was set forth very clearly in the Report of the Finlay Commission, one of the conclusions being that the admission of Canadian stores was—
  "advisable, as providing another source for supply of stores for the purpose of scientific agriculture, with a consequent increase of the food supply."
  In Scotland we have had, not an altogether unanimous, but a very, very strong expression of opinion in support of the removal of the embargo. We have had almost all our large Scottish boroughs coming into the field and expressing their views in favour of this policy. The Scottish Chamber of Commerce, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the Scottish Board of Agriculture have also given their imprimatur to this policy, and have supported it by evidence given before the Royal Commission. In East Fife, which I have the honour to represent, there is a very strong consensus of opinion amongst all classes that this Measure is long overdue. I am glad to find that that view has also been clearly stated in the Report of the Finlay Commission, as affecting the large majority of those who are carrying on the farming industry in Scotland. The paragraph of the Report in question is as follows:
  "In Scotland the large towns also advocate the admission of Canadian stores, and the great majority of the farmers in Scotland, as a rule, take the same side. There is a great deal of high farming of an intensive character in Scotland and most of the Scottish farmers regard the feeding of cattle as a necessary element in good farming, as they consume the root-crops, etc., and supply most valuable manure."
  The hon. Member who last spoke from the Labour benches seemed to have in his mind the idea that there would be less employment and less opportunity of developing the food supplies if this Measure were passed. I should like to give an illustration of the real effect of the introduction of an additional supply of Canadian stores on to the large farms. I refer to the evidence of the Chairman of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, given before the Finlay Commission. He said:
  "Prior to 1892"—
  that was the date of the embargo, and it may be of interest to the House to know

  2099
  that the embargo was put on in consequence of the introduction of a Canadian cow, landed at Dundee off the "Huronia" and taken to Newburgh, in Fife, which was said to have been diseased. That case has never been proved to be a genuine one at all. The whole of this question of disease was built up on a huge fiction, which was proved to be absolutely false so far as Canadian cattle were concerned—
  "in the county of Fife Canadian cattle were very largely fed and the rotation on those farms was a comparatively short one, that is to say, the area of grass was a comparatively small one and the area of arable crops was large. When it became difficult to get sufficient numbers of store cattle, those farmers were compelled to rear, or to breed and rear their own calves for fattening purposes. In order to do so it is necessary to reduce"—
  this is a point which my hon. Friend will, perhaps, follow—
  "the area of cropped land and increase the area of grass land … The net result after a few years was that the arable farm which previously had been producing almost the maximum amount of potatoes and grain was now producing very much less. There was still the same area statistically under cultivation, but that area included much more grass and considerably less potato, grain and turnip land than before, because the farmer had to supply himself with his own feeding cattle."
  If my hon. Friend will also examine the case of two arable farms of 300 acres, which are mentioned in one of the tables of the Royal Commission, he will find interesting matter. Let him take the case of one farm, which was worked for breeding stock on a six-course shift, half of it being in grass, and compare it with the other farm, having the same acreage of 300 acres, and a four-course shift, for fattening stock. My hon. Friend will find that in the case of the fattening stock farm, instead of the output being only 30 fat cattle per year, as it would have been in the six-shift course, it would be 110 fat cattle. The output of acres under grain, instead of 100 acres and 600 quarters, would be 150 acres producing 900 quarters. The output in potatoes, instead of being 25 acres producing 200 tons of potatoes, would be 37½ acres producing 300 tons. What is more important from his point of view is that, instead of three pairs of horses for the one farm, he would have had four pairs of horses, with a much larger amount of employment on the farm where the stock were being
  2100
  fattened. I hope I have made it clear that we are attempting not only to secure larger agricultural development throughout our land, but we shall be affording larger opportunities for employment on the soil itself. That has been proved, again and again, through the depopulation in those areas which have gone into grass where arable farming has been departed from under the conditions that there prevailed.
  Under this Bill provision is made for the selection of certain ports for the landing of Canadian store cattle. These are to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture himself, under Sub-section (2, c) of Clause 1 of the Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is in his mind regarding the working out of the code, so far as the ports are concerned; whether provision will be made for the landing of these cattle along the coasts of Scotland, east as well as west; whether the ports of Aberdeen and Dundee will be made available for that purpose; and whether opportunity will be afforded for cattle to be landed at other different points so as to be as near as possible to the markets?
  Sir R. SANDERS: There is no disposition to put any difficulty in the way of landing cattle at any port where proper facilities are provided.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. I assume, accordingly, that any port which is able to provide the necessary facilities will be approved by the Board.
  Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot give an absolute pledge as to that, but that is the general intention.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: There are ports which are already provided with those facilities which are desirable, and which on previous occasions were used for that purpose. With regard to the authorised markets, I understand from the Bill that these are to be authorised in writing by the local authority of the district. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to indicate whether it is his intention that the local authorities shall be the sole authority for providing markets in their immediate districts for the cattle which are landed at each port? In connection with the sale of Irish stores, there was considerable difficulty in getting an arrangement to secure the sale of those stores at various markets throughout the

  2101
  country. In Scotland, there was some difficulty in getting approved markets for that purpose. I do not know whether the Department will have an opportunity of consulting with the local authorities so as to secure that the markets shall be sufficiently well spread to meet the requirements of each district.
  There is one other point I wish to put, with regard to the landing of breeding stock from Canada. I take it that it is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the test which is to be set up under this provision will permit of the landing of a large quantity of healthy breeding stock for the milking herds of this country. Those who have opposed this Bill on the ground of the danger of disease fail to recognise that there is at the present moment a vast amount of tubercular disease amongst our milking stock, and that before the embargo of 1892 large numbers of very healthy Canadian cows were coming in. In Scotland, in 1890, we had something like 9,326 cows brought in, which greatly improved the milk supply of the country. I sincerely hope that under this provision it will be possible to secure the entry of large numbers of healthy stock, which will have the result not of increasing the price of milk, as my hon. Friend below suggested, but of substantially reducing its cost, if wt can have a sufficiently good milking stock provided throughout the whole of the country.
  I trust that this Bill will receive the assent of every quarter in the House, and that the answer which was made to our Irish friends by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), which struck me as a very clear and very useful statement as to the views of the Committee of which he was acting as Chairman, will be sufficient to dissolve their doubts and meet their difficulties. There may be certain points to be raised in Committee which I trust will not be of a seriously controversial character, but I desire to give this Bill my warmest support, representing as I do a division in Scotland in which a great deal of interest has been taken in it. I wish, also, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being able to present this Bill at so early a stage.
  Sir K. FRASER: I speak as a very strong Conservative, representing an agricultural district in Leicestershire. In
  2102
  this Bill there are one or two points to which I wish to draw attention, because I do not think they have yet been sufficiently emphasised. We have been led to believe that the Canadians are most anxious to send their cattle to this country, and it is suggested that the passage of the Bill will tend to closer union between the Dominion of Canada and this country. We have been told that cock and bull story. Surely we do not believe that the whole of the Canadian people are breeding cattle. There are vast numbers of people in Canada who do not breed cattle, and the question of Canadian cattle exports to this country is a party question in Canada. We know that there have been bargains made and pledges given, over which this House has no control whatever. My opinion is that this House is being over-ridden. In the last Parliament the Government was able to over-ride its supporters. That Parliament was too lop-sided. During the War Ministers had been allowed to carry on without interference and to make the best of things, and it was not the duty of ordinary Members of this House to interfere. In the last Parliament Ministers again took charge and over-rode the House. I would tell the Front Bench—there are many young men on it—that it is a different line of country they have to face. They cannot over-ride private Members in this Parliament. If the Government try to treat Members of the agricultural group with contumely I assure them that they will soon be on the pavement. I hope they will forgive me for saying so. I regret very much that the Government has not seriously taken to heart the interests of the agricultural industry. Our first duty is to look after those interests.
  I wonder how many Members understand this Bill. In the last Parliament there was a Debate on this subject, but only two Members who represented agricultural constituencies were called upon to speak. One was Sir Arthur Boscawen and the other the right hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Pretyman). Do hon Members know that by passing this Bill they will be permitting the import of cattle from every part of our Dominions? What are the safeguards? Three days for the cattle at the port of embarkation, and when they land in this country six days at the port of arrival. It is unreasonable. The first

  2103
  Act that this Parliament, a Conservative Government, is to pass is to be an Act for destroying cattle breeding in this country. Is that realised by hon. Members? Is it realised by the Government? The blame cannot be put on the late Prime Minister. The present Government is responsible and it must face the music. Suppose we have rinderpest introduced into this country. Who will be to blame? This Conservative Government. I do not suppose many hon. Members realise what rinderpest is. I came across it in 1895. It started in South Africa, a long way north of the Zambesi. I never met anyone in South Africa who could tell me from where it came, except that it was somewhere far north of the Zambesi. The disease spread southward. I came across it in Matabeleland, Mashonaland and elsewhere. It killed 90 per cent, of cloven-hoofed animals in South Africa and continued for some years. By the time it got to Basutoland, Zululand and Natal, you could tell to a nicety when the disease was coming to your district. It marched at the rate of 10 or 12 miles a day. The Governments of Zululand, Basutoland and Natal took the matter in hand and invented a serum. I asked the House to think seriously about letting the Dominions' cattle into this country. I have heard it often said that there is no disease in Canada and that there has not been disease in Canada for many years. Yet 40 or 50 years ago buffaloes died in Canada by the thousand. We know the cock-and-bull story we were told about it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now travelling rather wide afield.
  Sir K. FRASER: I am talking about cattle disease in Canada, where buffaloes died by the thousand. They were not shot by hunters or speared by Red Indians. There may be cattle disease again in Canada, and our duty is to protect our agricultural industry as far as we can. It may be right to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, although I shall vote against it; but let us fight it for all we are worth on the Committee stage, and if we do not spoil their pitch I am a Dutchman.
  Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I am sure the House listened with great interest to
  2104
  the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, and realises the sincerity and strength of his convictions on the subject. I confess I feel rather like him with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill. This is a new Parliament, differing from the Parliament which passed the Resolution last Session. I suppose, strictly speaking, we are entitled to act irrespective of that Resolution, but on the other hand, I feel that, whereas all things may be lawful to us, all things are not expedient. We must agree that the Government was entitled, after that expression of opinion, to enter into an agreement with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada. That, however, does not commit us to the details of the agreement which was arrived at, and there are many details of that agreement as embodied in this Bill to which I, in common with many other hon. Members, must in the Committee stage take great exception. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), with greater ability than I can pretend to, raised a matter to which I had intended to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. Clause 1 of the Bill, which, in effect, removes the embargo, sets out the Regulations under which store cattle may be admitted. They are very detailed Regulations dealing with a very large variety of circumstances. In Clause 2 of the Bill, the Minister takes power to repeal, by Order, practically the whole of the conditions which are contained in Clause 1, providing that it seems desirable to him at any time to do so. That applies to the store cattle which are dealt with particularly in Clause 1, and in regard to which all the Regulations suggested in Clause 1 are to apply. In Clause 1 you lay down Regulations and in Clause 2 you take power to repeal every one of the Regulations, on the strength of which you are asking us to approve the removal of the embargo.
  There is another matter on which we are not committed by what was done last Session. The Resolution did not commit us to approve of this Bill in this Session. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any undertaking was given by the Government to the representatives of the Dominion of Canada that this matter would be dealt with in this Session. If such an undertaking were given, it would

  2105
  have been proper for the Government to have made reference to it in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, in order that we might have had an opportunity of considering it. If no such undertaking were given, then why all this hurry? Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman himself who, if I remember aright, went into the same Lobby as many of us last Session and showed by his vote, that he considered the removal of the embargo to be injurious to the agricultural industry, has now come to the conclusion that its removal is a matter of immediate and imperative importance, which we are committed to carry out in this Session. This is a Session which the Prime Minister himself repeatedly said was to be a Session called specially for the purpose of dealing with Irish questions only. Another query is this: Apart from the conference which was held with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada, has any conference been held with, or has any opinion been invited from either Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, or any one of the other Dominions? Ireland and the other Dominions are included in the Bill. We are entitled to inquire into these matters in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has repeatedly resisted invitations and appeals for opportunities for the discussion of different subjects during this Session on the ground that it was called entirely for the purpose of dealing with Ireland. Why is the Government treating as an immediate and urgent matter this Bill which, even if it does pass this Session, will not come into operation for some months, and could very easily be put off until next Session?
  There is no doubt that the industry of agriculture has been looking forward to the reassembling of Parliament, in the hope that it might furnish the present Government with an opportunity for declaring a policy on agriculture. We have not had that policy declared. I am not making any grievance of that. I believe in the attitude taken up by several hon. Members on Tuesday last, that this is such a large question that the Government ought to have an opportunity of inquiring into it and considering it. There is no doubt, however, that agriculturists were looking forward to receiving a message of hope, and apparently the Government has said, "We cannot declare any great policy with
  2106
  regard to agriculture, but we must do something which will affect agriculture; and so we will introduce this Bill which will affect it, or rather which will disaffect it even more than it is disaffected at the present time." I do not enter into the merits of the Bill any further. The Act of 1894 was not a Protective Measure. It was designed to safeguard the health of our herds and flocks, and it is from that point of view that I continue to oppose the removal of the embargo. There is one other ground. The introduction of this Bill in this Session will, I am perfectly convinced, add to the feeling of insecurity, and emphasise that lack of confidence in the Government, which farmers and labourers as well as landowners are today experiencing in a very large degree. I beg of the Government that having taken the sense of the House upon the principle of this Bill, they will postpone the consideration of its detailed application until next Session. They will only get this Bill through, I am afraid, by forcing the closure, or at any rate by limiting discussion, and when you are dealing with such a large question which so directly affects our greatest industry, the House ought to have time to consider it properly.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Dundee has taken a prominent places in the advocacy of this Measure. During the Election an announcement was made on the hoardings asking the people to
  "vote for the man who smashed the cattle embargo."
  I am not that man. In Dundee, however, very active and energetic efforts have been put forward by the Butchers' Association, to which reference has been made in the course of the discussion to day. It has been suggested from the other side of the House that there will not be any real, substantial reduction in the price of meat unless the butchers themselves make an allowance, and that this is only brought forward in order to put a face on the Measure which they are advocating. Permit me to suggest, on behalf of the butchers of Scotland, that they do not make special claims to act as a philanthropic agency. They are convinced, however, that real and substantial benefits will arise from the carrying through of this Measure. An hon. Member on the other side told us that this Measure has been rushed. It

  2107
  has been altogether the other way, and there is no ground for any further dilly dallying. This matter has been agitated for years. The real truth is that the elements in opposition to the proposal had such a grip upon our Government in days gone by that we in Scotland have been practically ignored as though we were of no consequence at all and of no importance. But the demand has grown to such an effective point that an important member of the late Government, in recent days was brought to face the fact that it would be a factor in his election. The momentum of that demand has been increasing not only in the industrial constituency of Dundee itself, but also in the neighbouring counties of Forfarshire and Fifeshire, on behalf of which hon. Members have already spoken. The strength of Scotland is with us in this matter.
  It has been suggested, even on this side of the House, that the question of cruelty arises. Surely we are now past the stage of being unable to grapple with difficulties of that kind. We have made some substantial improvement in the treatment of passengers on our great liners, and at the same time something has been done to meet the requirements of the trade we are now discussing. An hon. Member has asked that we should be relieved of the influence of the Whips in voting on this matter. That was done some time ago with a result that was significant, not only as regards this question, but many another urgent question. That result proved that if individual Members of the House were enabled to express their own individual minds and consciences, and vote accordingly, we should have a much more ready settlement of some of our great national questions. A suggestion has also been made as to the conflict that arises and the friction that is undoubtedly created by the factors operating under our present system. One can scarcely make a move on any great issue of this kind, without finding that on one side of the House or the other expression is given to the fact that we are cutting in upon some particular interest. At once there arises in the mind of every Member the idea that it is being done for a selfish motive.
  The truth is, that this is caused by the very system upon which we are working
  2108
  to-day. There has been no discussion since this House met on great Imperial questions and great international issues; there has been scarcely a question put upon the Paper and answered by a Minister, but pointed to the anomalous position in which we are placed. Men in this business or in that, are endeavouring to cut in upon their fellow men, and the more effectually a man can cut out his neighbour, the more appreciation is given to him as an excellent and thoroughly qualified business man. To such an extent has this grown under our present sytem that it becomes an inducement to men to drive what they call "business," so far, that they become unscrupulous, and eventually even Members of this House have to enter another house which is termed the house of correction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The time is very limited, and I do not quite see the connection of the hon. Member's remarks with the question of Canadian cattle.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: So much reference has been made to the fact that we are cutting in upon the agricultural industry, that I am anxious to point out that on any issue you like to take, under our present system, you have to face that objection if there is some particular interest that is affected. The English farming interests have shown that very clearly, and they have stuck rigidly to their position, and now we are hearing it said that we are rushing it through, although there has been this long delay. The Government are endeavouring to adhere to a bond which the general membership of this House in a former Parliament agreed upon, and for them to alter now would be one of the most forcible indictments that could be made against them. Therefore, we have great satisfaction in backing the Government in carrying through this Measure.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: May I claim the indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time? As a farmer myself and a breeder of pedigree stock, I think this Bill does not really contain the safeguards to which we are entitled. There is no doubt that what we have got to do is to carry out the pledge, given by the House in the last Parliament, to Canada in the Debate on the Canadian cattle embargo, but there was another pledge given by the

  2109
  late Prime Minister three days before that Debate, which was to the effect that we should have adequate protection for our pedigree stocks and herds. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on that occasion asked if the Government would take care that the most stringent precautions were taken to ensure that cattle disease should not be imported into this country, and the late Prime Minister answered "Yes." It is from that point of view that I want to look at this Bill. May I call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to Clause 2, to which attention has already been called by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), although to a different matter, to the provision that female cattle can be allowed into this country after one month's inspection before shipment. The previous Regulation was that at least four months before shipment there should be proper inspection. I want to know why if a few months ago this Regulation was not considered sufficient to keep out disease from this country it is altered to one month by this Bill?
  The risk of disease, to my mind, is more in the nature of that which may affect our milk herds than anything else. Epizootic abortion has been referred to, and it is a very serious risk, I believe, in Canada. The president of the South African Shorthorn Society told me three months ago that he could not understand our allowing cattle in from any other country, because it would spoil their South African market. They always came here to buy their cattle, and he had been in Canada, and he knew this epizootic abortion, which, unless it is very carefully guarded against in the Regulations for breeding cattle, may do more to damage the breeding industry in this country than anything else. I hope hon. Members will remember that the breeding of this pedigree stock is not the rich man's monopoly. The best class of farmer in this country find it their sheet-anchor as well, and it is the best thing for the agriculture of this country that they should give so much time and money to their pedigree stock. Let me remind hon. Members of the Labour party that the agricultural worker has not got very much to look forward to at the present moment, and that your best agricultural labourers are the men who make your stockmen. Your stockmen are men whose brains and work are
  2110
  largely responsible for that wonderful pedigree cattle that we have, and if you do anything to affect the breeding industry of this country, one of the few good jobs that there is for the agricultural labourer will be taken away, which would be more serious even than the loss of the herds to the richer owners.
  There is one other point I want to suggest to the Minister. There is no doubt that these quarantine Regulations are going to make it more expensive for Ireland—the Irish Free State and Ulster—to put stores on our market. That must mean an increase in the price. Of course, when the Canadians talked of this embargo last year, our fat cattle were selling at £40; at the present day at Smith-field they are selling for £10 less. It would suit them very well to knock out the Irish market. I do not want to impute these motives to them, but I think we have representatives from Ireland equally with representatives from Canada who should have been consulted, and I would point out to hon. Members of this House that if you ruin the Irish market, Canada or no Canada, the price of meat is bound to go up. One thing finally I wish to point out, and that is the great cruelty to these stores that come here from Canada. One hon. Member said there was cruelty in the journey from Ireland to here. Of course, there is. When it is going to be for human use, unavoidable cruelty must be allowed, but there is a very great difference between cattle coming from Ireland to Bristol and cattle coming on a voyage of six, eight, or fourteen days over the rough ocean, and the ships that carry that cattle are not properly equipped for these animals, as an hon. Member speaking from the Labour benches has stated. A good deal of expense will, therefore, have to be undertaken if Canada and ourselves are not going to be guilty of the most horrible cruelty. I hope very much that the Government will look very carefully into the details of this Bill, and allow a great many Amendments in Committee, because I am quite sure that, though it may be, as it is, fulfilling our pledge to Canada, it is not fulfilling the other promise of the late Prime Minister that we should properly safeguard our stocks and herds in this country.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I had hoped we might be able to avoid putting the House to the trouble of a Division, especially

  2111
  when the time has been so limited as it has been upon this Bill, but really I find that the feeling on this question in Ireland is so strong—and in all parts of Ireland, in the North as well as in the South—that we would have been regarded by our fellow countrymen as wanting in the expression of their feelings if we did not put the House to a Division on this question. I have listened to nearly all this Debate, and, if I may be allowed to say so, it has been a most interesting and illuminating Debate, as nearly every speaker has had an intimate knowledge of the subject. I have no knowledge at all of the subject. I know nothing whatever about agriculture, but I weighed up the arguments as I heard them, and the speech which I thought was the most powerful defence of the Bill was, if I may be permitted to say so, that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). It was a most lucid exposition of the case—I am sure without any prejudice to the Irish cattle trade or people—and I take that as the defence of the Bill which any opponent of it has seriously to answer. In the first place, I think the House does not require any words from me to get them to realise the vast importance to Ireland and to England of the Irish cattle trade. In the year 1920, I believe, it went up to the great figure of £50,000,000. Anything which interferes with a trade so vast as that must be fraught with very far-reaching consequences both to England and to Ireland, and for that reason I think this House is called upon to give the most serious consideration to any objections to such legislation that are made by Ireland as a whole; for it is a remarkable fact—it is not because we are wanting to get any money out of the British Treasury; we only want to get the money of the British buyer for our good cattle, which is a perfectly legitimate desire, and quite as legitimate as the desire of the Canadians to get our British money—that you have the rather rare phenomenon of the Members of the Six Counties, and the few Members who are left, one of them from the Six Counties, and I from an English constituency, to represent the Irish feeling, all equally hostile to some portions of this Measure, and I would put it to the House, especially at this particular epoch in the relations of the two
  2112
  countries, that it is rather a serious thing to pass legislation dealing with the most important industry in Ireland in opposition to the united opinion of a united Ireland. I think that is a fair point of view. I will deal with the answer of my right hon. Friend with regard to the six days' detention. He described it as not costing a penny to the Irish cattlemen.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I correct that? I said that where the animal was sold in a market to a grazier who was intending to keep it, it would not cost a penny, but where it was not sold and was sent to another market there would be some expense.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I will not put it that my right hon. Friend is bogging the question, but that is the whole question. It is quite true that if the cattle be sold at once to a farmer who can take it away immediately to his farm, and who has to subject himself to the six days' detention, then, of course, it is the farmer who buys, and not the Irish cattle dealer who sells, who has to pay what expenses there are incurred by the detention, but, as I say, that is begging the question. In the first place, the Irish cattle dealer may not find a purchaser in the market, or he may find several offers in a particular market which are not as good as the offers which he expects to get in another market, and this detention, therefore, imposes upon the Irish cattle importer the necessity, practically, of taking the price which is offered him in the first market, without the competition and the chances of the other market. I think that certainly limits the market of the Irish cattle farmer and, by so doing, limits his chance of a better price. I consider that a very serious handicap upon the sale of the Irish cattle. Therefore, I must insist that when we come to the Committee stage we shall not only have a full opportunity of debating this feature of the Bill which most affects our interests, but I hope we shall find the Government in a reasonable frame of mind, and I am sure that even hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this Bill on its general principle will be quite ready to discuss the question of Ireland. So far as the general principle of the Bill is concerned, I myself on a previous occasion have found myself unable to vote against it, but I cannot

  2113
  reconcile it to my principles to support any Measure which may, directly or indirectly, have any possibility or probability at least of raising the price of the food of the people. That, however, is not the case that I am taking in voting against this Bill.
  8.0 P.M.
  I am voting against the Bill because I think it lacks consideration for Ireland. I do not want to labour this point, but I do think it right to mention that there is a strong feeling in Southern Ireland—I do not know how far it is shared by Northern Ireland—that the legislation which follows the first day of the creation of the Irish Free State is out of sympathy with the letter and spirit of the Treaty between the two countries. The reason is this. The fundamental basis of the commercial relations between Ireland and England under this Treat is absolute Free Trade between the two countries, a thing which, I think, as necessary for Ireland as it is for England, and as necessary for England as it is for Ireland. I have never seen anything but disaster to Ireland in any tariff that would divide the markets of England and Ireland. Having made that Treaty in the hope of absolute Free Trade between this country and the markets of Ireland, they do feel a little bitterly that almost the first Measure after the Treaty has been carried into force should be one which, in their view, is a direct attack upon the Free Trade relations of England and Ireland. For these reasons, my hon. Friends and myself are compelled to register our vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER:—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—I hope the House will give me a hearing for a few minutes. I have been asked to put the last two or three points on behalf of the Labour party, and I am sure the House, from that point of view, will give me an opportunity. The matter now before the House has, I suggest, been discussed almost ad nauseam for over 20 years. The hon. and gallant Member for Cardigan (Captain E. Evans) has pleaded again for delay. I would remind the House that in 1917 it was stated definitely, on behalf of the Government, that there was no reason at all why the embargo should not be removed, except for the lack of shipping. The hon. and gallant Member, however, is still pleading
  2114
  for delay, because he says the matter still requires further consideration. The House has considered this question again and again. He himself put the case as cleverly and with as much force as anyone could have put it, when the House discussed the question last July, and from that point of view I do hope the Government are not going to be influenced by the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to revert once again to that policy of delay which has so aggravated the position between this country and the Dominion of Canada on this question during the last 20 years. While one has always the very greatest respect for the opinions of the hon. Member who is the Father of this House, I do think that he has not met the points which have been placed before the House by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). Those of us who have been interested in dealing with the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the last 12 months know—and I speak for 4,500,000 co-operators—that there is no comparison in the matter of increased cost to the consumer and to the taxpayer by the expense involved in stamping out that outbreak, and the possible increased cost to the consumer by reason of the expense of detaining these cattle for six or seven days.
  Another point with which I want to deal is the point raised by my hon. Friend here, who was careful to say that he did not speak for his party, and who stated the case very nicely with regard to the humanitarian point, of view, namely, the suffering of animals in crossing the Atlantic. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who made a maiden speech also referred to it. Surely it is not suggested even by opponents of the removal of the embargo that we should exclude altogether the importation into this country of fat cattle, and yet there can be no question that those beasts which suffer most on sea voyages are not store cattle but fat cattle. We have never heard it suggested by those who raised the question that we should put a restriction on the slaughter of animals at ports because we were put off for years with the plea that there would be no shortage of meat because we could have as many beasts as we liked for slaughter at ports, although no beasts suffer like those which are sent over already fattened for slaughter. The hon. and gallant Member

  2115
  also referred to the breeders' position on this matter. I wonder whether the breeders have considered that Canada is really their best friend and their best customer. In one of the greatest periods of depression in the sales of pedigree stock this year that has been borne out perhaps more than ever before. Those Members of the House who know something about the markets in which pedigree stock are sold will know that the Duthie, Aberdeen, Durno and Balcairn sales were amongst the most important of all our pedigree stock sales, and they are aware that this year the only purchases worth talking about at those sales have been made by Canadian pedigree breeders. They have come over here and been the best customers to the breeders of this country. In one boat alone in the last month or so we sent over sea at least 100 pedigree cattle consigned to Canadian purchasers. The very fact of the removal of the embargo with regard to store cattle is going to give a great fillip to the breeding industry in regard to pedigree stock, because it will assist Canada in developing their grazing and pedigree stock.
  With regard to the position taken up by the breeding industry, it is very sensitive indeed when, because of outbreaks of disease in this country, embargoes are placed upon their export of pedigree stock to other countries. Those hon. Members who are connected with the pedigree stock-breeding industry know they protested roundly when an embargo was placed upon their products by Uruguay, the Argentine and other places, and that as soon as there was a clean bill of health
  from foot-and-mouth disease, pressure was immediately brought to bear on those countries to raise the embargo at once. We say that with regard to Canadian stock, there has not been one tittle of evidence, one bit of truth, in support of the case for the exclusion of Canadian cattle during the whole period of 30 years.
  It has been somewhat amazing to us who have fought this question again and again, that in considering a Bill of this kind—and I want to congratulate the Government upon this really honourable attempt to fulfil a pledge given by the Government, not only during the War, but inferred by the decision of this House—all these questions are raised again. As I say, surely this matter has now been discussed ad nauseam in this House, and the only thing with which the Government ought to be concerned at this moment is as to whether they are introducing a Bill of such Clauses that its administrative provisions will be really workable, and provide sufficient safeguards, and all that can be properly considered in Committee.
  Mr. J. JONES rose—
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I only wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that a pledge was given on behalf of the whole House, and all the time I have been in the House that pledge has never been broken. I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 379; Noes, 27.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES.

  [8.12 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Bean, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Buchanan. G.

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

  Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

  Buckle, J.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

  Berry, Sir George

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Burgess, s.

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

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

  Apsley, Lord

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Archer-shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Blundell, F. N.

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick W.

  Bonwick, A.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Astor, Viscountess

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Button, H. S.

  Attlee, C. R.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Briggs, Harold

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cairns, John

  Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

  Bromfield, William

  Cape, Thomas

  Barnes, A.

  Brotherton, J.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Batey, Joseph

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Becker, Harry

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

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Bruford, R.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hen. N. (Ladywood)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Harney, E. A.

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Chapple, W. A.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hastings, Patrick

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Morel, E. D.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Morris, Harold

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hemmerde, E. G.

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

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Muir, John W.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Collins, Pat (Walsall)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Murnin, H.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Herriotts, J.

  Nesbitt, J. C.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hill, A.

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

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Hillary, A. E.

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hirst, G. H.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

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

  Nichol, Robert

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

  Hogge, James Myles

  Oliver, George Harold

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Paget, T. G.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

  Paling, W.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Doyle, N. Grattan

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

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Duncan, C.

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Dunnico, H.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace. (Hastings)

  Du Pre. Colonel William Baring

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Hunter-Weston, Lt-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Edmonds, G.

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

  Philipson, H. H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Ednam, Viscount

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Potts, John S.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Elvedon, Viscount

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

  Jeohcott, A. R.

  Price, E. G.

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Johnson, Sir L. (Waithamstow, E.)

  Privett, F. J.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Raine, W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Richards, R.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

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

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Riley, Ben

  Foot, Isaac

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Ritson, J.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Furness, G. J.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lansbury, George

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Gardiner, James

  Lawson, John James

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Gates, Percy

  Leach, W.

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

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

  Lee, F.

  Saklatvala, S.

  Gould, James C

  Linfield, F. C.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Lorden, John William

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Lowth, T.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Sandon, Lord

  Greenall, T.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Scrymgeour, E.

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

  Lunn, William

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  M'Entee, V. L.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McLaren, Andrew

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Grigg, Sir Edward

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Singleton, J. E.

  Groves, T.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Grundy, T. W.

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

  Skelton, A. N.

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

  March, S.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Snell, Harry

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Snowden, Philip

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

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

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mathew, C. J.

  Stanley, Lord

  Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (LIv'p'l,W.D'by)

  Maxton, James

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Halstead, Major D.

  Middleton, G.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Millar, J. D.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Hancock, John George

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  2118

  2119

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

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

  Wignall, James

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Sullivan, J.

  Warne, G. H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Wintertnn, Earl

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

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

  Wintringham, Margaret

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

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Wise, Frederick

  Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Weir, L. M.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

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

  Tout, W. J.

  Westwood, J.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Wheatley, J.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Tubbs, S. W.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Wallace, Captain E.

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Whiteley, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

  NOES.

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

  M'Connell, Thomas E.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sinclair, Sir A.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Hinds, John

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

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

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

  Peto, Basil E.

  Thornton, M.

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Whitla, Sir William

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Remnant, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Mr. Harbison and Lt.-Colonel Sir

  W. Allen.

  Bill read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir B. Sanders.]

TRADE FACILITIES AND LOANS GUARANTEE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

TRADE FACILITIES AND LOANS GUARANTEE BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 1 of 11 & 12 Geo. 5, c. 65).
  (1) The maximum limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans, the principal or interest of which may be guaranteed under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, shall be increased from twenty-five million pounds to fifty million pounds.
  (2) The period within which guarantees may be given under the said Section one as amended by this Section shall be extended by one year, and accordingly for the words "the year" in Sub-section (5) of the said Section one there shall be substituted the words "each year."
  (3) For the purpose of meeting the costs and expenses incurred by the Treasury in administering the said Section one, there shall be charged in connection with applications for and the giving of guarantees under the said Section, and other matters arising thereunder, such fees as the Treasury may from time to time prescribe.
  (4) This Section shall be construed as one with Section one of the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, and that Section and this Section may be cited together as the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922.
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper should come as a new Subsection to be inserted at the end of Sub-section (2).
  Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert a new Sub-section:
  "(2) Sub-section (5) of the said Section shall be amended to provide that the statement to be laid before both Houses of Parliament of guarantees given under that Section shall include particulars of all loans, and the purposes to which they are to be applied, in connection with which guarantees have been given, and shall also include particulars of all loans and the purposes for which they were to be applied in connection with which guarantees have been refused, together with the reasons for such refusal."
  The object of this Amendment is to secure some much more helpful information on the working of the Act, and to require the Department which finally decides its application to state, in Parliamentary form and in the White Papers which are circulated, the reasons which have induced them to reject applications provided for under the Act itself. Hon. Members may obtain in the Vote Office a few returns which have so far been sup-

  2121
  plied as to what is being done regarding the various claims, and they will find on reading those Papers; that a few firms or companies or undertakings have secured, in a very large degree, the support of the Act, and guarantees have been given, not only as regards the capital sum, but also of the interest, while, on the other hand, it has been stated in the House, in reply to a question, that about 400 applications have been submitted to the Government for consideration.
  I have already asked for some information as to how many of that number have been considered and rejected, and, so far, I have not secured the information. The Amendment would have the effect of placing periodically before the House the necessary information to guide it in its criticism, and to inform it as to how far the terms of the Act in the main were being carried out. I do not regard the terms of this Amendment as being in any sense controversial. I am not offering any criticism of what has been done, but I am submitting these remarks in order that all of us who are interested in the problem of unemployment should have opportunities for submitting to the Advisory Committee such information as may be placed in our hands with regard to the various stages of the Act.
  In relation to this particular cause it has been helpful as far as it has gone, but it has not gone very far. My view is that in the main the firms or companies which have received support would, in the ordinary course of things, in the main have secured their guarantees in the ordinary private market, because of the financial substance upon which these various projects rest, or because what they were promoting was to be regarded in financial circles as a paying proposition. All the same hon. Members for whom I am acting, in submitting this Amendment, must reject the view advanced at other stages of this Bill, that the assistance of the Act should be limited to those undertakings which may be regarded in commercial circles as paying propositions. The truth is that if that view were to be entertained and put into practice, there would be no need for an Act of Parliament of this kind at all. The necessity for this Bill arose when it was seen that certain work was advisable in the national interest because it would go in the direction of absorbing large numbers of unemployed, but that work
  2122
  could not be undertaken because of the difficulty of raising money for the purpose because no immediate profit could be realised in the ordinary dividend sense on such work as the men were required to perform. Therefore this plan for guaranteeing loans and guaranteeing their repayment and the interest upon them was agreed to almost unanimously by the House for the reason that work should not be left undone merely because certain men in the ordinary course of trade would not have ventured upon it and could not do so with any hope of realising a profit for their services.
  The results obtained have fallen far short of the glowing accounts that were given and put forward as the certain result of an Act of Parliament of this kind. While we are seeking to make the very best of this instrument, it must not be taken that we, in any sense, accept it as seriously touching the kernel of the problem, because it approaches only the fringe. However, I take the view that, if only ten or ten thousand men in the large army of the unemployed who have been unemployed for so long can be put to useful work, anything we can do to assist that end should be done in the most genuine and non-party sense of the term. I do not regard the Act itself as being anything but supplementary to what might have been done in the ordinary private market, and it should not be regarded as anything more than supplementary to the efforts of those engaged in various profitable undertakings. If we support it on the ground that it is supplementary, I think we should do our best to make it substantial, and my view is that it has not been made the instrument it could have been made, and that is due to lack of useful information and guidance which should have been placed in the hands of hon. Members.
  Let me give an instance precisely of what I have in mind. There are such undertakings as will receive substantial help at this time like the Tube extensions, docks, and Harbour Board works. I am in no sense complaining of the support given to these projects so long as they provide work which would otherwise be delayed, or which might not be started at all, and I fully approve of the support this particular Bill gives to them. My own view is that most of the services of

  2123
  this Act should have been given in respect to undertakings which should be supplementary to ordinary private ventures, which in themselves could not stand in the position of attracting finance in the ordinary profit market, or secure the substantial revenues or loans required to begin the work. Take certain schemes of town planning and housing development such as that, for instance, which was mentioned in the course of the Debate in the early hours of Tuesday morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). My hon. Friend referred to the Eltham Estate, an undertaking on which the promoters are extremely anxious to employ ex-service men. They undertook, in the course of three or four years, to erect some 4,000 houses and a number of shops and to carry on the usual other enterprises that are incidental to these forms of town planning and development. They have persisted in seeking support under this Act, but on each occasion have been told that as they have no assets of the kind usually demanded and as they cannot rely on anything beyond the value of the buildings which may be constructed the money cannot be advanced.
  That is not the way to help in reducing the number of unemployed. This Act was meant to supplement the ordinary undertakings that can be pursued for the purposes of private profit. These schemes of house construction and town development are precisely the schemes which should receive the fullest possible assistance from any guarantee or credit which the Government can place behind those who are willing to undertake the enterprise. Nor would this mean a loss to the country. Assume that 500 workmen would for a period of two or three years be employed on work of this sort. Let hon. Members calculate what every week it costs the State and the country to keep these men alive with unemployment benefit. Hundreds of pounds weekly are paid away without any return whatever, and it would be far better that the money thus paid should be used in extending guarantees and credits to enterprises of this sort in order that these men should be absorbed and in order that their work should, in due course make a demand for the work of many other men in different occupations. If men can be put on to labour in these enterprises of town development
  2124
  and house constructions the houses so constructed will, in due course, call for the labour of men who have to furnish them and for the general services employed in connection with their completion. This Amendment would not have the effect of calling on the Government for the payment of any more money, but it would have the effect of giving Members of Parliament a far better opportunity of seeing how the schemes are being dealt with, and it would require the Government to state the reasons for refusing to place guarantees or credit behind the various applications. That is the main object of this Amendment which I beg to move.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): I think it would be convenient if I deal first with the specific proposals in this Amendment, and then say a word or two on the general aspect of the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The return which is at present given to Parliament shows in the case of all applications which have been accepted the amount and the purpose for which it is granted and the general character of the undertaking. If I understand the Amendment aright, what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to get us to do is to give a similar return in regard to all applications which have been made and rejected by the Committee, together with the reasons for their rejection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press that Amendment, because whether he thinks that the Act in its administration is sufficiently wide or not, I am sure an Amendment in that form would really defeat the object he has in view. It would be unfair to the firm who made the application and had it rejected, and it would be a deterrent to other firms making applications—particularly the firms on the border line of getting their applications accepted or rejected. Let us see what, the proposal amounts to. A firm comes forward and makes application to the Committee.
  This House was most anxious that the Committee should make full investigation of all the circumstances of the firms and of the financial possibilities of the undertakings. The investigation is undoubtedly of a very thorough character. The Committee obtain from the firm details of the most confidential character as to their accounts and reserves and the position of their undertaking. These particulars

  2125
  are given fully and freely to the Committee. If we were to publish a return of the firms whose applications were turned down, and the reasons for turning down, I say that would be a most damaging thing to the credit of the firms. It would be not only unfair, but damaging. Just think what the position would be of a firm putting forward a project and applying for money under the Act if it were turned down. Would its chances of later on obtaining money from the public not be seriously prejudiced by the publication of a return showing that the Committee had turned their application down? Again, there have been many cases where firms have put forward proposals to be carried out by some subsidiary company, and those proposals may have been turned down by the Committee; not because of the financial standing of the. firm, but on the ground that the proposal was not sufficiently sound. If there were a return showing that the Committee had turned down the application, that might really act not only against the future financing of the proposal, but against the firm which had put it forward, and also against the subsidiary company, and that would be really unfair to both firms. It would also preclude applicants from giving much of the confidential information they now give to the Committee with the same freedom as they would give it to their bankers, and it would ultimately deter firms from coming forward. Therefore, so far from having the effect which the right hon. Gentleman seeks, which is to get more applications, it would very largely deter firms from making application. I hope, therefore, that whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think of the way in which the Act has been conducted, he will not press this Amendment, which I am sure would not help in the object he has at heart.
  That really disposes of the Amendment, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has raised the point, I should like to say a word about the suggestion that this scheme has been too narrowly administered and has failed First of all, with regard to information, if there is any information which anyone, whether a Member of this House or not, is able to give to the Committee and which will be of assistance to the firm, they can, of course, be heard by the Committee. What always happens, however—and one has only to look at the Order Paper to-day
  2126
  to see the proof of it—is this: on the one side there are hon. Members who say: "You must draw your net tighter. We cannot be sure that you are not lotting through schemes which will involve the State in considerable liability." On the other hand, there are hon. Members who say: "Your Committee is too careful; you ought to do much more." Between the Seylla and the Charybdis of these two dangers we have, to steer a middle and a wise course, and the proof is in the result. When we came to the House with the original Bill, we asked for power to guarantee £25,000,000. We come back to the House now, not because it has failed, but because that £25,000,000 is almost exhausted, for we have sanctioned schemes amounting to £22,500,000. I am sure it is wrong to say that that credit has been granted in cases in which it would have been found otherwise. It might have been found otherwise later on, but the effect of the Act has been to cause undertakings to anticipate work which would not have been done so soon. Certainly an Act which, in the course of its running, has absorbed very nearly the whole of the amount which Parliament voted for it cannot be regarded as a failure. The House, when it passed the original Act, insisted most firmly, and I think most rightly, that the Committee should have full and free discretion, and I ask that that discretion may be continued to them.
  Mr. CLYNES: Before saying anything as to withdrawing this Amendment, I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that, in connection with the increased sum to be guaranteed, generous consideration will be given to those who come forward wishful to get the guarantee for promoting these town planning and house construction undertakings. My point was, and I think it has been admitted, that, in the main, the great big undertakings which have secured the guarantee were undertakings which would have obtained their money in the ordinary private market in the ordinary way, either now or very soon, and that most of the guarantees have been given in the case of these very large undertakings. What I am anxious for is that the supplementary efforts, the new ventures, like many which have been put before the Committee, should receive more generous terms and consideration,

  2127
  for the purpose of finding work, than has been the case up to now. Further, I should like my right hon. Friend to say about what number, out of the total of 400 applications, have not received by support whatever from the Committee.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: With regard to the last point, I do not think I could answer with precision, but if the right hon. Gentleman means how many of the schemes which have been put before the Committee have been approved, that is given in the White Paper which accounts for the £22,500,000. As I have said, a number of other schemes are now under consideration, and upon these it would, obviously, be improper for me to express any opinion. With regard to the question of these housing schemes, if a scheme comes forward and the Committee, judging of it as they do of other schemes, are prepared to recommend it, certainly it ought to go through. Attention was drawn in the course of the Debate to one housing scheme which has been approved. The House, however, did insist upon the Committee having its discretion, and the object of the Bill was to get employment. Every one of the schemes which has been approved has given a large measure of employment, and I think it would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Act, and would be wrong, were I to say that any class of scheme should be treated differently from another class. Therefore, whatever the scheme is, whether it be a scheme to build a ship, or to build a house, or to build a railway, it must be left to the Committee to decide the question of its financial merits.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. A scheme has been sanctioned for the Powell. Duffryn Company, but the one which was put forward, I think, at Twickenham was turned down, and I should like to know if anyone can tell us why. It seemed to me, on the face of it, to be an excellent scheme.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Obviously, the hon. Member is trying to draw from me just the kind of information which it would be unfair to those who brought forward the scheme to give. Speaking generally, however, those schemes of which the Committee have approved, as reasonably sound financially, have gone
  2128
  through, and those of which the Committee have not so approved have not gone through.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They were both housing schemes.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, but they may not have been equally sound financially.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think we might have some sort of reply on the really important question how far this assistance is being given to private capital, and how far to local authorities or public utility societies. Looking through the list of schemes, one finds only two, and those for very small amounts, in the case of which guarantees have been granted to public authorities. Nearly all the schemes, like those of the Powell Duffryn Company, the Calcutta Electric Supply Company, Messrs. Beardmore, and Messrs Harland and Wolff, have been schemes put forward by-big companies. It would be only fair that a certain definite proportion—I should have thought at least half—should go to assist schemes brought forward by local authorities or public utility societies. At the present moment I do not think the Government could do better than go in for a number of schemes for garden cities. The garden city is exactly the sort of scheme that private capital finds it very difficult to undertake, because it is necessary to wait so many years for any return on the money. The garden city at Letchworth, for instance, which has been going now for just over 20 years, is on y just reaching the dividend-paying stage. If this money could be used to facilitate schemes like that, promoted by public utility societies, whose rate of interest is limited, or by local authorities, then, although they might not be such financially sound ventures, they would, at any rate, redound to the benefit of the public, instead of merely to the benefit, ultimately, of the private shareholders of the concern that gets the guarantee. Unemployment is dealt with under either scheme. The same number of unemployed will find work whether you give it to the Powell Duffryn Company to build houses or to the London County Council to build houses, but in one case the public ultimately benefits and in the other case the

  2129
  benefit must, largely go to the company, which wants cheap houses for the accommodation of its servants.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I wished to ask the question the hon. Member has asked. For instance, will the Government give the same advantages and the same help to local authorities in building as they will to private firms? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider that because there is going to be great pressure brought on this side of the House by people interested in housing, and we feel exactly like the hon. Member opposite, not that we are against private enterprise, but as long as the Government has got to help it—and it will give just as much work to the men—the first call is to help housing.
  Mr. CAIRNS: We have some dry docks being made in my constituency and the people say thay can get the money cheaper and easier outside than under this scheme. I should like to ask the Minister if he understands that case. It is in the neighbourhood of Blythe. We have been dealing with it for six months. They say they can get money cheaper outside. Witt he explain whether that is so?
  Mr. WISE: I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the companies that receive Government subsidies should make a return every three months to the Board of Trade in the shape of a statistical report which may be useful to the Government in watching the security and keeping in touch with it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is of great importance that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to this fact, that in the guarantees already given local authorities have figured to a small extent. Practically all the assistance has been given to large private companies or great railway companies. That was not the original intention when this Act was introduced a year ago and when its objects were publicly advertised. Public authorities were put in the forefront and these private undertakings were only mentioned in the second place. The first Sub-section of the original Act says:
  "If the Treasury are satisfied that the proceeds of any loan proposed to be raised, whether within or without the United Kingdom, by any Government, any public authority, or any corporation or other body of persons."
  2130
  There you have Governments and public authorities put in the forefront, whereas in the work actually done practically nothing has been done to assist local authorities, particularly in this all-important work of housing. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has drawn attention to a very important matter in respect of the very small detail that is offered in these quarterly returns by the Treasury. We get practically no details at all as to the loans or the objects for which they are granted, and I believe, now that this matter is being dealt with a second time, it is the duty of the Committee to insist that much greater particulars should be given, first of all as to the people who are being assisted and, secondly, as to the objects for which assistance has been granted.
  Mr. CAIRNS: They are too strict.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It may be that the Committee is too strict but the opportunities given to us are too few. I am not on the procedure of any Committee. I am on the question as to the information which is granted to this House, and it is the duty of this House to see that adequate particulars are given when money is dealt with to this extent. I quite agree that the President of the Board of Trade put forward some cogent reasons for not giving all the particulars which are suggested in this Amendment, and I think it is somewhat difficult to dispose of all his arguments, but, at the same time, I do not think all those argument were of equal value. He said, for example, that an undertaking which was applying for assistance might be of such a speculative character that it would only appeal to speculative investors and if these were turned down it would ruin the chance of the speculation. I do not think it was the original object of this Act to encourage what were merely speculative undertakings. The object of the Act, in the first instance, was to encourage the immediate undertaking of necessary works which were only being delayed on account of bad trade, the idea-being that if this financial assistance was given the undertaking would be encouraged to take them in hand now at a period of unemployment and so do something to lessen the hardship arising from unemployment. We had no idea

  2131
  that speculation was to be encouraged. I believe speculators should not depend on a public guarantee. In these circumstances, the speculator takes the risk if he comes before the Committee. I do not see that we should be deterred from insisting that the reason for the refusal of an application should be given just out of regard to the susceptibilities of speculators and to their chances in future of floating their concerns on the market. Then he said there might be a case of a perfectly sound company with a subsidiary seeking a guarantee for a particular work and that this work might only be turned down because of reasons connected with that work, but the rejection might react upon the credit of the company. If the reason was stated in a report to this House it could not affect the credit of the company. If the reason was stated to be simply and solely the uncertainty of an individual proposal that could not in any degree affect the general credit of the company. So both the reasons he put up for refusing to put forward in a statement to the House both the refusals and the reasons for rejection, as well as the acceptances of applications with the reasons for those acceptances, do not hold good, and I should regret very much the withdrawal of the Amendment. I think some further concession should be granted by the Government.
  Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Last week I made a few remarks on the question of housing which have brought me an extraordinary number of letters from all parts of the kingdom. This morning there happened to come a letter from a society, not in my constituency, which I know nothing about, which it is very appropriate that I should mention at this moment. It is from the Grange Co-operative Building and Investment Society, Limited, and they are asking the very same questions that we are asking the Minister just now, whether it is possible that societies, like co-operative building societies, should receive some assistance at this moment from the Government. My correspondent says:
  "The society has not erected any houses since 1910. The demand for houses is clamant. What we feel is that some assistance is required and building societies could overtake a great deal of arrears, and if some assistance could be given by way of actual subsidy towards the increased cost of building and by the lending of money at a
  2132
  moderate rate of interest the societies could at once proceed. I may say this society is run by working men who are all tradesmen, and you will see that the costs of management are very small. If encouragement were given to building societies of this kind—."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is that full particulars should be shown. It is going rather beyond that to urge the claim of a particular class.
  Mr. SHORT: The President of the Board of Trade has offered some arguments in opposition to the Amendment, but I do not think they are strong enough to justify the turning down of the principle involved in the Amendment. We are entitled to ask for some further consideration and for an expression on his part of some willingness to incorporate in the Bill some form of words which will meet our desires and satisfy those on this side of the House. He has displayed great anxiety respecting thy credit of firms who may from time to time make application for assistance. He is very anxious to obviate any action on his part which would in any way injure the credit of those firms in the future and their opportunities of developing their particular industry. That anxiety is praiseworthy in many respects, but a limit should be put upon the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter.
  Under this Bill, the people of this country are providing £50,000,000 of the taxpayers' money in an attempt to improve employment by providing work in one form or another. The money is being guaranteed, and it is essential that we should know, not merely the object for which the money is to be guaranteed, but we should have particulars of the various schemes that come before the Committee. We are the custodians of the public purse and are entitled to ask for requisite information. If the President of the Hoard of Trade in some memorandum or in some form of words in the Bill clearly and specifially stated the object of the Bill and the type of scheme to be encouraged that would rule out, as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) said, speculative schemes. I do not think it would in any way act as a deterrent to employers or business men approaching the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude will

  2133
  encourage, those who apply to think that they have some reasonable expectation of having their hopes realised by having in some form or other obtained some information prior to making their application.
  Why are we not taken into the confidence of the Government before the deed has been actually done? We are to provide £50,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, and then we get something in the nature of an Estimate indicating that a loan of £1,000,000 has been guaranteed to a certain company, or that a loan of £120,000 has been granted as in the case of the Powell-Duffryn Steam Coal Company If we had known that such an application was coming from such a company, with such resources, as was indicated in the Debate last night, I doubt whether this House would have tolerated the consideration of such an application. As representatives of the taxpayer we ask for this very legitimate information. We are providing millions for the purpose of assisting and subsidising private enterprise, we are, therefore, entitled to know, not merely the object for which the money is guaranted, but who are the people who are receiving this financial assistance, before it is finally settled. On the other hand, we are informed that money has been lent to some person or firm of whom we know nothing.
  A loan has been granted to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, a firm of great standing in the shipbuilding industry. This firm recently took over the engineering side of the work of the Port of London Authority. No doubt they took it over on terms acceptable and pleasing to themselves and equally pleasing to the Port of London Authority. They are cabled upon to perform in future all the engineering work of the Port of London Authority, and a large number of engineers of the Port of London Authority have been dismissed as the result of the transaction—men who had been in the service of the Port of London Authority for years were dismissed.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order on this Amendment to raise the particular question of Harland and Wolff.
  Mr. SHORT: I accept your ruling, but I think I am well within my right in saying that Messrs. Harland and Wolff are
  2134
  to widen a dock, and that they have got this loan for that purpose. We ask for particulars in connection with these guarantees. Has the dock anything to do with the engineering work of the Port of London Authority? If so, why could not the Port of London Authority, with its great resources of over £3,000,000, provide the necessary capital for such an extension in the interests of the port life of this great city? There is a grant of £100,000 to the Lee Conservancy. I have had something to do with the Lee Conservancy, and if one of my hon. Friends who represents East Ham had been here he could have spoken with authority on the matter. If we are to guarantee millions of money to subsidise private enterprise, we are entitled to ask what wages are going to be paid, and what hours are to be worked. Are these people going to maintain a fair rate of pay and a fair standard of hours? How many people are going to be employed, and what period will it take for the performance of the work involved?
  The President of the Board of Trade put forth a series of arguments which, on the surface, appear to be important, and appear to justify in some; measure his attitude, but they do not justify the entire turning down of this Amendment. If he cannot accept the policy of my right hon. Friend, can he suggest some other form of words? The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) is not tied to the words of the Amendment, and if the President of the Board of Trade desires, he can produce some form of words which will give the necessary information to us, to the House, and to the public. Not only can he give us the information, but as regards those applications in reference to which he thinks publication of the reasons of refusal might injure the particular firm, from my experience of Parliamentary life and the ready way in which Ministers, in replying to questions, escape giving just the information which we desire, I have no doubt that the reason for the refusal of the application could be put in such a form as not to injure the firm while at the same time giving to the House and to the country some particulars which would justify the expenditure of these guarantees, which we all welcome, because we hope that they will be instrumental in alleviating the distress and misery in our midst, and tend to promote a better and happier state in our industry.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If I were to give an explanation at all, it would not be of the camouflaged kind which the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be a plain honest statement of the reasons such as he who runs could read. I was in a way one of the fathers of this scheme, and I am afraid that this proposal would impair seriously the purpose in view. In reference to the local authorities I can assure my hon. Friend that they have exactly the same right to come forward under this scheme as anybody else. There is no prejudice on the part of the Committee against local authorities, but local authorities have not come forward to any great extent. They have in a certain number of cases, which have been approved, but I would point out that many local authorities which can raise the money very cheaply do not require to come forward. Many of these local authorities, like Manchester, enjoy such good credit that the desire to invest in their stocks is very great. I believe that the City of Manchester can borrow almost more cheaply than the Government, and many local authorities who borrow extensively do not require to come forward for this guarantee. I am very adverse to say anything to induce people to come forward who can raise money in other ways. With regard to local authorities who do require assistance, I would like to point out that there is a scheme quite apart from this which is specially designed to meet their case. The terms of this scheme are specially acceptable and they can—
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the matter under discussion. He is now going into another subject.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I apologise for transgressing, but there are these other schemes to which I will not further allude at present.
  Mr. A. J. BENNETT: I regret that I had not the privilege of hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in support of this Amendment, but while I am in favour of the first portion, I am not in agreement with the latter section. I quite realise the point that we want to be certain when the Government are giving guarantees that undue influence is not being brought to bear. We want to feel that influential firms do not get
  2136
  preferential treatment. That suspicion has been aroused. Probably it is quite unfounded, but for that reason more than any other I am so strongly opposed to all forms of Government protection, whether financial or fiscal. But I think in this ease that the remedy would be worse than the disease. I think that it would be unfair to publicly pillory firms who have applied for guarantees and have had them refused for any reason whatever. As regards the first part of the Amendment, I do urge the right him. Gentleman to consider it favourably. I am not speaking with any idea of factious opposition. Far from it. I shall always be prepared to support the Government in any scheme which, in my opinion, tries to remedy such a great evil as unemployment. But, after all, what is being asked for here is very reasonable. All that is asked is that we shall give publicity, and surely when it comes to a question of lending public money, no publicity can be too great. I was very much struck on reading a question and answer given on the 27th November on this point. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "MR. BRIGGS asked the Chancellor of the (Exchequer what guaranteed the Treasury have stated their willingness to give under the Trade Facilities Act. 1921, since the 50th June, when the last list was published?
  MB. BALDWIN: The statement laid before the House on the 23rd instant (House of Commons Paper No. 3) shows those agreed to be given up to the 30th September last, and the following is a statement of those agreed to be given since that date:
  The Treasury has agreed since the 30th September to give guarantees in the following cases:"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1922; col. 304, Vol. 159.]
  And then comes a long list giving a total of £5,375,000. As a man in business all his life, it struck me as extraordinary that no more details were given. If shareholders in a company have a right to ask their directors at periodic intervals to give details of the operations which they have carried out, surely it is not too much to ask the Government to give similar details of what they have done when dealing with the taxpayer's money. I think that that is all that the Amendment asks for.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend because I think that we both have the same object in view. In the returns which are made the purpose of the loan is stated.
  Mr. BENNETT: Would they give the following details which I, as a business man, would like to know? Do they, for instance, give the terms of repayment of the loan? Do they give full information as regards limitation of the interest on capital? Have the Government ever considered this? The object is not to provide extra profits for private firms but to provide employment. Surely there should be some limitation on the profits that the particular firms concerned can make out of this public money. We do not want it to be said that by this policy we are simply increasing the profits of certain firms. I must say—I am speaking with a lifetime of experience in business—that I cannot help being rather struck by the firms that have asked for this guarantee. Is it reasonable to ask any business man to believe that concerns like the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, Limited, are not able to raise the capital they require for carrying out improvements? Does it not rather suggest that they are trying to add to the profits of their shareholders by, through this Government guarantee, being able to borrow money at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise be able to do? These are questions upon which we may differ, but surely it is only reasonable that, we should have information. An hon. Gentleman has quite rightly said that we are the custodians of the public funds.
  There is one other consideration to which I should like to refer, namely, that in certain cases the Government guarantee has been given in such a way as to induce the investment of private capital. I want to refer to one particular case. The Government had representations from the Kelham Sugar Factory. The Government gave a guarantee, and as a result—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment. He really cannot go into the wisdom or otherwise of the particular guarantees.
  Mr. BENNETT: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I was only trying to emphasise this point, that in that particular case the Government gave a guarantee, and as a result of that a great many individuals in this country were induced to invest in this undertaking. The result was that a
  2138
  good many of them lost their money. I am not going to labour the point, but I am merely stating that when it comes to a question of the Government giving a guarantee they cannot be too careful with regard to the guarantee they give. Above all, I think they must be very careful indeed to give full publicity to the facts. I do not suggest that the Government should come and ask for the approval of Parliament before they sanction these schemes, but I do say that the mere fact of their having to give full particulars to this House will make them a little more careful, and that is what we want.
  Mr. NICHOL: I should like to call attention to some of the statements which have been made by the President of the Board of Trade He has pointed out that the main reason for not guaranteeing the money to various municipalities and local authorities is that those authorities can quite easily, on their own credit, raise money at lower rates of interest than even the Government can. Precisely the same argument applies to some of the companies which we find in this list. I think hon. Members have a reasonable case when they ask for further information about the firms or other bodies that are getting these guarantees. For instance, we have as a Government this year already handed over a very great deal of money to one firm that appears in this list. I notice that the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company has had an amount guaranteed to them of £120,000. It is not 10 months ago since this same firm received from the Treasury £081,854 as repayments of the Excess Profits Duty and the Coal Awards. If they had merely laid aside just about one-sixth of the money they got from the Treasury nine months ago, they could quite easily have built those cottages without any guarantee at all. I notice that that particular company, during the last 10 years, has paid, free of all tax, a 20 per cent, dividend.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going outside the Amendment. I do not say that this might not have been relevant on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, but the particular Amendment now before the Committee is one dealing solely with publicity.
  Mr. NICHOL: May I ask at what precise stage this would come in?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have said that it would be relevant on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. That question will be put separately.
  Mr. NICHOL: Then I shall leave that point. I really think, however, that these particulars require to be given long
  before the House is committed, as it apparently is, to giving guarantees to firms that can quit* easily afford the money.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 139; Noes, 211.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES.

  [9.34 p.m.

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

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Pringle, W. M. R.

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

  Hill, A.

  Richards, R.

  Attlee, C. R.

  Hillary, A. E.

  Richardson, R (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Barnes, A.

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

  Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rose, Frank H.

  Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Saklatvala, S.

  Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)

  Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Bonwick, A.

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Sexton, James

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Brotherton, J.

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Buchanan, G.

  Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Burgess, S.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  sitch, Charles H.

  Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

  Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

  Lansbury, George

  Snell, Harry

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Lawson, John James

  Snowden, Philip

  Cairns, John

  Leach, W.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lee, F.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Linfield, F. C.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Lowth, T.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Sullivan, J,

  Collins, Pat (Walsall)

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  M'Entee, V. L.

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

  Darbishire, C. W.

  McLaren, Andrew

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thornton, M.

  Duncan, C.

  March, S.

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Dunnico, H.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Edmonds, G.

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maxton, James

  Warne, G. H.

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

  Middleton, G.

  Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Millar, J. D.

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Morel, E. D.

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

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

  Weir, L. M.

  Greenall, T.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Westwood, J.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Muir, John w.

  Wheatley. J.

  Groves, T.

  Murnin, H.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Wignall, James

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Hancock, John George

  Nichol, Robert

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Harney, E. A.

  Paling, W.

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

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Hemmerde, E. G.

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Ammon and Mr. Fred Hall.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cassels, J. D,

  Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

  Sowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Apsley, Lord

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Chapman, Sir s.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Briggs, Harold

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

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

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Astor, Viscountess

  Bruford, R.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bruton, Sir James

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Banks, Mitchell

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Becker, Harry

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Berry, Sir George

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Crook, C. W (East Ham, North)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Button, H. S.

  Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cadogan, Major Edward

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

  Davidson, Major General Sir J. H.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Dawson, Sir PhiliP

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

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney

  Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Elvedon, Viscount

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  England, Lieut-Colonel A.

  Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sandon, Lord

  Falcon, Captain Michael

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Lorden, John William

  Singleton, J. E.

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Lorimer, H. D.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Sparkes, H. W.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stanley, Lord

  Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot

  M'Connell, Thomas E.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

  Furness, G. J.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Stott, Lt.-Col. W, H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Garland, C. S.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Gates, Percy

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Sugden, sir Wilfrid H.

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Gould, James c.

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Greaves-Lord, Walter

  Morelng, Captain Algernon H.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

  Morris, Harold

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Greenwood. William (Stockport)

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Nesbitt, J. C.

  Tubbs, S. W.

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

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

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

  Halstead, Major D.

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

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut. Col. Sir John

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wells, S. R.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Paget, T. G.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

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

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Whitla, Sir William

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Peto, Basil E.

  Wise, Frederick

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

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Privett, F. J.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

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

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Howard, Capt D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Hudson, Capt A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr BRIGGS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert a new Subsection:
  "(3) No 6uch guarantee shall be given under this Section unless the applicants are possessed of assets equal to the amount of the guarantee, and in every case where such guarantee is given the amount guaranteed shall rank as a first charge upon all the assets and property of the company, firm, or individual to whom the guarantee is given in priority to all other charges and incumbrances whatsoever."
  This Amendment is moved solely to prevent the giving of these guarantees to risky or financially weak enterprises. I am aware of the high standing of the Advisory Committee, and I would not for one moment say a word against their characters; but I do say that I am not prepared to acknowledge that the Advisory Committee are infallible, and while I am not prepared to recognise
  2142
  that they are infallible I see considerable danger in the increased laxity of control by the Treasury. Let me read one extract from a speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Second Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill in 1921, which shows what position was then taken up by the Treasury. He said:
  "At the same time it is recognised—nay, indeed it is claimed—naturally by a Treasury Minister, that in so vital a matter as the pledging of the nation's credit it is impossible that the Treasury should demit ultimate responsibility, and it is impossible that this House should not hold the Treasury responsible to it for its action in such a matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921: col. 764, Vol. 147.]
  Then he went on:
  "It will therefore be essential that the Treasury should remain ultimately responsible for the derisions of the Committee,

  2143
  and that in order to exercise that responsibility it should have power in law to withhold its consent, if need he, to any decision of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921; col. 764, Vol. 147.]
  Only six months after he seems to have rather changed or weakened in his view, for in May of this year, speaking on the question of the Grampian Electricity Supply Bill, he said:
  "Into the merits of this Bill I will not venture to go. It is not a matter for me to discuss. From the Treasury point of view it is enough that the Advisory Committee, to whom the consideration of these matters has been delegated under an Act of Parliament, is in favour of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd May, 1922; col. 1133, Vol. 154.]
  That means that it was sufficient for the Treasury that the Advisory Committee had come to a decision and that the Treasury were prepared to accept the decision. We are, therefore, in the position of having an Advisory Committee with power to distribute these moneys, £50,000,000 in all, practically uncontrolled by the Treasury. That is in effect what this means. Many examples could be given of the evil consequences of such a position. One of the worst examples that could be given, is that which hon. Members who were in the last House will remember, as the Grampians Electricity Bill. In that case, a company with practically no assets whatever and which had no prospect of any immediate customers, brought a Bill before this House, under which they fully expected to receive a grant of £2,000,000 from the Advisory Committee. I should like to read a paragraph which appeared in the "Financial News" in May, 1922, regarding that Bill. It stated in effect—
  "Sir Robert Home over and over again, during the Committee stage of the Trades Facilities Bill, said applications for guarantee which gave most opportunity of immediate work should have preference. There is no immediate work in this Grampians scheme. It is a great financial risk. Is it right to give a guarantee which turns a speculative adventure into a gilt-edged security."
  I am not going to pursue the matter. The terms of my Amendment show my intention and my desire. We are all aware of the unwisdom of some of these schemes. We are all prepared to state that we are not willing to have these public monies distributed entirely through the hands of the Advisory Committee,
  2144
  however excellent that Committee may be, without this House having a single word in the matter. Because of this and because of the risk we are running in giving the Treasury this power, and because also of the fact which perhaps all the Members of the Government themselves are not aware of, that three Members of the present Government voted with me in the Division Lobby last May against the Grampian Bill, I am very hopeful that the Government may see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CLYNES: I trust the Committee will not seriously entertain the idea of supporting this Amendment. If it were carried it would, in effect, destroy the Measure. It would take away all discretion from the Committee. It would give support only to those who are able to raise sufficient support in the ordinary financial market. It would so restrict operations as to completely prevent any sort of undertaking from securing the form of State support which this Measure has been designed to secure, for the purpose of finding employment. Private enterprise is being reinforced by this Measure, because there are so many men out of work. The effect of the Amendment would be to drive private enterprise back upon its pre-unemployment resources and to say to it, that if it can raise the money well and good but it is not to get any help from the State. The reason why, in this instance, a Coalition Government or a Conservative Government has extended the State hand of help to private enterprise is because it costs the State so much to keep men idle. I think, on balancing, it will be found that the effect of any State guarantee, either in relation to the payment of the interest or the repayment of loan, is that in the end the State saves money. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to address himself to that point. I suggested to him in my former remarks that the view might be taken that the whole value of the operation of the Act is in the great saving which accrues to the State from their finding work through the agency of these different undertakings. I grant that there may be here and there a case like that mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment, where assistance has been given through, perhaps, an excess of generosity on the part of the Committee

  2145
  or an unfounded desire to enlarge the opportunities of employment, but that is no reason for completely destroying the Committee's discretion and reducing the Act to a nullity. It would be impossible to extend any effective State aid if we began by saying that no guarantee was to be given unless the applicants were possessed of assets equal to the amount of the guarantee. Any applicants possessed of such assets could easily secure the money in the ordinary private market—even more easily than by coming before the Committee. I hope the Amendment will not be persisted in, or, if it is, that no countenance will be given to it by the Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I am afraid I cannot follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Does not he realise that the effect of these trade facilities is to enable firms to borrow money a great deal, cheaper than they would be able to borrow it if they were not backed by the State? Therefore, perfectly solvent firms, who may, perhaps, have a considerable overdraft on the bank, are enabled by means of this scheme to borrow money a little cheaper than otherwise. The Amendment proposes that no loans be given unless there are assets equal to the amount of the guarantee. I think it is a perfectly reasonable arrangement, and the proviso is only put in as a safeguard for the State. After all, we do not wish to finance wild cat schemes. It is only a reasonable provision, at any rate, that, the State should have the first call on any assets which may be available. I have the greatest faith in the Gentlemen who have been kind enough to undertake the duties of the Committee. They have given their services voluntarily, and have helped the State in a very unusual manner. Personally, I am no believer in voluntary work. Voluntary work is too apt to be carried out in the way that seems easiest, and at certain times of year, when people wish to go away, they are liable to drop their voluntary work and leave other people to carry on. It is far better from the State point of view, as from the business point of view, that people should be paid. These gentlemen, however, have carried out their work very ably, and I do not think sufficient gratitude has been expressed to them or sufficient recognition given to the services which they have rendered. The Amend-
  2146
  ment would be of assistance to the Committee. It would at once rule out any companies which might not be solvent, and might have wild cat schemes which would take up a considerable part of the time of these very busy men. With a qualification such as the Amendment put forward such schemes would be ruled out altogether. Therefore, I think there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment, and I sincerely hope the Government will accept it.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I sincerely hope my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment, as I think it would be most unfortunate if they did so. As a matter of fact, where the loans are raised they are raised in almost every case on a mortgage or debenture, and the Committee, to whose sagacity as well as to whose energy both the supporters of the Amendment have paid such a tribute, are really admirable judges of what is a reasonable proposition, and to say that they could recommend no scheme which did not make the loan a first charge upon the assets of the company would actually have ruled out some of the very best schemes we have had. Take the two big railway schemes which have been sanctioned—the big Underground proposal, involving £6,500,000, I think, and the South-Eastern scheme, which one hopes to see pressed on as rapidly as possible, where something like £5,500,000 is involved. Both those schemes are schemes where the security is certainly fully adequate, but where it is not, and could not be, a first general charge upon the assets of the undertakings, and there may be quantities of cases where the security is perfectly good enough, but where, as a matter of fact, there is some first general charge already created. Therefore, I would most sincerely appeal to my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment, but to leave it to the discretion of the Committee.
  Let me take another instance. They want to see the development of Imperial trade. You might very well get the case of a railway which we were most anxious to develop in a Colony, which might be opening up a cotton-growing area. In the nature of the case the assets would come into being as the capital was expended and the railway created. It might very well be that in a year or two or in three years that would be a sound revenue-producing proposition, and yet

  2147
  we should be, under this Amendment, absolutely precluded from helping a scheme of that kind. I therefore appeal most sincerely to my hon. Friends not to persist in their Amendment, as we have got this admirable Committee to administer these schemes.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: I waited, before making any remarks in connection with this matter, until I had heard the reply of the President of the Board of Trade, because I am quite sure that all hon. Members have the same object in view, namely, to see the Trade Facilities Act used to the greatest advantage in providing employment and in relieving unemployment, and, secondly, to see that it is not used in any manner which would in any way unduly jeopardise the guarantees given by the Government or the capital represented. The President of the Board of Trade referred to an illustration of a railway which was to be built and developed, and which would probably ultimately he successful, and I am quite sure that such a scheme would rightly be approved by the Kindersley Committee, but on one condition—and I think this is really the anxiety of my hon. Friends in moving the Amendment—and that is that the total amount of money invested in that railway should not be the amount of money under a guarantee given under the terms of this Act. I am quite sure it will satisfy my hon. Friends if the President of the Board of Trade will indicate the opinion of the Government by saying that the intention is that advances shall be made to companies incorporated or registered with an authorised and subscribed capital from other sources, and that they shall only come on the Government for guarantees in respect of capital which has already been subscribed in reasonable proportion to the amount to be provided by the Government. I am sure that that is a right and proper precaution. It is a prudent precaution which should be adopted, and I feel sure the President of the Board of Trade will have no hesitation in saying that that is the opinion of the Government. If he will do so, I shall be satisfied, and so, I think, will my hon. Friends.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I deprecate putting anything into this Bill which would fetter the discretion of the Committee, and, of course, the responsibility
  2148
  of the Treasury remains, but I may say that in practically every ease that I have looked at exactly that policy has been followed. In the Newfoundland scheme you had a couple, of millions guaranteed by the Government, but a couple of millions were added to that guarantee by the Newfoundland Government. I do not make a positive pronouncement, but I could give many eases which I know have come before the Committee where they have said to the promoters:" We will assist you in this, provided you are able independently to raise some capital to rank after it."
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: In view of that pronouncement, I think it is very valuable that the Amendment should have been moved, because we have now the pronouncement of the general principle on which they expect the Committee to act, namely, that advances should be made to companies which have already raised a sufficient sum from other sources to be a reasonable security for the guarantee made by the Government.
  Mr. BRIGGS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I handed in a manuscript Amendment. Am I to understand that it is ruled out of order because it was a manuscript Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will understand nothing of the kind. The Amendment was ruled out of order, partly because it was barely legible, and partly because it professed to amend some previous Act, and I was not able to construe it as so amending it. I do not say it was out of order, but I did not see fit to select it.
  Mr. NICHOL: I wish to draw attention to some facts concerning one of the companies whose name appears in the list. 1 pointed out that the Powell-Duffryn Steam Coal Company had a guarantee given to it for £120,000, for both principal and interest, for a period of 30 years, for the erection of cottages. It was used as an argument that the reason for not giving this guarantee to municipalities and local authorities which have power to build such cottages was that they could raise money

  2149
  on quite suitable terms. I notice, however, that early in this year there was no necessity for this particular company borrowing money at all, either from the Government or from the public on their own security. They had, only a matter of 10 months ago, given to them from the Treasury as repayment of Excess Profits Duty, and as part of the whole award, a total sum of £681,854. I notice that if only one-sixth, or rather more than one-sixth, of that sum had been set aside for the erection of these cottages, there would have been no necessity for borrowing at all or for applying to this Committee for a guarantee. In addition, I venture to suggest that a company of the financial standing of this one is in no need of a guarantee. From the year 1912 to the year 1921, their profits have varied from £236,000 to almost £614,000 in 1920, their best year, and last year they were £335,358 in pocket. I advisedly say "in pocket," because the Chairman's address, which I remember very well, as it was reported in the financial newspapers, was a report which opened the eyes of a very large number of the miners and the working classes generally in Scotland.
  If there was one thing that was more noticeable than another in the recent Election, it was the facts surrounding this particular company. The chairman, in his address to the shareholders in March, or thereabouts, pointed out that they had had a very bad year, that their coalpits had been shut for a matter of 2 to 2½ months, and, in addition, the export price for coal had been completely destroyed by the Government's policy on the reparation coal. It is curious how the chairmen of these companies, the friends and supporters of those who are on the opposite benches, so often let the whole cat out of the bag. He pointed out to his shareholders that they had a net loss of £346,496 on the year's working, but he said the shareholders need not worry, they had reclaimed more than twice that out of the Excess Profits Duty and the Coal Award from the Government as a dole—not 15s. a week dole, but one of £681,854, and they would be able to give the shareholders their usual 14¼ per cent. I venture to say that those facts are known throughout the length and breadth of the industrial Midlands of Scotland, and if the Government are looking for some reason for the wiping out of the Con
  2150
  servatives in the Midlands of Scotland, that single fact was a very potent one during the recent Election.
  I notice also that on the 7th March of this year this particular company made an appeal to the country for a debenture stock. On that date they asked for £1,500,000 7 per cent. First Mortgage Debenture stock, and they got the whole subscribed within 15 minutes of the opening of the lists. I suggest that a company of that standing is not a company which needs to come, cap in hand, to a Treasury which is always complaining, and has been complaining for the last four years, that they have no money to give. Such a company should be the last one to come to the Committee and ask for any guarantee. I think there is no necessity either for them to borrow the money. They merely ask for the guarantee for this money to save a very small marginal percentage.
  I have another objection. I have an objection in fact to the particular purpose for which this guarantee was given. In my own constituency there are two villages, one in particular, where practically every house is owned by the Calico Printers' Association. It is a case where the house is tied, where the ownership is vested in the employer, where the rent is deducted before any wage is paid on pay day, where there is every petty tyranny, a tyranny which applies not only to the. breadwinner, but to every member of the family, as I have known personally myself, because I lived within half a mile of the village for 25 years.
  If any guarantee is to be given for the erection of cottages within this particular area, is there no local authority prepared to tackle this question? Then we would have houses, at least under public control, built by public money or by public guarantees under public control, and in which the householders would have a little freedom, not only of movement, but of thought. I suggest that in that particular instance a very grave injustice has been done by the Committee. If such cases are to come up repeatedly before this House, whether the facts are given beforehand, and the House can settle the question on the merits, or whether the facts come out after the event, and become known to the public—and I think, in

  2151
  future, they will become better known to the public than in the past—the Government may look out for trouble, not only in this House, but in the country.
  Mr. SHORT: In the first place, I would like to say that in the course of my speech on the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), I made some reference to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and indicated that I thought they were proposing to spend some portion of the grant on the widening of the dock in the London area. I find the dock is not to be widened in London, or within the London area, but in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. It is incumbent upon me to make that explanation, so that no words of mine may cast any reflection on Messrs. Harland and Wolff on the one hand, or the Port of London Authority on the other.
  Reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the grant of some £6,500,000 to the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, and also to the grant of £5,000,000 to the Underground Railway Company for various extension work, and in the case of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway for the electrification of suburban lines. We on this side of the House have not hesitated to give a warm and generous support to this Measure. That does not imply that we are satisfied with all the provisions incorporated in the Bill, and I should like to ask, in connection with these grants, what power has the Committee in connection with the regulation of wages and general conditions of labour appertaining to the expenditure of so large a sum out of the public funds for the promotion of the interests of private undertakings? I can conceive that this railway company, after it has electrified its lines, at some later stage of its; existence being in conflict with the members, say, of the National Union of Railwaymen. Having developed their resources and put their organisation, their railway lines and general traffic resources into better condition to make increased profits at the expense of the public funds, they may be in conflict with organised labour over questions of wages and conditions of work. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fair wages clause will operate in this and in other cases? These are the condi-
  2152
  tions and particulars which I think we are entitled to receive, and to expect a definite answer in connection with.
  I should like to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member below the Gangway, a point which is extremely pertinent, and one of great substance: that is in connection with the profits which are to be made. I myself could never generate enormous enthusiasm for a Bill of this kind, because I believe some of the principles underlying it are defective and unwise; but having regard to the extensive unemployment in our midst, I could not be a party to opposing anything which I thought would promote the welfare of the unfortunate multitude, assist in any way to recover trade, and put industry upon its legs. When I recall that we are going to assist these great private undertakings to the tune of some £50,000,000, so as to put them in a better position to make profits, rind make them out of the exploitation of the needs of the community, we are entitled to ask, what do they propose to do in respect to the profits accruing from the increased business which we hope will follow as a result of the developments?
  I am not complaining, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not think that I am complaining, of the guarantees or loan of this money for the purpose under review. As I have said, while we on this side have not hesitated to support the Measure, and shall continue to do so, I do think that when public money is being used—and if I understand it aright in opposition to the opinions of hon. Members opposite, in so far as it may be termed a subsidy to private enterprise—because they do not believe in that—they believe private enterprise should run on its own account and stand upon its own legs—when we are doing what we are, we are entitled to ask the Government to give us some assurances that the general conditions of labour will be satisfactorily maintained, and, further, that there will be some regard to the profits arising from chose extensions in that they may be used in some measure to promote the general interest, and not go altogether into the pockets of the directors and shareholders of the particular companies concerned.
  Mr. HANNON: My hon. Friend opposite may make his mind easy that these schemes, at all events, those approved and the schemes in contemplation, will

  2153
  cost the taxpayers of this country nothing at all. Many of these schemes have been receiving expert advice over a long series of years. They have had expended upon them the most careful thought and the most competent advice in the country. The hon. Member opposite must remember that the real reason why the State has been asked to assist these enterprises at the moment is in order to provide, with the least possible loss of time, employment for people who are now without work and the means of subsistence.
  What, however, I rise for is to ask the President of the Board of Trade to give us some assurance on two points. Firstly, will he assure the House—and I am quite sure he will have a satisfactory response on this point, but I ask so that it may be placed on record—in respect to all guarantees that are approved under this Bill that a condition will be attached that all contracts must be carried out with British material and British labour? Obviously, British labour will play a very large part in all those contracts. I only mention it for this reason, that I understand one contract has been given to an American firm, and it is not at all unlikely that that firm might introduce into its works some skilled labour from the other side of the water. I should like some assurance, as far as it can possibly be given, that all skilled labour—[HON. MEMBERS: "And unskilled, too!"]—brought into the carrying out of these contracts should be British labour, and all materials should be British materials.
  My other point is, what supervision does he propose to introduce to make perfectly sure that the money guaranteed in respect of these gigantic schemes will be expended with the least possible risk to the community and with the greatest possible assurance that it will be employed for the purpose for which it has been guaranteed. I think that there ought to be some expert advice at the disposal of the Treasury apart from the Committee charged with the administration of this Measure so that the Government will be in a position to take care that the money guaranteed should be applied for the purpose intended, and under such supervision as would make their administration for that purpose satisfactory to the mass of the taxpayers of the country.
  Mr. MARCH: I want to say a word or two about these loans, although a good deal of that which I wished to say in regard to the Port of London Authority has already been said. I wish to refer to the adoption of the schemes relating to local authorities. I was at the Trade Union Congress last September and a very large number of complaints were made there by delegates from all over the country about this Committee turning down the schemes of local authorities, in most cases with the excuse of shortness of money. If that is so, we are keeping on talking and talking and doing nothing, because our schemes have been rejected by this Committee, of which I know nothing. We have heard pretty good references given to it by some hon. Members opposite, who possibly know something about it, and they have the greatest respect for their recommendations.
  I certainly think that when local authorities have presented schemes which have been turned down because of the shortness of money many months back, possibly there has been a revival in the money market and there should be some ways and means of those authorities having their schemes reviewed, with the possibility of giving them an opportunity of getting on with what they desired to do. Some of them desire to get on with road work, but it is mostly housing work they wish to do. The borough that I represent is very desirous of getting on with another little housing scheme, and their object is to house the people who are now living in a slum area. We have had an inspection and we have consent to get those people out, but the trouble is where are we going to put them when we get them out? We have no space but this piece of land. This scheme has been before this Committee. Every endeavour has been made by the council to get the Committee to approve it, but the reply has been that money is scarce and that our scheme would prove too expensive. I would like to ask the Minister if there is any possibility now of reviewing that decision and of giving us an opportunity of housing these people. The medical authorities are anxious that the people should be removed from this congested area, and if we get power to do that then under another part of the Act we might proceed to clear the slums and start rebuilding. Surely ways and means can be devised by the Committee to afford

  2155
  the local authorities a chance of getting on with works which they desire to proceed with. We are anxious in our district to relieve the ratepayers of the burdens now imposed on them, and therefore we are anxious to get facilities to proceed with the proposed schemes.
  Judging from the speeches we have heard to-night, the old saying, "Unto him that hath shall be given" is going to prevail. Unfortunately we in our district are "the" Have nots." We have only the poor people whom other people do not desire to have. At the best of times in our district we have 25 per cent, of casual employment. Now we are living in abnormal times and we have a very large number dependent on the dole, as the Press which represent the other side describe it, ignoring the fact that it is unemployment benefit for which the men have contributed. Many men cannot get even that because of the casual nature of their employment and consequently they are driven to the Board of Guardians for assistance to keep body and soul together. These men desire work, and when they come down to this House to see someone from whom they hope to extract a promise they cannot be seen, they are sent away and go naturally in a bad temper. Before that temper finds vent in other directions we are anxious that the Government should do something in the way of finding work for them by sanctioning schemes which, in the opinion of the local authorities, are suitable and reasonable and calculated to benefit the district. Therefore, I hope that the remarks I have made will give the Minister an opportunity of saying whether there is a possibility of reviewing some of these cases which were turned down some months ago.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The criticism which has been offered, not only at the present stage, but at earlier stages of this Bill, indicates that there is not much general satisfaction with the anomalous method of administering the Act, namely, by a Committee of the Board of Trade. Here is a Committee with tremendous powers, which it exercises unchecked. It is true that it is for the purpose of conferring an advantage upon the unemployed, but, while it can confer an advantage on the unemployed, it can also make the fortunes of many private individuals,
  2156
  and it is a strange anomaly that the list of successful applications under the Act during the past year shows that the benefits have been practically monopolised by profiteers, by speculators, and by railway companies. Examples have already been given, and I have no desire to take up the time of the Committee by repeating what has been already said, but I will mention in particular the Powell Duffryn Company, which has been already referred to at considerable length without any attempt being made to meet the criticism that has been offered in regard to it. There are also the railway companies. The House gave powers to increase railway rates, but what was the object of giving those powers?
  Mr. REMER: May I ask if it is in order for an hon. Member, addressing the Committee, to speak from the Gangway?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I can understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman to interrupt the proceedings, but I can assure him I was not referring to him as a profiteer. [Interruption.] I was aware of that, but I was simply wanting to prevent him from thinking there was any personal allusion in my speech. I was pointing out that more than a year ago Parliament allowed the railway companies to increase their charges, mainly for the purpose of enabling them to raise capital for extensions and developments. In the case, particularly, of the Underground, which is the largest beneficiary under this Act, a special Act was passed to enable them to increase the charges upon the workers of London, so that they would be able to do what they are getting special facilities for doing under this Act, without any help at all. It is a very strange thing that, Parliament having intervened to enable them for the first time to pay a dividend on their ordinary shares, the Government should again come to their rescue and. by giving this guarantee, enable them to increase the profits of the shareholders. This is doing more than was intended when that power was given to the Committee,
  There is another reason why I believe that these powers should not be given to railway companies. When these railway extensions are being made, an enormously increased value is given to the land, and I am surprised that no protest is made here when, not only by private enterprise,

  2157
  but by private enterprise subsidised by the public, this increase in the value of the land is being created, and no charge is being made upon that increase. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. I have here the Second Report of the Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction, which deals with the law and practice in relation to the acquisition and valuation of land, and on page 17 of that Report I find the following recommendation. I may mention that the late Solicitor-General was the Chairman of that Committee. Here is the precise recommendation at which the President of the Board of Trade laughs:
  "The case of the railway companies is typical. It must he admitted that railways have the most essential means of encouraging and promoting industry and development, but during recent years new railway enterprise in this country has been dwindling almost to the point of stagnation For the year 1914 there were 111 Private Bills deposited in Parliament, of which only two were for new railways of any length, whereas, as recently as 1899, 270 Bills were deposited, of which 57 were railway Bills proposing new works. The cause of this stagnation is stated to be financial, and we are assured that if the companies could secure some portion of the value created by their undertakings they would need no further incentive to initiate extensions and thus stimulate industrial development."
  There is a way to do it without making any charge upon the public, without any guarantee from the State at all. Take the extension which has gone out to North London. There has 'been an enormous increase in the value of land because of that contemplated development, and neither the railway company nor the public are allowed to benefit from it. If either the one or the other were allowed to benefit, the guarantee would be unnecessary. I take the recommendations:
  "We think there is great force in this argument and as the consideration of many undertakings of public utility is delegated by the State to private promoters we think the principle of betterment, applicable in the case of undertakings promoted by the State or by local authorities, should also be applicable in the case of private undertakings authorised in the public interest."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not show such a superior attitude to proposals to which his colleagues have given their support. This was part of the great policy of reconstruction of the late Government, and the President of the
  2158
  Board of Trade has shown sufficient elasticity to be a devoted member of both Governments. His adaptability has led to his promotion, and in these circumstances he need not show such a superior and such a contemptuous attitude to recommendations of former colleagues.
  There is another case I should like to deal with. There is the point of more money for shareholders, to which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. A, J. Bennett) referred. I think most hon. Members in the House were delighted to hear that admirable speech, and many who remember his predecessor, the late Sir Arthur Markham, will be glad to see chat his shoes are filled by such a capable successor. He referred to the limitation of profits. Directions should have been given to this Committee to see that where such a guarantee was given there was a limitation of profits and also safeguards as to the working conditions of the men employed, but you have this Committee without any direction at all from this House. I do not believe there has ever been a Committee created with such powers, to which such an unlimited discretion has been granted before. But there is also the case of Harland and Wolff. This is a case of subsidising a growing shipbuilding trust. I do not think it is in the public interest. It is a menace. It is a misfortune that all the smaller ship-repairing firms on the Thames should be squeezed out by Harland and Wolff. Every man in East London who is an engineer or is in the shipbuilding trade is at the mercy of Harland and Wolff. He is tied body and soul to Harland and Wolff.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They are nearly all Liberals there.
  Mr. PRINGLE: All I have to say in reference to the hon. Member's statement is, first, that it is not true—
  Mr. LANSBURY: It is true. I know them, and you do not.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I happen to know some of them also. Secondly, if it were true I would not care. I think my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that in the past I have not been afraid to criticise Liberals, and that I was quite willing to criticise Governments when Labour Members would not. That can be borne out. In the meantime, I am concerned with this menace of a shipbuilding trust,

  2159
  which the Government is helping to create, and which it should be our duty, no matter to what party we belong, to do our best to combat and prevent. It was on these grounds that it was my desire to move an Amendment giving directions to this Committee and preventing them doing things of this kind. Unfortunately, owing to the illegibility of my writing, and owing to the authority of the Chair, I was unable to move such an Amendment, but I am content now that I am able to make this protest.
  Mr. J. JONES: I am neither a Free Trader nor a Protectionist. I am a social democrat—a Socialist in economics, and a democrat in politics. The people of the country have decided upon a policy, and a Government have been selected—the present Government have not been selected; if they had, they would not have been here—and we are now discussing the question how to meet an immediate difficulty. It has been decided by those in authority, although they may not be as authoritative as they should be, that they will subsidise private enterprise, without guarantees to the public. It is very nice on the part of Members of the Government, and those who support them, to recommend that private companies should be subsidised at the expense of the State, but those of us who are members of local authorities find that we cannot get subsidies at the expense of the State. Circulars have been issued to us asking us to propose schemes to provide useful work for the people. I come from a district where we have 25,000 men out of work. Nearly all these men are going every week to our Board of Guardians, and we are paying out at the rate of £26,000 a week unemployment relief, not merely for the purpose of finding relief for destitute people, according to the Poor Law, but to find relief for men who otherwise ought to be at work, and we are asked by the Government, by circular, to provide work schemes. The Government is continuous. There is an apostolic succession. Eight hon. and hon. Members are on the Treasury Bench by accident, but they cannot get away from the fact that they supported the policy of those who went before them. We received circulars asking us to provide schemes for our own district to try to find relief or work for the unemployed, and we have sent schemes up. What has happened?
  2160
  Nearly all the schemes have been turned down. If it is good enough to subsidise railway companies, why cannot the Government subsidise local authorities? They will not do it. They tell us that we cannot employ men except under certain conditions. They tell us that if we put men on work useful and necessary for the public service, we can only pay them 75 per cent, of the union rate of wages. The result has been that we have had to hand over to contractors work which ought to have been done by public authorities. Perhaps that is another subsidy to private enterprise as against a public authority.
  Down in the East End of London we are not getting the amount of money that we ought to get. Under this Bill we are going to be left out of these schemes. The question of Harland and Wolff does not matter. We are going to be wolved. We want a great scheme of reconstruction in the East End of London. We have proposed it but have not the means of carrying it out. The Port of London Authority is going to spend £15,000,000 on improvements on the Thames, north and south, but I happen to be a member of a local authority whose roads lead to the Victoria and Albert Docks, probably the most important docks in Great Britain at the present time, and while millions of money are being spent on railway and dock accommodation we cannot get a penny to improve the roadways leading to the docks. We have had to borrow £1,000,000 during the last 18 months to give our people doles, and if we could provide them with work we should be able to carry out necessary improvements. I have tried, to put this ease many times. I am not an expert but we could find work for large numbers of men who are now drawing relief from the guardians and doles from the Labour Exchanges, if money were available to carry out useful work.
  Those of us who sit for East London constituencies are fed up with this continuous talk of sympathy. We do not want your sympathy. We want reason and justice, and we are not to be satisfied until we get them. We are prepared to support this, not because we like it, but because we cannot help it. We have got to take medicine sometimes, because there is no other way out of our difficulty in the immediate circumstances. In our district we have proposed six

  2161
  schemes, four large and two small. The two small ones have been accepted and the four large ones rejected. Why? In whose interests? They would enable us to put thousands of men to work. Our rates are 25s. 8d. in the £. They are high because of our low rateable value. Though our rates are high, they are lower than Westminster in comparison with the rateable value of the two districts. People who live in Westminster make their money in West Ham. What is the use then of asking us for schemes of employment, when you subsidise railways and shipping companies and refuse to subsidise us?
  We are working in the public interests. They are not to be blamed for working in their own interests. I give them credit for it. They are class conscious; our people are not. They know where to put their bread. They cast their bread upon the waters, and it will return to them a thousandfold. We do not know on which side of our bread the butter is, because we have no butter; it is nearly all margarine. I wish to know if, when the Government are going to subsidise people, they will give us an undertaking that they will subsidise the local authorities as generously as they are prepared to subsidise private companies? If they will do so, we will guarantee to find them sufficient schemes to provide work for at least half the people out of employment. Let the Government give us the same guarantee as they are now giving under this Bill to the people who are privately interested. All we say is this: "We are willing to co-operate with you, but we want a fair deal—we do not want private enterprise, so called—private enterprise has very often been recognised as public robbery, and we are not going to submit to it. In the East End of London, to-day, any number of schemes are in the hands of the local authorities. They have been sent up here and rejected. Therefore, we ask the Government if they are prepared to give us equal consideration with the private companies, whose interest they seem so well able to protect?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member who has just sat down has said that he regarded this Bill as medicine which he proposed to take. I think he will find it a satisfactory tonic. Another
  2162
  hon. Member challenged one of the schemes which have been put forward because a guarantee had been given to the Powell Duffryn Company in order to build houses. He said that it had something to do with the defeat of some Conservative or other candidates in Scotland. Whatever be the reason of the defeate any candidates may have sustained in Scotland, I am perfectly certain that it was not due to the fact that the Government had enabled a number of houses to be built. As regards housing schemes which are brought before the Committee, both in respect of those which they accept and of those which they reject, the principle that the Committee must decide each case upon its merits must apply.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what the merits are?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The merits are whether the thing is financially sound and satisfactory.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The municipal authorities are sound, surely.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Those are matters which the Committee must decide. Certainly, I am sure this Bill would never have got through the House if that discretion had not been given to the Committee. There may be cases for doing an utterly uneconomical thing, but if you are considering them on that basis it has to be proposed as a specific thing. If you are going to have a great subsidised housing scheme, that has to be defended upon its merits.
  Another point was raised as to the inclusion of too many conditions. One hon. Member said that we ought not to have given the guarantee to the two railway companies, which, in the case of one of them, has meant about 20,000 people being put into work, without requiring from them some security that they would never fall foul of the railway trade union. I sincerely hope that harmony may prevail on the railways for many years, but I do think that it would have been an unfortunate step to introduce a guarantee of that kind.
  Captain W. BENN: Why not?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman why not. If you are going to hedge round every

  2163
  one of these schemes with one hundred and one conditions, you will not get a single one of those schemes through. Every practical man realises that to the full, and the last people who would put it forward are those who speak in the interests of the railway men, who know very well how to look after those interests. As to the local authorities, I have already said that they are to be treated in exactly the same way. As to a point raised by one of my hon. Friends, I have said that in many cases the Advisory Committee, no doubt, would require ordinary capital in front of their debentures. That, of course, does not apply to local authorities, which have the security of the rates. I can conceive other cases where the security in itself was good, and it would not be necessary to raise ordinary capital as a first security. I have not ruled out cases of that kind. There was only one other point with which I need deal, and that is the natural anxiety that where this guarantee is given British labour and material should be employed to the fullest possible extent. I agree entirely with that suggestion. As a matter of fact, in all contracts a provision is inserted:
  " That all plant, machinery and materials required in connection with the said works shall be purchased in Great Britain at the lowest price (ceteris paribus) on a competitive basis under contracts requiring the contractors to certify on their own behalf and on behalf of their sub-contractors that the plant, machinery or materials to be supplied under such contract will be wholly of British manufacture, and the company shall enforce such stipulations and report to the Treasury any modification of or failure to give any such certificate."
  Mr. MARCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that nearly all the London County Council houses at Beacontree have been made with foreign cement?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That has nothing to do with this Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: You can put in a provision regarding foreign materials and labour, but not one about fair trade union wages.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: What is the object of this Bill 1 Surely its object is to create employment. Does the hon. Member suggest that it is not wise to
  2164
  insist on British labour and British material?
  Mr. LANSBURY: That is not the point I raised. It is a provision regarding the wages paid that we want to have inserted.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the hon. Member carrying his principles of free importation so far that he would allow this foreign material to come in? [Interruption.]
  Mr. LANSBURY: No. We never said anything of the kind.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): The hon. Member should allow the Minister to proceed.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to put into our mouths words that we never used?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does not agree with what was stated, he has the right to speak afterwards, and to contradict anything that has been said. It does not do any good to interrupt.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask my right hon. Friend, if he does not see he has rather made—
  11.0 P.M
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I was just going to say—as soon as I could get a chance—that I do nor, want to misrepresent the lion. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). We had a discussion on one of the Clauses, at an early hour of the morning, and I think the hon. Member will remember that I tried to see how far we could meet the cases he had in mind. When there are interruptions flying to and fro, in the manner of an election meeting, one is a little apt to answer in the manner of an election meeting. I believe we have all got exactly the same object in view—to get as much employment as possible. That is the object which the hon. Member and I have at heart, and though it may be we differ in many ways, we can on this matter decide on taking a practical step on which we are both agreed. We have had a very full discussion on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You should stand up to it.
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have had a very full discussion, as I think my hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party will agree. We discussed this particular proposal on the Financial Resolution, and I do not believe there is any real desiie to continue the discussion now, and for the general convenience I ask that the Clause be now accepted.
  Mr. MacDONALD: I do not propose to stand between the Committee and its decision for more than a moment, but I think it my duty to enter a caveat against the interpretation which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade put upon an interruption from this side of the House. I quite agree there was a great deal of noise going on when the interruption was made, but the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in stating that the gist of the interruption—the meaning of the interruption—was this, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) desired to remove the condition of the contract quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. Quite the contrary. Whether that be sound policy or not under normal conditions, all my hon. Friend wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman was, that if he put in one set of conditions, why should he not put in two? If he requires that contracts must be completed by British labour, why may he not also say that the pay given to British labour shall be at a fair rate? I only venture to rise so that immediately after the right hon. Gentleman's speech the records of the House may give a full explanation of what the interruption amounted to.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I propose to put one question, and I shall be very brief. It is a practical question, affecting a large part of the country, including my own constituency, and that is my excuse for putting it at this late hour. A municipality like that represented by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones;) can bring forward comparatively small schemes for work for the unemployed within its own borders, and they are dealt with on their merits, but there are certain schemes really of national importance, which are nobody's business, and which many people think this would be a very suitable time to undertake. Sixty years ago a Bill was introduced into this House for the purpose of constructing a tunnel under the estuary of
  2166
  the Humber in order to join the City of Hull, with its 300,000 inhabitants, with the people of Lincolnshire, with its 500,000 inhabitants, and, incidentally, to shorten the communications between the East of Yorkshire and the South of England. It passed this House, and in another place it was thrown out only by the casting vote of the Chairman. When it passed this House, the inhabitants of Hull were very elated. They had bonfires in the streets, and there were great local rejoicings. That is a very big scheme, representing no engineering difficulties, and it does not affect the City of Hull alone, but it affects really the whole country. Such a scheme can hardly be brought forward by the local governing body. The railway companies will not touch it. They have their own vested interests and their line round by Goole, and it really is a matter that can be undertaken only by the nation as a whole. My complaint is that in certain eases of this sort schemes will not be initiated by the Committee. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Prime Minister, as he is being consulted, is what is the procedure for getting a scheme of this sort brought forward. Should a deputation come from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of Hull? I have approached the Government on this matter, and they have said they are favourable to this scheme, but, so far, they have not had any proposal put before them. Whose business is it to put forward a proposal? That is what I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not ask of my own initiative, but at the request of the Lord Mayor of the City, and I think, in spite of the lateness of the hour, I am entitled to a reply to a very reasonable question.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Since the hon. and gallant Member has appealed to me, it seems to me that the simplest method would be for the hon. and gallant Member, as the representative of the City, to get up a company and then come and ask the Committee for assistance.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Prime Minister has not quite got the point, which is rather an important point. It is not my business as a Member representing the City to start companies. They are started for profit-making. These schemes are not primarily for profit-making, in the words of the Government them-

  2167
  selves, but to provide employment, and this scheme will have the advantage of improving communication, and thus benefiting the whole community. Now, may I have a serious reply? The amounts we are paying in unemployment benefit would go far towards making this tunnel and really improving the communications between the South of England and the East Coast, which is important.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did give, I thought, a reasonable reply, because it is not necessary that a company should be formed to make a profit. Many companies are formed for other purposes. I had the feeling that it was the general desire not to have any discussion beyond what is actually necessary, and I am afraid I rather encouraged more discussion by my own interruption.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Guarantee of Austrian Loan.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think this Clause can be allowed to pass without some comment. This is the Austrian Loan, and I want to put to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs two observations only. We are asked to guarantee some £6,000,000 odd to Austria. It seems to me that, unless something practical is done beyond lending Austria money and supervising her finances, we will have to help her further in the future. There are two practical propositions I want to put before the Government with regard to Austria. In theory, of course, the Peace Treaty ought to be revised, but that is hardly practicable at the moment. There are, however, two things that can be done. In the first place, is anything being attempted with regard to assisted emigration from Austria? The city population is so great that it cannot be maintained by either the country or the trade, especially in view of the obstacles placed in the way of trade. It is absolutely essential that the surplus population of Vienna, the professional classes, the skilled workers, the clerical classes, the doctors, teachers, and so on should have a chance to get out of it. You have parts of the world to-day which
  2168
  are short of population and want a white population. There are two of our Dominions needing white populations—South Africa and Australia. I know perfectly well at the moment the Australian Government does not encourage even British emigrants to go to the Commonwealth, because of unemployment. But the Austrians are very law-abiding people. They make good citizens. They are not pugnacious. They have very good qualities, and I believe it would be possible to have certain areas in Australia or South Africa specially divided off for Austrian immigrants. At any rate, it would be better from the Australian point of view than to have Japanese immigrants, which are the alternative. The proposition does not come out of my own brain, but from a much more informed mind than mine.
  The other observation I wish to make is this. Austria is suffering in a very acute form, because of her peculiar circumstances, from the disease from which all Central Europe is suffering, and that is the lack of an assured market, and the assured market exists near the Austrian frontiers—I refer to the Russian market. The only outlet for Austrian products to-day, for her skilled engineering products, and for her textiles is Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not Australia?"] I understand that it is our object in this country to encourage our trade with Australia. There is room for Russia, for Austria, and ourselves as well, to be brought into the trading community of Europe once more.
  I cannot let this Clause go without putting this point before the Government. I put it before and the Government did not listen, and we are now paying for that non-attention this six millions. It is true that it is only a guarantee, but if we had to find the six millions it would not be so happy a position. It has been an expensive policy for the Government to ignore Russia, and not to make any real attempt to open her up to European trade. If the Austrian factories could be kept busy supplying the goods that Russians are crying cut for to-day these loans would not be required. The very fact that we have to-day to make this loan is a very fair comment on the utter failure of the policy of the late Government, and, by all signs, it is a policy likely to be slavishly followed by the present Government.
  Mr. WISE: Last night I put a couple of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and did not receive a reply. They are rather important, and I shall not keep the Committee more than a moment or two in repeating them.
  As to the security of the loan; is it secured by a first charge on the tobacco monopoly and the Customs? I understand by the protocol it is a second charge on the Customs. In respect to the bank, I understand from the official announcement that the Austrian Government have opened this particular loan as from last Monday, 4thDecember, and have invited subscriptions to the issue of six million dollars of guaranteed Treasury Bills. Why is it dollars, and not kronen? If we have guaranteed it, why is it not pounds? The interest on these Treasury Bills is 9 per cent., I understand: is that so?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question—
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Cannot we have an answer to the questions put by hon. Members?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): In regard to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise), as I understand it, the charge is on both the tobacco and the Customs, and is the first charge. The loan will be raised by the Austrian Government, and they will raise it on the best terms they can get. As to other of the information that the hon. Gentleman has given to the House, I have no knowledge of it beyond what he says. I cannot say how or at what rate the Austrian Government will raise this loan. In the Bill before the Committee our function is restricted to the guarantees specified in the Bill; the responsibility for raising the loan will be that of the Austrian Government. If the Austrian Government be unable to arrange with the issuing houses in the different countries then, of course, the whole thing falls to the ground. The Austrian Government will have to do their best to raise such loans as they require on the best terms that they can. Of course the position of the Comptroller in Vienna is a very strong one. He is able to prevent further issues.
  Mr. WISE: Who is the Comptroller?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The Comptroller has yet to be appointed, but he will be a neutral.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Guarantee of Sudan loan.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Treasury may guarantee, in such manner as they think lit, the payment of the principal of and the interest on any loan raised by the Government of the Sudan for or in connexion with works for the purpose of irrigating the Gezireh Plain (in this Act referred to as "the Sudan loan"), not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise three million five hundred thousand pounds.
  (2) A guarantee shall not be given under this section until the Government of the Sudan have provided to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Secretary of State—

  (a) For raising, appropriating and duly applying the Sudan loan for or in connection with the purpose aforesaid:

  (b) For the establishment and regulation of a sinking fund for the purpose of the repayment of the principal of the Sudan loan or any instalment thereof within a period not exceeding fifty years from the date on which the loan or the instalment is actually raised:

  (c) For charging on the general revenues and assets of the Sudan or on any other revenues or assets which may be made available for the purpose, with priority over any charges not existing at the date of the passing of this Act, the principal of and the interest on the Sudan loan and any sinking fund payments for the repayment of the principal:

  (d) For charging on the general revenues and assets of the Sudan immediately after the last-mentioned charge the repayment to the Treasury of any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom under this Act on account of the guarantee given under this section, with interest thereon at such rate as the Treasury may fix:

  (e) For raising or securing the raising of sufficient money to meet the above charges.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I desire to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. JOHNSTON: All I desire is to secure certain explanations regarding these guarantees for the investment of public money in the Sudan which up to the present time the Government have declined to give. On Tuesday night I put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman who was representing the Government which I thought were relevant, and I particularly wanted to know what was the reason behind this particular investment, seeing that under no circumstances could it affect the question of unemployment at the present time. I want to know whether or not the Government on this occasion is departing from its allegiance to the sacred principle of private enterprise in dealing with a Government operation. I also desire to know the name of the firm or firms who are going to get the benefit of the public credit. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that last July a very important deputation went to the Foreign Office and was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), but we heard yesterday from an hon. Member who represents a Division in Lancashire a repetition of the statement that that deputation which had such a profound influence on the Government was headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. I have been entirely at a loss to understand the seeming complicity of both sides as regards the Loan and operations in the Sudan. Is it the ease that the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, Limited, has as one of its directors Brigadier-General A. M. Asquith? Is it the case that the company in the years 1916–17 was so prosperous that it paid 10 per cent.; that in 1917–18, it paid 25 per cent.; that in 1918–19–during the War, be it remembered—it paid 25 per cent..; in 1919–20, again 25 per cent, and with a bonus of 10 per cent, in addition, and in the year 1920–21, 15 per cent.? I should like to ask further if it is the case that the directors of this company are to get 10 per cent, of the net profits accruing after a dividend of 25 per cent, has been paid? I should like further to be informed if this company has already had from the Sudanese Government £400,000! On what terms did they get it and was it part of the sum found by the British Government in the first instance? I want to know further if it is the case that as a result of the
  2172
  negotiations and pledges the pound shares of this company are now worth £6 on the market? Is it the case that a name which sounds familiar, the name Edgar Bonham-Carter is that of the Legal Secretary of the Sudanese Government and of an official member of the Governor-General's Council? I want finally to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if this great deputation and its leadership upon which he pinned so much of his faith two nights ago is, in view of the questions I have put, not now more explicable? Before the British nation finds another three and a half millions to be sunk in the operations of a concern like this the House ought to have the fullest, freest, frankest and most above-board explanation on all these points as to which I have asked for information to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]
  Mr. WHEATLEY: On a point of Order. Is it not proper, as certain suggestions and charges have been made, that we should have a reply?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that same point of Order. Is it not usual, when charges against Members of the House are made, that the Members concerned should have notice?
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: On a further point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members to raise points of Order when an hon. Member is on his feet to speak, and has not yet begun?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be quite in order for hon. Members to raise points of Order at any time, but I might say that the particular points which have been raised are not really points of Order at all. I do not know whether the Minister in charge of the Bill is going to reply, but I invite the hon. Member to have patience.
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: It appears to me that the burden of the argument of the party on the opposite Benches above the Gangway is principally that they are afraid that some profits may be made by some private individuals or by some private enterprise. I welcomed the advent of those Scottish battalions to the House, and I suppose they were sent with very large majorities to impress the House with their point of view, which was, in particular, directed against private enterprise. I happen to be one

  2173
  whose majority was certainly no less than those, of many hon. Members opposite, and I have been sent here to voice exactly the contrary view. I would ask hon. Members who are so afraid of any profits being made in industry, who are so afraid that all the trouble of unemployment in industry has come about because a few years ago large profits were made in industry—I would ask them to read the speeches of their predecessors on those benches, who, many of them, are not now there. They used to ask a great many questions and grumble a great deal two or three years ago when profits in industry were being made.
  I would ask hon. Members opposite, whom I believe to be very sincere in their desire to do something to help forward schemes to solve the great problem of unemployment, not to be so bitter against what. I think, is the best means of solving that problem. This scheme is one of such means, and I can perhaps explain to hon. Members in a simple way why I support it. Hon. Members seem to think that no one will support any of these schemes unless they can see some definite return for themselves in the way of dividend. My principal reason for supporting this scheme is that I am engaged very closely in the cotton trade of Lancashire, and I believe that this scheme in particular will benefit that trade; and anything that benefits the great cotton trade of Lancashire, which is the second largest industry in the country, will, I believe, eventually be to the benefit of this country as a whole. Why do I support this scheme for a loan to the Sudan? Not because it will increase cotton-growing as regards the particular staple in which I am interested, because I am more interested in the American staple than in the Egyptian. I begin to wonder, sometimes, when I hear such speeches as I did the other night from hon. Members opposite. Although I have been engaged in the industry all my life, I then heard more about long-staple cotton than I have ever heard before, and that from men who very evidently knew nothing about it.
  I cannot answer many of the questions that were put, but I think I am entitled to answer as to why people who, like myself, are engaged in the cotton trade, are interested in this loan and support it. But I would like to take hon. Members a little further back. They agree, I
  2174
  think, that when you have to solve a great problem you ought not to look always to the present, or even to the immediate future, but, if you possibly can, you ought to take a very long view. I am far from being a wealthy man to-day, but many years ago—20 or 30 years ago—I was, if possible, poorer than I am to-day. When I tell you that the total of my worldly possessions would certainly not be £80 you will get a good idea of what I mean. There is the Cotton Growing Association, a firm in which there is no possibility of any dividend or return on the capital, and I took up ten shares. It is because the British Cotton Growing Association in its development supports such schemes as this that I ask the Committee to support it. When, two and a half years ago, hon. Members used to ask so many questions about the profits of industry, questions which were often misguided, they never said anything at all about the rise in wages compared with 1914, although they knew that in nearly all instances they were 200 per cent, to 300 per cent, higher. Their endeavour seemed to be to show that industry was making fabulous profits. Questions were put about two particular mills in the town in which I live but they never gave the House to understand what were the real facts of the case. They never told the House that the share capital of the companies was only a very small proportion of the total capital, and had they taken the trouble to do an ordinary proportion sum they would have found that the total return on the whole of the capital was very small and very reasonable indeed. Two and a half years ago, when industry was prosperous, there was no unemployment. They were not satisfied then. They called men engaged in business, who worked almost as hard as they did profiteers and demanded that all profits should be stopped and pulled down, and they have had their way. Profits have gone. The hon. Member who spoke about the profits of a company connected with this Bill did not tell us about 1021 or 1922. He does not know what they were. I can make a very fair guess and say they were none at all.
  Mr. NICHOL rose—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member does not give way—
  Mr. NICHOL: On a point of Order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has a point of Order to raise I shall listen to what he has to say. Otherwise he has no business to stand up.
  Mr. NICHOL: Is it in order for the hon. Member to tell a lie?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is certainly not in order to accuse another hon. Member of telling a lie. If the hon. Member does not agree with what has been said the proper course to pursue is, after the speaker has resumed his seat, to get up and refute what has been said on the other side, and not interrupt in the course of a speech.
  Mr. NICHOL: Perhaps I put my point of order in the wrong way, and I withdraw.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: We are sent herein the main to see if we cannot evolve a scheme for settling the unemployment question, and I welcome the sincerity of hon. Members opposite with regard to this matter, but I ask them to realise that when they insist that businesses must be carried on at a loss they are going to make the problem no better but a great deal worse. I am glad that some of the hon. Members of the Labour party are in support of the Bill, but many other hon. Members give it only a qualified support, because they are afraid that in trying to do good for a great many people it is just possible that they may do a little bit of harm. Even at the risk of doing a little bit of harm, we had better try to do a great deal of good. If you compare the rate of profit, the rate of employment and the condition of industry when industry was making profit, two and a half to three years ago, with the present time, hon. Members will agree that it would be far better if we had these times back again, when industry was making profits and not losses, and when unemployment was practically nil, instead of as it is at the present time amounting to nearby 1,400,000 people.
  I ask hon. Members to realise this, and to agree for once with me. I ask them to agree with me in the theory that the interests of those who are making profits, and not ashamed of them, are identical with those who are out to look after what they call the interests of those who work in industry. Those who work in industry, no matter to which side they belong,
  2176
  stand or fall together, and it is only by a better co-operation of the two interests that industry can stand. I ask hon. Members to agree to industry, being assisted in every possible way. I also support the request of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), with whom I agree very largely, that the Government ought to be asked to support the municipal corporations with regard to schemes for finding work. As regards the Sudan Loan, this is not going to help employment directly, but indirectly it will. To-day employment in Lancashire is very bad. The cotton crop of which we use the most, namely, the American crop, is again a short one, and it is no use hiding our heads in the sand and thinking that all is right. We must provide for the future, and I ask hon. Members to support this proposal because it is in the best interests of the country.
  Mr. NEWBOLD: During the last few minutes I have been rubbing up my acquaintance with the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, Ltd. It is very interesting to discover, or, rather, to rediscover, that it is apparently the same crush that went into the Rand many years ago that is again developing the Sudan under this syndicate, and I trust that we shall have in the course of this Debate a statement from one of the directors who sits on the benches opposite, because it would be interesting to know if he can throw any light upon the support on those benches for this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I believe that it is not customary to mention names unless one gives the hon. Gentleman information beforehand. I do not, however, think myself that this matter is quite so important as the actual guaranteeing of the principal of the loan. Why should this assistance be given for the building of a barrage on the Nile rather than, should we say, for some great scheme financed by a municipality in Scotland? The reason is obvious, and such as we would expect from hon. Members opposite. The scheme has, I believe, the indorsement of that brilliant financial expert, than whom there is probably no more expert man in his line, Sir Robert Kindersley. Sir Robert Kindersley is one of the most expert bankers that this country has at its disposal. He is a man who is pre-eminently concerned with finance, employment for the unemployed, primarily the unemployed bank deposits

  2177
  of banking persons who are desirous of getting bank deposits off their hands at a higher rate of interest than they are able to get at the present time. One might say of the two Committees that endorse these schemes, that one is a Committee for finding remunerative employment at not too competitive rates and in not too free a market for bank deposits, and the other, the Unemployment Grants Committee, is appropriately presided over by the Chairman of nine of the biggest investment syndicates in this country—Lord St. Davids. I congratulate the Government and the late Government upon their choice of a man who nakedly represents the interests of hon. Members opposite. Were they to engage in the building of a dam in this country they would have to employ members of the general labourers' unions. They would have to pay the current trade union rate of wages. They could not work the men for more than eight or nine hours a day. They would have to house them well, and they would have a high cost of wages compared with the wages that are needed to pay the men engaged on the dam in the Sudan. Hon. Members opposite, being primarily concerned for the unemployed bank deposits, for the unemployed investment capital, for the unemployed money in their tills, for the unemployed money in their cash boxes, and for the unemployed money in their ledgers, are quite right, from their class point of view, representing as they do in reality rent, interest and profit, while we, on these benches, represent salaries and wages. It is quite fit and proper for those hon. Members to choose people to defend their interests. Whatever hon. Members around me may think, we of my party—[HON. MEMBERS: "We!" and Laughter.] I would remind hon. Members opposite that 30 years ago there appeared a phenomenon in this House called Keir Hardie. He was the only man in that party. Thirty years afterwards there are 142 or 143 of them. A generation has gone by and a change has taken place. Another generation, and I do not think you will be sitting in this Chamber. A great change will have come over this country in the interim. You represent landed property and capitalist property. I say that from your point of view you are perfectly right to look after your interests. I wish, however, that you would always be frank enough to state
  2178
  that they are your interests. We, on this side, so far as I speak for myself (laughter)—I know I speak for very many members of the Labour party—represent the interests of the workers by hand and by brain, and nobody else. You are here representing your crowd. Go on doing it. We, on this side, will represent our interests, the interests of the workers—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I do not suppose hon. Members opposite think they do. [An HON. MEMBER: "When do you work?"] At the present time.
  I want to raise another matter in connection with the Sudan Loan. I want to know what effect it is going to have upon the rental value of the land in the Sudan Valley? It is a curious fact that prior to the building of the Assuan dam one-third of the land in the Sudan had a rental per year of £2,000,000. It was estimated that the effect of the dam would increase the rent accruing from certain lands ten-fold. On that occasion it went into the pockets mainly of the people interested in the National Bank of Egypt, in the Mortgage Company of Egypt, and the Agricultural Bank of Egypt. I should like an assurance that in the event of that land being so improved by this scheme the money is not all going into the hands of the same gentlemen on this occasion. It will be very interesting, after you have built the dam, to see the effect on rents and on the liberties of the people who live in that Valley. It will also be very interesting to note whether or not it will accelerate your evacuation of Egypt. Your forefathers pledged you to get out of Egypt. You have no intention of getting out of Egypt, none whatever. You intend to stick to it, you intend to stick to the Sudan. You intend to appropriate Abyssinia at the first possible moment, and you would take the Sahara as well if you could find means of irrigating it.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should like to assure the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who challenged me a few minutes ago, that I had not the slightest intention of avoiding my share in this discussion, but it is customary for members on the Front Bench to allow all Members, as far as one can tell, to say what they have to say before one rises to speak. The hon. Member who has just spoken said he represented the hands and brains

  2179
  of the world. I do not know what I represent. I can hardly claim to represent the hands; and one of my old colleagues intimated clearly in one of his recent speeches that he took all the brains of our party with him.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You represent the cash.
  Mr. BALDWIN: I wish I did. The first charge made was that this Sudan Loan did nothing for unemployment. It does one or two things; I do not say it does a great deal, but it does one or two things. Already orders have been placed in this country value about £200,000, and I hope more will be placed, for various requisites for the building of the dam. There is no doubt, at least no doubt in the minds of those who are well qualified to judge—and I am not, because I know very little of the cotton trade—that if a serious effort is not made to increase the cotton crops of the world, the position of Lancashire within a few years may become very precarious. The next charge, if I understood it aright, was that some firm is getting public credit. That is not the case. The Loan is a Loan raised by the Sudan Government. The guarantee is from us to that Government. The Sudan Government is using it for the purpose of building this barrage. The third charge made, if I understand it aright, was that a certain syndicate of which I know very little, and who has no relations with the Government, has had some very profitable years. That seems to prove to me conclusively that cotton-growing is a paying proposition in that district, which will very much cheer the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It also made me wish that the hon. Member for Stifling (Mr. Johnston) and I were members of the syndicate; but I am not, and I do not think he is. Now I come to a point that did puzzle me. The word "charges" was used, and I wish to ask the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) straight out if he has any charge to make against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith)?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I make no charge. I asked for explanations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Insinuation!"] No, I asked very carefully for explanations two nights ago, and I did not get them. I have repeated
  2180
  the request to-night, and I say that we ought to have them.
  12 M.
  Mr. BALDWIN: There is no Member who is better able to take care of himself than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and I have only to say this, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley introduced a deputation to the Foreign Office on the subject. When deputations attend on important matters, they naturally like to be introduced by a person of weight and character, and no better representative for that purpose could be found than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. I should like to have him introduce any deputation of which I was a member. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have a son who is connected with this syndicate—a fact which was not known to me—proves, to my mind, that in introducing the deputation the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to do what people who introduce deputations often cannot do—he would be able, in case of need, to speak upon the subject with, at any rate, secondhand information. The hon. Member for Stirling did not mention the spokesman of that deputation. The spokesman was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I wonder what syndicate he represented? I wonder what brought him there? I wish he were in his place to-night to explain what he was doing. Now in both these suspicious cases, neither the right hon. Member for Paisley nor the right hon. Member for Platting are here, and I think notice ought to have been given to them that their conduct was going to be called into account.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is a very cheap
  answer.
  Mr. BALDWIN: The development of this territory under the auspices of the Sudan Government, not of the British Government, is a development which will be, I believe, for the good of this country and, I hope, for the good of the Sudan, and I trust therefore hon. Members will agree to the Measure.
  Mr. SHINWELL: When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced his speech, he went up in my estimation because of his exceeding modesty. As he progressed in his

  2181
  speech, I could understand quite well that he spoke with his tongue in his check, and that modesty, as far as he was concerned, was conspicuous by its absence. The right hon. Gentleman has engaged to-night in one of the cheapest debating tricks I have heard for some time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Hon. Members must take their gruel when they get it. I am one of those who do not interrupt hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if they can only restrain themselves as I can on occasion, perhaps we may come to grips with the subject under review. What is the position? A definite and most specific statement has been made regarding the existence of a syndicate interested in the Sudan. Certain gentlemen interested in that syndicate are associated with certain right hon. Gentlemen in this assembly. There may be nothing at all in the association on the deputation, between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley and those who are more closely concerned with the particular syndicate, but the fact remains that the general public becomes more suspicious of these intimate relations, particularly when large sums of money are involved. An attempt has been made to bring the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) into this discussion. That right hon. Gentleman can speak for himself, but in so far as I may be permitted to express a view, with which I think he will not disagree, he on that deputation, representing, as he does, a Lancashire constituency, was interested in the cotton industry.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Paisley?"]—The hon. Member who spoke about Paisley knows that the situation in Paisley as far as the cotton industry is concerned is vastly different from the position in Lancashire so far as the cotton industry is concerned The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting has no relatives who are concerned—[An HON. MEMBER: "HOW do you know?"]—I know simply because I know, and hon. Members opposite do not know simply because they do not know. If hon. Members on the other side did know something critical of the right hon. Member for Platting, they would say it only too quickly.
  Captain ELLIOT: They would say it to his face, and not behind his back!
  Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. Member for a very small portion of the county of Lanarkshire would generate as much heat into his support of social reform as he does while debates are proceeding in this House, he would be a much more valuable Member of this Assembly. We impeach the Government, not that we think it will have very much effect, brass-faced as they are—
  Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Straight-faced, anyhow.
  Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) is a most amusing person. He rose to make some observations with regard to the desirability of continuing private enterprise, and indulged in a very loud wail about the difficulties of private enterprise on particular occasions. He cannot have it both ways. Either private enterprise is good or it is bad. In my judgment, it is often indifferent, and the hon. Member, when he endeavoured to make a case for private enterprise, and when he pleaded that private enterprise was not in quite so fortunate a position to-day as it was during the War—and it is admitted that private enterprise did exceedingly well during the War and that none of those who were engaged in private enterprise during the War required to approach the boards of guardians and similar authorities, and that none of those who are associated with private enterprise now, despite the alleged losses, require to approach the boards of guardians to-day or to line up at employment exchanges. [An HON. MEMBER: "How, again, do you know?"] May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is something in what he says about the absence of brains.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must re mind the hon. Member that he is getting rather far from the point.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the remarks of the hon. Members opposite, it is very difficult to circumscribe one's remarks. I suggest that there has been no reply from the Government Benches which is calculated to allay suspicion with regard to this syndicate which is to obtain a loan from the Government. My hon. friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) informed the right hon.

  2183
  Gentleman on the Treasury Bench of the relations between the syndicate and the Sudanese Government. £400,000 was borrowed by the syndicate from the Sudanese Government, and the loan which is now to be provided for the Sudanese Government may find its way, quite properly and quite naturally, and probably inevitably, into the pockets of the syndicate referred to by the hon. Member for Stirling, and that is precisely what we on these benches object to. We are not in this particular debate quarrelling about the merits of private enterprise as against public ownership. The hon. Member for Stockport tried vainly to side-track us, but we are not to be side-tracked by any consideration of that kind in this discussion. We are agreed that any proposal emanating from the Government, or from any other quarter which can produce more employment abroad or in this country is desirable, nut we wane to assure ourselves and those whom we represent that schemes contemplated by the Government, and put into operation either by themselves or by some intermediary body, shall be schemes which will not and do not permit of private enterprise and private interests extracting more profit than is their due.
  That is our view, and we are entitled to demand that, before State credits are provided, as in this instance, to a private syndicate—that is exactly what it means, having regard to the situation in the Sudan—we should have guarantees, explicit and specific guarantees, that profits will not be as profits have been, that there will not be a 25 per cent, dividend with bonuses on top of that, that there will not be a 25 per cent, dividend at a time when, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Stockport, profits are falling here at home and private enterprise is in a bad way. That is our case, and I submit that there has been no answer from the Treasury Benches which can allay suspicion. I have only this further observation to make. Hon. Members opposite seem to imagine that we on these benches have no other point of view to present than that of attacking private enterprise. They are mistaken. In so far as private enterprise must continue—and I presume it will continue, because of their presence on those benches, and I accept the fact, because I believe it to be desirable to face facts,
  2184
  that hon. Members opposite have been sent here by their constituents because all the constituencies in this country do not believe that private enterprise is wholly bad—I accept that, but hon. Members opposite must recognise that the minds of people are changing day by day. It is quite possible that the minds of hon. Members opposite may change, and if their minds were quite so open as they might well be, they would change much more rapidly than they do. Having regard to the necessarily continued existence of private enterprise—so long as hon. Members opposite are where they are—we do not merely content ourselves with attacking private enterprise, but we do say that if private enterprise is to maintain its existence, and to make out a case for itself, then it must not come to the State and ask the State to do for it what it cannot do for itself.
  CLAUSES 4 (Period for which guarantees under the Overseas Trade Acts may remain in force), 5 (Charm on the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling guarantees and presentation of annual statement to Parliament), and 6 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow (Friday).

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CLASS II.

    THE MINT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and for the Expenses of the preparation of Medals. Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."
    Mr. BALDWIN: I expect the Committee will desire some explanation of this Vote. As hon. Members know, the

    2185
    Mint generally brings a profit to the Exchequer. Before the War the average profit of the Mint was about £800,000. Over the War period there was an exceptionally large coinage of silver, the demand for that coin being enormous owing to the transactions that took place in this country. Since the War there has been a considerable contraction. There is still to-day a large amount of surplus coinage. Steps have had to be taken to withdraw the surplus coinage from circulation because it was merely lying in the coffers of the banks: it locked up capital and prevented it being employed for the purposes of trade. Similarly, the issue of new silver coinage has also been curtailed. The amount of coinage issued depends on the demand, and the demand at present is considerably less than was anticipated: in fact the estimate of the amount required this year has not been re-ached. These are the reasons for the presentation of this Supplementary estimate which I ask the Committee to pass.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I want to call the attention of the Committee to the causes of this trouble. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. When the Coinage Bill was introduced in 1920 I begged and prayed the then Chancellor of the Exchequer not to flood the kingdom with this debased money. But he laughed me to scorn. He said it was necessary to go on producing enormous quantities of money, and he did it. His unfortunate successor has now to take the coinage back. And what is it he has to call in? Coins on which the King's head occasionally comes off; coins on which the shield on the reverse side comes off; coins of a bad colour. Those of the last issue turn a pale saffron hue. I am not blaming the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that. It is his predecessor but one who is to blame. That right hon. Gentleman started this abominable currency for which no parallel can be found in the history of this country except in the coinage of Henry VIII., when six-pennyworth of base metal was worked into every silver shilling. Ear be it for me to draw any comparison between the Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible for this coinage and that bluff Tudor monarch, but they both have one thing in common: they both for a short space of years reduced the English coinage to a disgraceful condition which could not be paralleled from Peru to Abyssinia. Now
    2186
    that no more silver is apparently wanted, it is in the power of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to redeem this silver coinage, which is such a disgrace to English coinage, which for centuries from the days of King Alfred onwards has, with two exceptions, retained its purity. Again following what was done in the days of Henry VIII. it is necessary to withdraw this abominable, disreputable black-spotted money which was issued in 1920–21. I confess I have always been afraid there was a chance of making a few dishonest millions out of this coinage. Perhaps I am wrong, but everybody interested in coinage knows that when silver is only 32d. per oz., or when it is well up in the fifties, it can be coined with considerable profit to the Crown. I want my right hon. Friend to free us from this dreadful encumbrance of the 1920–21 coinage. I sent him for his private delectation some of the choicer specimens of this issue which had come into my hands from the bank. The right hon. Gentleman well knows what it is like, and I beg him, in the interests of common decency, to remove this awful disgrace from Great Britain.
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a little more information, because it is a fact that during the War we had 66 million pounds face value of silver coinage, which represented 500 million ounces of silver, and it is very difficult to understand why there should be a loss on our depreciated coinage at the present moment. The debasement of coins with a face value of anything like £66,000,000 to 500 fine, in lieu of 925 fine, must have supplied the Mint with a quantity of free silver to dispose of. I do not know that I go the whole distance with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir Charles Oman), but I do think that the coinage is no credit to us. It appears to me that we have depreciated our coinage, and our credit and we have lost money in doing so. As it has not been successful I think we should go back to the coinage to which we have been accustomed.

    SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Suplementary sum, not exceeding £5,866,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in

    2187
    course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): In ordinary circumstances I should ask for the sympathy of the Committee for having to present so large a Supplementary Estimate, which was the legacy of my predecessor. But I think, when the Committee have heard what I have to say on the matter, I shall be able to show them that there is no cause for searching on the part of the House in regard to this particular estimate, though the figure undoubtedly seems large at first sight. The point I wish to make first of all is that not a penny of this Supplementary Estimate is new expenditure. It is merely old liabilities extending from the time of the War that have been brought to account either sooner or later than had been anticipated in the estimate for the year. It concerns three sub-heads of the Shipping Liquidation Vote. I think I can make my point most clear to the Committee if, in a very few sentences, I explained exactly what the work of shipping liquidation involves. The Ministry of Shipping was a gigantic organisation. It spent during its career over £750,000,000, of which about £650,000,000 was recoverable. After the Armistice it moved about eight million men from all parts of the world, and at the time of the Armistice it had 647 ships under its control. This included Government-owned ships, prize ships, neutral requisitioned ships, time-chartered ships, and these ships were incurring charges in every port in every ocean and earning money at every port at the same time. The Ministry of Shipping had commercial transactions with every Allied Government, with nearly all the neutral Governments, every British shipping company, every British shipbuilding company, every repairing company in Britain, and every marine engineering company in this country. It built ships in every shipyard in this country, and it built ships in a great many shipyards in other countries as well. It controlled at one time three-quarters of the world's shipping and it took over the bulk of the ex-enemy mercantile marine. Four hundred and nineteen ex-enemy vessels were handed over to its charge and at
    2188
    the time of the Armistice it had 821 vessels building.
    This gigantic organisation, the Ministry of Shipping, was terminated on 31st March, 1921, and the Board of Trade took over to complete the liquidation. Everyone knows that the liquidation of an ordinary company is a long and a complicated business. Hon. Members will agree, I think, that the liquidation of the Ministry of Shipping has been not only a gigantic but also an exceedingly complicated task. I might mention to the Committee that since 1st April, 1921, to 31st October last over 114,000 different accounts have been settled. Some of these accounts are comparatively small; others involve gigantic amounts. During two years to the end of this financial year the Liquidation Department will have made payments of over 31 millions, while it will have collected debts of over 39 millions. This, naturally, has been very arduous and very complicated work.
    The Committee would also perhaps be interested to know that during this period from 1st April, 1921, to 31st October last the Shipping Liquidation Department of the Board of Trade has succeeded in effecting reductions in claims from creditors and has initiated recoveries amounting to over £4,800,000. That has been effected at an administrative cost of about £240,000, so the work of the Shipping Liquidation Department has resulted in a very great financial saving to the country. In preparing its estimates for the year, what the Shipping Liquidation Department has to do is not only to come to Parliament to ask Parliament to defray its administrative charges, but it also has to ask Parliament for the money which it anticipates it will have to pay out to meet claims that may be substantiated during the year against the Ministry of Shipping less the amount which it anticipates it will be able to recover from the Government's debtors. I want to make this point perfectly clear, because this is the sole reason why there is a Supplementary Estimate I have to bring before the House. It is quite impossible for the liquidator to be able to say with accuracy whether a certain settlement will come within a particular financial year or not. You cannot tell many months in advance on which side of 31st March any particular claims may be

    2189
    settled, and I would remind the Committee that many of these claims are before the Courts, many of them have been submitted to arbitration, many of them are the subject of protracted negotiations. Therefore, while the work of liquidating the assets and liabilities of the Ministry of Shipping is progressing as fast as it possibly can progress, it is not possible for the liquidator to say exactly in what financial year certain assets can be realised and certain claims will have to be met.
    This Supplementary Estimate is solely concerned with claims which have materialised, as I shall show to the Committee in a minute, either sooner or later than the liquidating department had anticipated. Not a penny of this money is required for administrative purposes. I will give the Committee an instance. Last year there was a big settlement by negotiation with the United States Government. They Claimed against the British Government a very large sum for services rendered. The Department anticipated that that settlement would be concluded before March 31st last, and they made provision in their Estimates for the year 1921–22. Accordingly while that settlement was not effected before March 31st last there were other receipts which came in earlier than anticipated, and therefore at the end of the last financial year the Shipping Liquidation Department had a surplus of 9½ millions which it had to hand over to the Treasury. This particular settlement with the United States Government, which involved a very big figure, was, as a matter of fact, completed and concluded last June, and it has resulted in a payment—a gross payment—by this country to the United States of £3,100,000, and although this money had been provided for in 1921–22 estimates, and had been voted by Parliament, it was not required, as it turned out, for the year 1921–22, and therefore had to be surrendered again to the Treasury. The settlement has taken place in the financial year 1922–23, therefore it has been necessary for the Department to come again to Parliament to ask for that money. That accounts for the largest item in these estimates.
    Now I come to subhead "G." If hon. Members turn to page 11 they will see that out of the £5,343,000 required
    2190
    under heading "G" £3,200,000 is required for settlements with other Governments not completed by 31st March, 1922. Out of that £3,200,000 all but £100,000 was required for the settlement with the United States Government to which I have referred. The remaining £100,000 is for a revote on a settlement which was come to with the Canadian Government but which was come to after March 31st, instead of before that date. The item of £900,000 in paragraph (c) of "G" is exactly the same, only in this case the settlements are with private firms and not with Governments. The item £1,243,000 in paragraph "G" (b) is the same in principle; it is for old liabilities that were not estimated to fall within the current year. They were old liabilities incurred during the War but vouchers for them were in accounts which had not been examined when this estimate was prepared. It turned out that there had been an under estimate of the liabilities that would be passed through during the current year. That accounts for by far the biggest item in this supplementary estimate. Other items are "J. Amounts due as the result of further adjudications of vessels as prize and final claims in respect of construction of vessels." £100,000 of that is a revote of final settlements which it was expected would be reached before March 31st in regard to the balance of accounts on vessels laid down in the United Kingdom during the War; and £250,000 is prize money in respect of ships that were condemned in the prize court during the year. When a ship that has been requisitioned by the Ministry of Shipping is condemned in the prize court the Ministry of shipping has to pay the money. The last item in the estimate is for money which is owing to the Government by ship owners and other private firms. It was anticipated that a sum of £2,850,000 would be collected from them in the current financial year and it is now thought likely that we shall succeed in collecting only £2,685,000. That does not mean that we shall not collect all the money, but we do not anticipate that we shall be able to come to a settlement during the current financial year.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The speech to which we have just listened ought to have been delivered at a more suitable hour, so that the country could have appreciated

    2191
    the manifold virtues of the Shipping Liquidation Department. I feel certain anyone who has listened to that speech will begin to realise the vast work the Department has done. Unfortunately, the one word we all wanted to hear was missing from the speech. "Shipping Liquidation" suggests that the Department might be liquidated, but I am afraid from the last words of the Noble Lord's speech that so far from its being liquidated we are likely to have, year after year, similar accounts, similar estimates, and, I am afraid, similar erroneous estimates. It was said that it was estimated that that £3,200,000 would be settled with the United States in the previous financial year, but to their surprise it was not settled till June. In that case why did they not prepare their estimates for 1921–22 with a view to meeting that liability? They must have known it was likely to be postponed and would not be met.
    Viscount WOLMER: They did.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case why was it not in the estimates for 1921–22?
    Viscount WOLMER: It was in the estimates for 1921–22, but not in the estimates for 1922–23.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I meant 1922–23. Why was it not in the estimates for 1922–23? They must have known when they were preparing the estimates that the settlement was not likely to be made. In any case it does show bad budgetting when you not only have that, but also no less a sum than £2,000,000, or over, underestimated in the amount of other charges to fall due during the year. But what we really want to know is when this department will come to an end. The difficulty we are beset with is that however rapid the Noble Lord may desire to make liquidation it is inevitable, as long as there is a job such as this to carry on, that the liquidators themselves will not hurry the conclusion of the liquidation. Can we be assured that the Government are taking steps to bring this very expensive and long drawn out liquidation to an end? How much more is there to collect, and what is the estimate of the total sums we are likely to be held liable for in succeeding years?
    Viscount WOLMER: I can give that easily. Perhaps I should have given it in my remarks. The department still has to meet claims of about £6,000,000, and hopes to be able to recover about £11,500,000; and it is anticipated that the bulk of this work will have been completed within the next two years. If my hon. and gallant Friend has followed the figures I have given he will see that tremendous savings have been secured to the country as a result of the work of the Shipping Liquidation Department, and I can assure him that that work is being brought to a close as soon as possible. It would be very bad economy to pay accounts without examination.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I should like to congratulate my Noble Friend on what is, I think, his first experience in introducing an estimate. He has done it with very great skill and ability. Perhaps he erred somewhat on the side of giving the Committee too many figures that may conceivably be used against him in the future. All I want to do is to point out that, even on the original estimate for this year, 1922–23 was the first year when the Shipping Liquidation Commission showed a net loss, and this supplementary estimate is an increase on what was already a net loss. I wish to remind the noble Lord that last summer the then President of the Board of Trade, while he gave no pledge of the House, anticipated that it would be possible to get rid of the temporary war Departments now under the Board of Trade. He anticipated, or at least hoped, to get rid of them by 31st March next. The Shipping Liquidation Commission is continued for two years in the hope that it will have to pay out £6,000,000 and be able to collect £11,000,000. The record of this year is no sufficient guarantee of a profit of very nearly 100 per cent, being made on the Department in the future. I do think that the Government should realise that we feel very doubtful as to the whole conduct of this liquidation, which appears to take the part of liquidation for liquefaction.
    Mr. SHINWELL: With regard to the transactions of the Shipping Liquidation Board, and with relation to the estimates, I think that the estimate itself is most unsatisfactory inasmuch as it does not indicate any details which would guide

    2193
    the House as to the need for an estimate of this kind. We are entitled, in the first place, to know something in regard to the prices at which the ships obtained from the enemy were disposed of, and to whom they were sold. We are also entitled to know whether the sum which accrues after ships have been disposed of and expenses paid—whether the balance remaining is devoted to any social service or is merely part of the national revenue to relieve the taxation. Is any part of it used for the purpose of carrying out the reparation pledges which were made to seamen of the mercantile marine? The late Prime Minister made certain promises some time ago to a deputation which addressed him on the subject of the reparation claims for the mercantile marine. The pledges have not yet been implemented and we, who have some connection with seafaring men, are entitled to ask for some fulfilment of the pledges which have been made.
    I want, in addition, to ask the Noble Lord a question with regard to the method which was in operation when these ships were disposed of. I understand that Lord Inchcape was responsible for the major part of this. On 7th December, 1921, he said that 445 vessels had realised about £20,000,000. I am informed that certain of these ships; were disposed of to firms such as the White Star Line, the Cunard Line and the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services. So far as I know no information has been furnished by the Shipping Ministry, the Board of Trade, or any cognate Department, with regard to the sums received from these firms as payment for the ships handed over to them. I hope the Noble Lord will satisfy our desire for information on the matter to-night. There is another observation I shall make with regard to the methods adopted by some of the firms who have purchased vessels from the Shipping Disposal Board and then disposed of them to ex-enemy countries. I want to submit to the House an instance. I notice in the Journal of Commerce to-day that the Anchor Line has disposed of the "Algeria" to the Hamburg-America Line, the price not being stated. The "Algeria" is an ex-German vessel, and was purchased two years ago. I wish to know what the Anchor Line paid for this vessel, and whether they have disposed of the vessel for more, or less,
    2194
    than they paid to the Shipping Disposal Board? I think that that is a pertinent question. The Prime Minister said the other day with regard to the gift of German ships to this country under the Treaty of Versailles that it did not affect shipbuilding, because if Germany had retained these ships the effect would have been much the same as at present; that it would not have disturbed the carrying trade of the world. But vessels such as the "Majestic," which is owned by the White Star Line, the "Berengeria," which is owned by the Cunard, and the "Kaiserine Augusta Victoria," now the "Empress of Scotland," and owned by the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services, are vessels which are essentially passenger vessels, and would have been contructed in the shipbuilding yards of this country to meet the exigencies of the passenger trade to the United States and Canada. We would have required ships to carry passengers and we could not have depended on the activities of the German shipping companies. There is an additional point I wish to make. The trade of Germany is increasing day by day and the shipping at one of the largest ports in Germany—Hamburg—has improved tremendously during the past six months. In addition to that the German shipbuilding yards are busier than for some time past as a result of the gift of reparation ships. Thus there is an increased number of ships capable of carrying the trade of the world, instead of a normal quantity, having regard to the normal conditions. The number is larger because of the German shipbuilding activities. That is an important consideration. My shipowning friends will understand that.
    Arrangements, I understand, have been made to finish the Debate about this time. Can we be provided with information regarding these points, and will the Noble Lord give his sympathetic attention to the claims submitted by merchant seamen with regard to reparation?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We had a bargain to close at one o'clock. That means that we shall not be able to discuss other items, and the McGrigor's Bank estimate will have to go through without discussion—[HON MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is a bargain and we have to keep a bargain.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: You have no right to bind us like that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point I wish to make is this. All the things we cannot discuss to-night can be discussed on the Report stage and the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday and Thursday of next week. Subjects can then be brought forward.
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. If we carry this on to-night, will we simply be able to talk and do nothing?
    The CHAIRMAN: All the Resolutions passed in Committee have to be reported, and there will be an opportunity on the Report stage for discussion and for moving Amendments.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: May we take it that on the Report stage there will be an opportunity for discussion on some of these Estimates? Personally, I want to raise one thing, the vote for McGrigor's Bank. If I raised it now it would be a breach of the Parliamentary bargain which has been made and I would like to postpone it to the Report stage.
    Mr. HOGGE: I think it is vital in view of the arrangement we have made in the House of Commons that this should be said. These bargains were made between the Government and between the Opposition Whips. This agreement was arranged and what was given in view of the one o'clock closure to-night was that the debate on unemployment should be taken as the first order to-morrow, thus giving an opportunity of discussing unemployment from eleven till four to-morrow instead of discussing it in the small hours of the night when there can be no report. These arrangements have got to be made and the Whip representing the hon. Members behind must make them. Your Labour as well as your Liberal Whips have made them and unless we are prepared to honour these agreements we cannot carry on proceedings in this House. Labour after all has scored to this extent that in return for what the Prime Minister has done to-night they will get a full-dress Debate to-morrow on
    2196
    unemployment. I think we must agree to this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

  CLASS III.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY, &C.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £933,841, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including Expenses of Dublin Metropolitan Police Pension and certain extra Statutory Payments."

  CLASS II.

    HOUSEHOLD OF THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,360, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."

  CLASS VI.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (IRELAND) GRANT.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £282,875, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1923, for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Officers and Men in Ireland, including Grants for Education and Resettlement and for other purposes, and for Pensions Appeals Tribunals."

  UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

    REFUGEES (IRELAND) GRANTS.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for grants to Refugees from Ireland for the relief of distress."

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1922–23.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £340,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charges for Army Services

    2197
    which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year, on account of Compensation to Army Officers and others."
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next (11th December).
    Committee to sit again To-morrow (Friday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKBE adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Six Minutes after One o'Clock.

AGRICULTURE.
  LABOURERS' WAGES, WALES.
  LABOURERS' WAGES, WALES.
  IRISH STORE CATTLE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
  IRISH STORE CATTLE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
  ELECTRICAL POWER (WINDMILLS).
  ELECTRICAL POWER (WINDMILLS).
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (CONSUMERS).
  COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (CONSUMERS).
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS.
  HOME PRODUCE AND IMPORTS.
  HOME PRODUCE AND IMPORTS.
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  ALLOTMENTS AND SMALL HOLDINGS.
  ALLOTMENTS AND SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  PRISONERS AS WITNESSES (HANDCUFFS).
  PRISONERS AS WITNESSES (HANDCUFFS).
  FACTORY ACTS.
  FACTORY ACTS.
  PRISON OFFICERS' SALARIES.
  PRISON OFFICERS' SALARIES.
  COUNTY COURT OFFICERS.
  COUNTY COURT OFFICERS.
  DOCK REGULATIONS (INFRINGEMENTS).
  DOCK REGULATIONS (INFRINGEMENTS).
  FOOTPATHS (RULES).
  FOOTPATHS (RULES).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RENT ALLOWANCES).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (RENT ALLOWANCES).
  LICENSED HOUSES, MONMOUTH (SUNDAY OPENING).
  LICENSED HOUSES, MONMOUTH (SUNDAY OPENING).
  NATIONAL FLAG (IRISH FREE STATE).
  NATIONAL FLAG (IRISH FREE STATE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PETTY OFFICERS (FORE AND AFT RIG).
  PETTY OFFICERS (FORE AND AFT RIG).
  WRITER BRANCH (PROMOTION).
  WRITER BRANCH (PROMOTION).
  NORTH CORNER, DEVONPORT.
  NORTH CORNER, DEVONPORT.
  NEW BATTLESHIPS.
  NEW BATTLESHIPS.
  ROYAL MARINE SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ROYAL MARINE SCHOOLMASTERS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TROOPS ABROAD.
  TROOPS ABROAD.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  CIVIL AVIATION.
  CIVIL AVIATION.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ATTENDANCE ALLOTVANCE.
  ATTENDANCE ALLOTVANCE.
  VOLUNTARY WORKERS (EXPENSES).
  VOLUNTARY WORKERS (EXPENSES).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (R. A. DRAKE).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (R. A. DRAKE).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. MCMANUS).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. MCMANUS).
  MENTAL CASES (P. M'ALINDER).
  MENTAL CASES (P. M'ALINDER).
  ASSESSMENT TRIBUNAL (AWARDS).
  ASSESSMENT TRIBUNAL (AWARDS).
  EDUCATION GRANTS (WITHDRAWAL).
  EDUCATION GRANTS (WITHDRAWAL).
  ENEMY ACTION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  ENEMY ACTION (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  ARMAMENT FIRMS (PLANT).
  ARMAMENT FIRMS (PLANT).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORTS ANP EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS ANP EXPORTS.
  BELGIAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.
  BELGIAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT CLOTH (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT CLOTH (DISPOSAL).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  MARCH TO LONDON.
  MARCH TO LONDON.
  DEWSBURY UNEMPLOYED.
  DEWSBURY UNEMPLOYED.
  DOCKYARD WORKERS.
  DOCKYARD WORKERS.
  EXCHANGES, WALES (MANAGERS).
  EXCHANGES, WALES (MANAGERS).
HOUSING.
  UNFIT HOUSES.
  UNFIT HOUSES.
  SITES FOR HOUSES (COST).
  SITES FOR HOUSES (COST).
  HUTS, SHEFFIELD.
  HUTS, SHEFFIELD.
  EX-SEEVICE MEN.
  EX-SEEVICE MEN.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  DENTISTS ACT.
  DENTISTS ACT.
  RIVER SEVERN (TIDAL POWER).
  RIVER SEVERN (TIDAL POWER).
EDUCATION.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, WELSH COUNTIES.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, WELSH COUNTIES.
  DAY-TIME CENTRES.
  DAY-TIME CENTRES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  RURAL INDUSTRIES INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.
  RURAL INDUSTRIES INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS (AGE LIMIT).
  CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS (AGE LIMIT).
  INCOME TAX ASSESSORS (REMUNERATION).
  INCOME TAX ASSESSORS (REMUNERATION).
  WAR COMPENSATION AWARD (PENARTH PIER).
  WAR COMPENSATION AWARD (PENARTH PIER).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  SILVER COINAGE.
  SILVER COINAGE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS POLICE.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS POLICE.
SCOTLAND.
  HARBOUR REPAIRS (GRANTS).
  HARBOUR REPAIRS (GRANTS).
  LAND COURT (MARQUESS OF GRAHAM'S PETITION).
  LAND COURT (MARQUESS OF GRAHAM'S PETITION).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, AYRSHIRE (LOANS).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, AYRSHIRE (LOANS).
  BAGHDAD (HIGH COMMISSIONER S RESIDENCE).
  BAGHDAD (HIGH COMMISSIONER S RESIDENCE).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY FARES (CONVALESCENT PATIENTS).
  RAILWAY FARES (CONVALESCENT PATIENTS).
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (LLEYN PENINSULA).
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (LLEYN PENINSULA).
  MOTOR TAXATION.
  MOTOR TAXATION.
  LONDON AND TILBURY (MIDLAND ROUTE).
  LONDON AND TILBURY (MIDLAND ROUTE).
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (FREIGHTS).
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (FREIGHTS).
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
POST OFFICE.
  SUB-OFFICE, USSIE VALLEY.
  SUB-OFFICE, USSIE VALLEY.
  WIRELESS STATION, LERWICK.
  WIRELESS STATION, LERWICK.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  NEW BUILDINGS, BODMIN.
  NEW BUILDINGS, BODMIN.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' CORRESPONDENCE).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' CORRESPONDENCE).
  SUB-OFFICES (GIRL CLERKS).
  SUB-OFFICES (GIRL CLERKS).
  PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, LONDON, W.C.
  PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, LONDON, W.C.
  GREECE (EXECUTION OF EX-MINISTERS).
  GREECE (EXECUTION OF EX-MINISTERS).
  SUDAN.
  SUDAN.
  COAL MINES (RATING).
  COAL MINES (RATING).
  ASSIZES (DURHAM).
  ASSIZES (DURHAM).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD MACLAY.
The Right Hon. Sir Joseph Paton Maclay, Bart., having been created Baron MACLAY of Glasgow in the County of Lanark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

RELATIONS WITH GREECE.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to ask His -Majesty's. Government whether they are in a position to explain the circumstances in which His Majesty's Minister has been withdrawn from Athens, and in doing so I will add only a very few sentences. The only statement of policy that we have had with regard to the withdrawal of our Minister from Athens is a statement which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister the other day. In the House of Commons, in reply to a Question addressed to him, the Prime Minister said that it was contrary to the practice of civilised countries to execute Ministers who had failed in their policy. I take it, therefore, from His Majesty's Government, that the attitude of this country towards Greece was more that of a gesture of horror on the part of a civilised country at the events which had taken place, and that it was not a protest in regard to any specific British interest. If this should be the case it would appear that we acted alone, and that in acting alone our position was somewhat weakened.
What are the facts of the case? They are these. Our own Minister has been removed from Athens; so far as we can judge from the public Press, the Minister for Italy is at Athens but has been instructed by his Government to break off diplomatic relations with the Government of Greece; while the representatives of the United States and France are at Athens, and only the other day they visited the Foreign Minister of Greece to make their protest to him against the events which lave lately taken place. If these facts be true, it would seem that the policy of His Majesty's Government was in one direction, that of
330
the representatives of France and of the United States was in an almost diametrically opposite direction, and that of the Italian Government was of an intermediate character. If that is so, and as far as we can judge that is the situation, no doubt His Majesty's Government have very excellent reasons for the action they have taken, and I am sure we may look forward to hearing those reasons from the lips of the noble Marquess.
We should bear in mind that grave criticisms wore made against the representatives of the late Government for pursuing a precisely similar line of action, and that when time Turks advanced on Gallipoli, and threatened to march into Europe, and His Majesty's Government announced their intention of resisting them, at once criticisms were made that it was vital for His Majesty's Government to got the co-operation of both France and Italy. Yet on the first occasion of a change of Government we perceive that His Majesty's Ministers adopt an attitude which suggests that this spirit of independence still survives. And I ask the noble Marquess this Question: If this spirit of independence still survives, is it due to the fact that we tried to get co-operation from the Government of France and the Government of Italy, and failed; or is it that we felt our-selves entitled to act alone? Independence of action brings with it its consequences, and the consequence is that at this present moment the Diplomatic Corps at Athens is complete except for the presence of the representative of Great Britain. Sooner or later he will have to return. And I ask the noble Marquess, on what terms will he return? What are the terms which His Majesty's Government will insist on the Greek Government carrying out before its representative is permitted to return to Athens and resume diplomatic relations?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Duke has amplified his Question by not very many, but a few, observations. Let me say in the first place, in reply to those supplementary observations, that there was no difference so far as I am aware in the opinions entertained by the Western European Powers as to the disapprobation of the Greek Revolutionary Government in the circumstances Which are now the, subject or inquiry. There was a general opinion, I think, throughout

331
the whole of the West of Europe as to the feeling that we ought to entertain on such a subject, though it is perfectly true that the method by which that feeling was displayed differed in degree.
I do not see any analogy between the action of the British Government in Athens and the action, a few months ago, of the British Government in respect of the Turks at the Dardanelles. That latter matter was a very important warlike operation which might have led to very serious consequences, and certainly criticisms were made against His Majesty's late Government that they had not secured the co-operation of France before they entered upon that policy. But I do not think any parallel could be drawn between that very grave matter and this matter, which, however we may reprobate it, is of very minor importance.
In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the Ministers were tried and condemned by an extraordinary Court-Martial which was set up by a Decree of the Revolutionary Committee dated October 25. Repeated efforts were made by Mr. Lindley, His Majesty's Minister in Athens, to procure a trial before a Civil Court, and subsequently to prevent the carrying out of the death penalty. These efforts were made upon the general ground that it is contrary to the practice of civilised Governments to put to death outgoing Ministers by revolutionary action and upon the special ground that for historical reasons Great Britain stands in a special position of influence in Greece. We felt it, therefore, to be our duty, if our remonstrance was ignored, to show in some manner that could not be misunderstood how strong would be the disapproval of His Majesty's Government, and to withdraw His Majesty's Minister. In the event, our remonstrance was ignored, and the Minister was withdrawn accordingly. I do not doubt that in consequence the strong opinion of His Majesty's Government has been duly realised in Athens.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I do not rise exactly to criticise the course of conduct which in difficult circumstances the Government pursued, but the result has certainly been extremely unfortunate. Still less do I intend to criticise in any way the action taken by the Greek Revolutionary Committee, not because my sentiments on the matter are
332
in the least likely to be divergent from those of the noble Marquess and his Government,—because, after all, it is not a matter which primarily is advantageous when decisions have been taken and action has been followed, and when we have no principal responsibility in the matter, to reflect at all upon subjects which are not very obviously our concern—but the withdrawal of a Minister is always, of course, a very inconvenient process, and it would, I think, have been very much better if we had been guided in this matter by the advice which the Government so frequently gave to us when they were in opposition and we were in power, that they should secure common action among all the Allies.
There were several lacuncœ in the interesting statement made by the noble Marquess. He did not for instance inform us whether our Minister at Athens associated himself with the representatives of the United States of America, France and Italy at the time when he made the remonstrances which preceded the execution. It is, I suppose, evident that remonstrances and warnings proceeding from the representatives of all those Powers would be far more likely to be effective than remonstrances proceeding from the representative of this country alone. And if that were not done, it was on the whole, I think your Lordships will agree, a regrettable omission.
But what certainly is clear is this, that in withdrawing the Minister we, and we alone, have apparently felt ourselves called upon to take this step. Here I must confess I feel grave doubt as to the wisdom of the course that has been pursued. In the first place, we do not, I suppose, wish to make seriously the claim that we are a more moral nation than the French, and the Italians, and the Americans, or that we are a more sensitive nation. We should hardly be bold enough, I think, to put forward the claim that we possess a more sensitive moral character, so that we are more deeply affronted by events which we deplore than the representatives of other countries. And it would appear, therefore, to be plain that we have felt it necessary to mark our feeling in this matter in a manner which has not recommended itself to any one of our Allies.
The Government will, I venture to predict, discover that it is a very easy thing I to say: "Let us maintain complete

333
accord and harmony with our Allies; let us always act with our Allies." The noble Marquess spoke a moment ago of the failure of the late Government on more than one occasion to march side by side with France iii all these post-war difficulties. I think, perhaps, that the Government will discover, and will discover at an early date, that to utter these pious admonitions of harmony, and to adhere to them in practice in all the ramifications of foreign policy at this moment, are very different things. You can march in harmony very easily with all your Allies if on every point of sincere and conscientious difference of opinion yon surrender your own point of view. There is no difficulty in that. But the difficulties of the Govermnent will arise, when, being unwilling, as they will be unwilling, to surrender their own point of view, they discover that there are divergences of opinion which are Sometimes fundamental.
The present case is hardly so grave as others that I have in my mind. But the noble Marquess did not answer a point, and one of some importance, that the noble Duke put. The question is this. We have taken away the Minister. I need not point out to your Lordships how intimate and how Various are the commercial interests that we have in Athens, and in Greece generally—certainly of the very-highest importance as far as a small country is concerned. It is the ditty of the Minister to give assistance of that kind to English national and citizens who find themselves in Greece for commercial and other purposes. Is it a wise thing to place this community, and at this moment of all others when trade in every part of Europe is showing some slight flicker of revival and when every degree of fostering protection that can be given should be given—is it a wise thing to put our citizens in Athens at an obvious and even admitted disadvantage as compared with the citizens of the United States of America, who are not less anxious than we are to add to their trade, and as compared with the citizens of France and the citizens of Italy.
If we are told, as we may be told, that although the Minister has left some representative is still in Athens able to give attention to these matters, two criticisms suggest themselves upon that point. First, that it is quite obvious that the Minister would be the man at once more responsible
334
and more capable for the purposes of safeguarding English interests than one who, up to quite recently was a subordinate acting under the direction of the Minister and carrying out his policy. The second observation which falls to be made upon that point is that the dramatic force of the gesture—the removal of the British Minister—is very greatly diminished if at the same time we say to anybody who points out the grave consequences of that removal: "Oh yes, but we have left all the rest, there; it is only the Minister who has gone." I do not see where the moral gesture conies in if you say: "We remove A, but B, C and D are still there."Unoaculso, non deficit alter.
One other difficulty presents itself in this matter. How long is this gesture of moral indignation to be maintained? Is it for a week; is it for a month; is it for six months? It is always very difficult to take a decision of this kind. It is like a man who receives some affront from another man and decides to cut him. It is very easy to cut a man once; but if you happen to he thrown into association with him in business so that you have to meet him every day it is extremely inconvenient, indeed impossible, to go on cutting him. Then the awkward question presents itself: At what moment am I to cease cutting him, and once more grant him the compliment of recognition?
When you remove a Minister, you find yourself in the same difficulty as we did when, in our horror at the murder of Queen Draga and others in Serbia, we withdrew our Minister from Serbia. At that time we acted in concert, if I am not mistaken, with all the representatives of the civilized Powers. Therefore, without any particular loss of dignity we were able to take that step and to restore diplomatic relations once more. But our Minister was withdrawn with every circumstance of publicity from Athens when it was thought necessary to adopt the same course. But we shall have to make up our minds very soon, I imagine, either to send back that Minister or another, and then the question will, undoubtedly, present itself: Was it worth while for the sake of maintaining this isolated attitude of extreme indignation for the space of three, or four, or five weeks to have made ourselves responsible for the dislocation? I ask time noble Marquess—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no doubt whatever that it has already done a great deal of good.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I do not know; that may be. I am not disposed to be dogmatic upon the matter; it seems to me to be very difficult indeed to be sure, or to speak dogmatically, upon such a point. But that does not affect the point I was discussing at the moment, and that was whether the noble Marquess could give us any indication at all as to bow long this interruption of our representation at Athens is to last.
I would only add that it seems to me t hat there may be an explanation, though not an altogether adequate one, of the course adopted by the Government. It occurred to me when I was trying to discover some adequate explanation of it, that in the hope of saving the lives of these men before the decision was irrevocably taken that their lives would not be spared, it may have occurred to His Majesty's Government that the threat of removing our Minister might have been, as it might have been, a decision which made for mercy; that they made the threat in that expectation which, unfortunately, the event falsified and then found themselves compelled to carry out the threat which they had previously made in those circumstances. However that may be, if the noble Marquess is in a position—he may easily not be, and of that I make no complaint—to tell your Lordships how long this interruption is going to last, I shall be very grateful to him.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as one who, in former years, passed some time in the diplomatic service, I confess that I feel somewhat surprised at the action taken by the two noble Lords opposite. As I understand it, they have both found fault with His Majesty's Government for not having consulted with their Allies upon this particular point. I presume, to put it roughly, that the attitude of the Government is this—that upon all questions of policy they do consult their Allies as much as they can, including not only France and Italy but other Allies. But this is not a question of policy at all. This, as I understand it, is a question of humanity anal Justice, and I altogether dissent from the views expressed by the noble Earl and by the noble Duke that, on questions of this kind, we are to consult with every one of
336
our Allies as to whether their particular point of view agrees with ours.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Earl would condescend to accept me as a reputable witness, but I have some acquaintance with these Balkan countries and I am perfectly certain that the noble Marquess is correct in saying that our action has produced an excellent effect. This is not the first occasion of the sort. We suspended diplomatic relations for a long period with Mexico—I forget how long it lasted—in consequence of the action of the Mexican Government. Later on, as the noble and learned Earl reminded us, we suspended diplomatic relations with Serbia. I forget whether we withdrew only our Minister or the whole Mission, but we suspended diplomatic relations with that nation. If I am not mistaken, we did that without consulting our Allies at all. I do not wish to be egotistical—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: We had not any Allies then.
LORD NEWTON: We were on just as good terms with the people as we are now.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But we had no Allies then.
LORD NEWTON: As a matter of fact, in a case of that kind you do not consult your Allies at all. You consult your colleagues and ask them what they are going to do. In the particular case of Serbia my recollection is that nobody was consulted, but that we withdrew our Minister upon our own initiative. Those are cases which have occurred and I can conceive of other cases where it might very well occur.
A short time ago I was in Sofia, and there I found in gaol, as it might be in Marlborough Street Police Station, former Prime Ministers corresponding, say, to Lord Rosebery, Lord Landsowne, Mr. Asquith and even the noble and learned Earl opposite, all in gaol and for no particular cause alleged against them. I visited these unfortunate statesmen and they assured me that no definite charge had been brought against them at all. Anyhow, these Ministers were arrested on different grounds. It was said that some of them were too warlike, and others had not made peace quickly enough. Anyhow, they were all locked up, and a short time

337
ago a Referendum was taken on the subject of their trial. And I have very little doubt, from such knowledge as I have of those countries, that before long they will be condemned to death. If they are condemned to death, I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will repeat the action they have taken in the case of these Greek people, and that in the case of these men who, as in the case of the Greeks, are politicians and statesmen with whom we have had official relations, they will do their best, if necessary, to save their lives.
This question of whether you are to suspend diplomatic relations or not seems to me to be one which depends entirely upon circumstances. Anybody might reasonably contend that if we suspend our diplomatic relations with Greece it is rather absurd that we should not have suspended diplomatic relations with the Turks when they massacred occasionally thousands and thousands of Armenians and other Christians. So far as I recollect, there never was any question of suspending relations at all. I will not profess to analyse the motives, but I will conclude by venturing to express the opinion that each case must be judged upon its merits and that you cannot lay down any fixed rule upon the subject. So far as I am concerned, I believe the action which has been taken by His Majesty's Government will be emphatically approved by everyone who has any knowledge of the circumstances.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE FOREIGN SECRETARY AND M. GOUNARIS.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether the correspondence published in the last issue of the Sunday Express and purporting to be between M. Gounaris and the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston is authentic; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Government a Question which I have put on the Paper as to whether or not the correspondence purporting to have taken place between the noble Marquess who leads the House, Lord Curzon, and M. Gounaris, which was published the Sunday Express of last Sunday, is an authentic correspondence or not. I assume it to be so—not that I have to my knowledge, in spite of my being at the time a
338
member of the Government, ever seen any of the letters before—because it would appear to be evident that no paper of responsibility, as the Sunday Express undoubtedly is, would have published such correspondence if it had not satisfied itself fully of the fact that the letters were authentic. I think it, would be convenient—it is a matter of the highest possible importance, and I will reserve any comments I desire to make upon them till then—if I read the letters to your Lordships because it may be that some of you have not, up to the present, been aware of their contents.
The first letter was written from the Greek Legation on February 15, 1922, to Lord Curzon, and was signed by M. Gounaris. It is as follows:—
"My Lord Marquess,
"On October 27, 1921, your Lordship was pleased to communicate to M. Baltazzi and myself the views of the British Government in regard to the situation in the Near East. From the consideration of the situation ill this region in connection with the general political situation, your Lordship drew the conclusion that the speedy establishment of peace was in the common interest of all parties. With a view to securing such a peace your Lordship urged us to place ourselves in the hands of three Allied Powers, whose joint mediation the British Government would try to obtain. Bearing in mind the sympathy and interest felt by the British Government for Greece, and once more manifested by your Lordship on the occasion of this interview, we decided, after careful deliberation and after consultation with our colleagues in Athens, that it was in the interest of Greece to adhere to your Lordship's proposal. Various circumstances which your Lordship is more competent to appreciate than myself have hitherto deferred a solution of the problem and more than three months have elapsed without it having proved possible to establish peace in spite of the sincere efforts of your Lordship to that end.
"During this interval the Greek Government did not lose sight of the fact that the surest foundation for the negotiation of peace with Turkey in the common interest of the Allies who jointly conducted the war against that Power and will jointly conclude the peace, consisted in the maintenance of the military status quo in Anatolia. To this end the Greek Government has strained its energies to the utmost to keep the Greek Array in its present position. The British Government will readily understand the serious difficulties which the Greek Government had to face in this connection. The Greek Army has remained more or less constantly mobilised for the past nine years, Further, the strong patriotic feeling of the soldiers and the consciousness of their mission to liberate their brethren under the Turkish yoke and reunite them to the fatherland—these feelings. which have served to neutralise their natural war-weariness, have been adversely affected by the growing probability that the coming peace will not fully secure the realisation of the omission of which they are conscious.
"The steady depletion of the financial resources of the country, moreover, unavoidably involved increasing difficulty in supplying the needs of the Army and correspondingly increasing hardships for the troops in Asia Minor. In spite of these difficulties it has hitherto proved possible for Greece to meet the situation. Her exertions to this end have, however, created a state of things to which I feel it my duty to draw your Lordship's attention in the hope that the interest which we know the British Government to feel in the matter will impel them to accord it their careful consideration with a view to facilitating the discovery of means to meet the present difficulties which must needs prove insuperable for Greece, if she be left to her own resources.
"2. In particular I wish to bring to your Lordship's knowledge that the financial resources of the Greek Government are completely exhausted. In anticipation of this inevitable development I repeatedly approached the British Government with a view to their granting facilities for the cent lesion of a loan in the British market. Consequent on this, an Agreement was signed on December 22, 1921, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself whereby the British Government signified its consent to the conclusion of a loan not exceeding £15,000,000, and to the granting of security for such loan. In spite of this action of the British Government it has not yet proved possible to conclude the loan. Meanwhile, information from Athens represented the situation of the Treasury as growing steadily worse, and the latest telegrams state that the Government is completely unable to meet the expenditure on the upkeep of the Army for the first half of February (O.S.) in spite of the fact that in the meanwhile disbursements of public; money on any other object have practically ceased.
"3. Over and above this complete financial impasse, it should he recalled that the campaigning season in Asia Minor is approaching. Little inure than a month separates us from the date on which operations were resumed last year. Meanwhile, the enemy has been reinforced in men and supplies.
"Under these circumstances the Greek Command in Asia Minor state that they cannot undertake to give an assurance of their ability to cope with the contingency of a Turkish offensive unless they receive (1), reinforcements sufficient to raise the units under them to full strength and thus neutralise the present Turkish superiority in number; (2) supplies of fresh war material (especially aeroplanes, machine guns, and motor lorries), these being indispensable if the mobility of the Army is not to be affected; and (3), financial assistance as the present financial position of the Army is desperate.
"Unless these conditions are fulfilled the Command consider that the impending Turkish offensive will expose the Army to very serious dangers and urgently request that the above measures be instantly taken or, should they prove to be impracticable, that an order be instantly given to avoid the dangers foreseen through a withdrawal, while it is yet time to take the initiative of a withdrawal before being forced to it by the development of the situation. They consider further that such a withdrawal must necessarily amount to it complete evacuation of Asia Minor, since no line mere to the west would afford, in
340
the event of withdrawal from the fortified line now held, stronger defensive positions which would enable the Army to hold out without strengthening it by the measures above indicated.
"Finally, the Command of the Asia Minor Army add that should the enemy receive yet further reinforcements it would become necessary similarly to reinforce our own Army by calling up fresh classes to the Colours, so as to neutralise the accession of strength to the enemy.
"With regard to the above the Greek Government is indeed in a position to meet the call for more troops in both of the cases contemplated. Clearly, however, the Greek Government is not in a position to furnish the Asia Minor Army with the financial assistance of which it is in such need, or to supply the necessary war material, least of all in the event of the calling up of fresh classes, when considerable additional armament will be indispensable."
There follows some other matter which is not of the same importance, and which, as it is somewhat lengthy, I do not find it necessary to read, but I have read enough to make it plain that here was a document of the very first State importance. It was a document in which the Greek Government, through its representative, the late M. Gounaris, put before the Foreign Secretary these propositions—" We cannot maintain ourselves in Asia Minor unless we are given financial aid. We cannot maintain ourselves in Asia Minor unless we are given machine guns, ammunition, and military equipment generally," and he adds: "If you are not able to give us this assistance let us know in time in order that we may withdraw. At this moment there is still time to withdraw; in a month or two there will be no time to withdraw."
I was taking at that time, as many of my Cabinet colleagues were, a deep interest in the position of Greece in Asia Minor, feeling profound anxiety as to the safety of her troops and the consequences of defeat at the hands of the Turkish Army, and I am confident that I never saw that letter. I am confident that tins most grave matter was not circulated to me. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who was a colleague of mine, and a Cabinet Minister, will be able to tell me whether my recollection is correct on that point so far as he is concerned.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was not a Cabinet Minister then.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am much obliged. My noble friend Lord Lee of Fareham tells me that he never saw it.

341
I know that had that document been circulated the first thing I should have done would have been to have asked for a Cabinet meeting in order that the most grave question of our responsibility to the Greeks might be discussed, and that we might acquit ourselves of it. Had I seen that letter I should have said to the Greeks, as far as it fell to me to address a message to them: "If you cannot maintain yourselves there we cannot give you financial assistance. We cannot give you military equipment; and if this is really your position, clear out at once; withdraw at once. "Think of the misfortunes and horrors that would have been avoided had such advice been given. We had not the opportunity, because I never saw the letter, nor did, so far as I know, any one of my colleagues.
How is that letter answered, according to the Sunday Express? I say plainly that I should not have made this document public myself—I should not have taken such a responsibility—but time Sunday Express has thought it proper to do so, and that is their business not mine. As they have been made public they require discussion and explanation. This is the answer given by the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon.
LORD REAVERBROOK: The answer was not published in the Sunday Express.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am obliged for the correction. As the letter to which it is an answer was published your Lordships will consider—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble and learned Earl tell us where he has obtained a copy of the letter he is going to read?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I would rather not tell the noble Marquess unless he wishes to dispute its authenticity. If he does not know whether it is authentic or not, I will postpone the Question until he has had an opportunity of satisfying himself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not disputing its authenticity. If the noble and learned Earl takes the responsibility of publishing a confidential document, that is his concern.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It is not a question of publishing documents.
342
The document to which this is an answer has been published in the Press. A reply was sent by Lord Curzon. If the noble Marquess, in the absence of Lord Curzon—and it is a formidable circumstance—does not feel that he is able to deal with the matter, or has not the knowledge as to whether this letter was actually sent by Lord Curzon, an elementary sense of fairness would lead me to postpone further discussion of the Question until Lord Curzon is here himself. There are certainly advantages in that course.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Earl having read one document now asks me to take the responsibility of stopping him from reading another. I should have thought that the reflection would have occurred to the noble and learned Earl as to the absence of Lord Curzon before he entered upon the debate. He seems to have realised it rather late in the day and I shall not take any responsibility in guiding him.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Marquess is entirely in error in supposing that I have realised my responsibilities rather late in the day; still more is he in error if he imagines that I shall not most fully discuss this matter, as it will be discussed elsewhere, when the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, returns to this country. Indeed, I shall be glad to hear what the noble Marquess has to say. But does the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, really suppose that while the discussions at Lausanne continue—they may and probably will continue for weeks—documents like this can be published in the public Press and no notice taken of them in Parliament?
I accept the responsibility of quoting this answer at once. The letter to which this is an answer has appeared in the public Press, and as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will express no opinion of the other, of course, I take full responsibility for reading the answer to it sent by Lord Curzon. It is dated March 6, 1922:—
"Your Excellency,
"I have considered with the utmost care the Note which you addressed to me on the 15th ultimo and desire to express my appreciation of the perfect candour with which you have expounded to me a situation that is indubitably fraught with the gravest anxiety to the Greek Government and nation. I can only express a hope that, the military position in Anatolia is less immediately critical than your Note would lead

343
me to think, and that the remarkable patriotism and discipline of the Hellenic Armies, of which so many illustrations have been furnished in the campaigns of the last few years, will not fail them in any emergency that may conceivably arise.
"2 As regards the financial position, your Excellency has yourself detailed the inception of the negotiations by which it is hoped by your Government to raise a substantial loan in the London market. His Majesty's Government have, as you know, endeavoured, within the limits of their publicly declared neutrality and of the engagements entered into with their Allies, to lighten the difficulties by which these negotiations were attended and if, as I am informed, they have failed to produce the desired result, this would appear to have been due in the main to obstacles connected with the commercial, rather than with the political, aspects of the proposed transaction.
"3. In these circumstances, the wisest course is unquestionably to expedite the diplomatic solution of the anxious position ill which all are placed. I deeply regret that owing to circumstances over which His Majesty's Government have bad no control the proposed meeting of the Allied Ministers in Paris has been so long delayed. An Italian Ministry having, however, now been formed, I have hastened to propose that the Conference should meet in Paris on March 13—a date which at the moment of writing seems likely to be again postponed for a few days to meet the convenience of the new Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have little doubt that the best subject that will conic under examination there will be the Anatolian question; and I earnestly hope that a solution may be found which will be acceptable to both parties and may relieve you of the more serious apprehensions by which you are assailed.
" 4. Your Government has already placed itself, in accordance with the advice which I ventured to tender to you last autumn, in the hands of the Allies, and I doubt not therefore that in a similar spirit of confidence and good faith, you will be prepared to listen to such counsels as may be offered to you from Paris with regard to the immediately existing situation."
What follows? The Greeks say: "We are ruined and lost if we maintain ourselves in Anatolia without military equipment and without financial support. If you are unable to give us either of these we beg of you to give us warning in sufficient time in order that by withdrawing we may save ourselves." What did Lord Curzon reply? He said:—
"I can only express a hope that the military position in Anatolia is less immediately critical than your Note would lead me to think, and that the remarkable patriotism and discipline of the Hellenic Armies, of which so many illustrations have been furnished in the campaigns of the last few years, will not fail them in any emergency that may conceivably arise."
The advice might then have been given to the Greeks 10 go, while there was still time for withdrawal. The advice might have been given to theta to stay. What was said
344
by the noble Marquess was that he had confidence that the historic martial qualities of the Greek Army would suffice to meet the needs of the next few weeks and of the campaign that was so soon to follow.
If that advice did not mean: "Stay, at least for the present," I do not understand the meaning of words, whether they be employed in diplomacy or for any other purpose, and I most deeply deplore that we in the Cabinet were not allowed an opportunity of examining this letter for ourselves, of giving our opinions upon it, and of seeing whether there might not have been evolved from Cabinet discussions, with the collective gravity of responsibility, an advice which might have prevented these ghastly tragedies, an advice which aright have saved the lives of these Ministers, and not have rendered necessary the tragic development which has been met by this sublime gesture of the temporary withdrawal of a Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think I gathered from the attitude of noble Lords when I interrupted the noble and learned Earl just now that they shared with me the surprise I felt that the noble Earl had undertaken to ask this Question and make this Motion in the absence of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The object of the noble Earl was very evident. He wishes to attack the foreign policy of my noble friend, and he took the opportunity when my noble friend was serving his country, at great personal inconvenience, and, I hope, with success, in Lausanne. He allowed himself to be betrayed into attacking my noble friend when he was away.
The situation is certainly very remarkable; indeed, almost comical. I have no responsibility for the policy which was pursued in the early part of this year, and most of my noble friends sitting on this Bench had no responsibility. But the noble and learned Earl was responsible. He was a member of the Government, and this is not, the first occasion when we have heard him at that box trying to evade responsibility for the actions of the Government to which he belonged—not a very elegant posture, may I venture to tell the noble Earl? He says he was not aware of the particular documents in question. I have not the same privilege of a complete

345
absence of discretion in which the noble Earl himself seems to rejoice.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: You have had it for a good many years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think so. I do not remember ever having made a speech of the kind to which we have just listened in your Lordships' House. I cannot, of course, go into full details, but I have no reason whatever to doubt that both these documents were circulated to members of the late Government, as were other documents of the kind. Of course, I accept it from the noble Earl when he says that he did not read the document.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Marquess must not be allowed to put that construction on what I said. I said that I was quite confident that no such document was ever sent to me. I am confident that it was never circulated, and I am confirmed in that opinion by my noble friend, Lord Lee of Fareham, who sits here beside me, and who was at that time a member of the Cabinet. I had never seen it before. I would point out that this is not the kind of document one would naturally receive and forget.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I cannot speak as to that, so far as the noble Earl is concerned, but I should like to say that I do not suppose that even he will suggest that the late Prime Minister did not see this document.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I should be amazed if the late Prime Minister saw it. I have the best reasons for supposing that he did not see it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am bound, in a way in which the noble Earl is not, and I cannot go further into that point. All I can say is that I am very much astonished that such a document should not have been sent to the leading members of the Government, and I think that probably the noble Earl will find that, if not in his own case, at any rate in the case of his more important colleagues, this was done.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: No, I shall not. I have asked already.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We can all ask questions. We are not all able to say what the replies were.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I wonder what the noble Marquess means by that observation. Let me tell him, if he is making reference to me—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not call in question the veracity of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: hardly imagine you would.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly would not.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: And I should have sonic observations to make if the noble Marquess did. As to the remark which he made in that very cryptic form, let me make it perfectly plain that I can discover no reference in my papers or notes in relation to this letter. I went to the late Prime Minister and asked him, and he is quite emphatic that he had never seen it before. He further made inquiries among the Secretariat, and all of them were unanimous that the document was shown to none of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must, of course, accept what the noble Earl has said, but, the noble Earl having read out these letters—though, of course, I have no responsibility for them—I should like to make the personal observation that to read out particular documents by themselves, without describing the further negotiations which are in contemplation, is undoubtedly not a way to convey a thoroughly accurate picture of what took place.
But there is one observation which I think it is necessary to make, and it has nothing to do with confidential documents. I refer to the most significant of all the public utterances which were made in connection with this circumstance of foreign affairs, a certain speech which was made in the House of Commons by the late Prime Minister on August 4 this year. That, of course, is a speech of which there is no question at all. It was a public speech, and, if the noble and learned Earl will refresh his memory by looking at that speech, he will find that both in point of date and in point of substance it is far

347
more important, as indicating the attitude of the late Prime Minister towards the policy which the Greek Government were to pursue, than any other utterance that has been made. Beside that speech I think all these other matters shrink into insignificance.
I should like just to read the typewritten answer which I hold in my hand, which may be taken as the direct reply to the Question which the noble Earl has placed upon the Paper:—
"The quotations from M. Gounaris' Note of February 15, reproduced in the Sunday Express of December 3, are exact, and the summary of the Secretary of State's reply is substantially correct. Lord Birkenhead, as a member of the late Cabinet, was, no doubt, fully informed of them.—"
I now know that such was not the case—
"At the time of this correspondence the Allied Conference on the Eastern Question, originally proposed for the previous December, had been postponed as a result of Cabinet crises in Paris and Rome. It finally met at the end of March, and the result was the Allied proposals which were published at the time. The first of these proposals was an Armistice. This the Greeks accepted, while the Turks demanded Greek evacuation of Anatolia as a preliminary condition of aceptance. Negotiations developed from this demand, but the Allied proposals were never accepted. Finally, the Greeks transferred part of their Army from Anatolia to Thrace, and asked to be allowed to occupy Constantinople. This was refused. At, the end of August the Turkish attack on the remaining Greek forces in Asia Minor was opened."
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, I only intervene for a moment to say that I was consulted, as principal shareholder of the Sunday Express, before the publication of the correspondence. I agreed to the publication of the extracts from the letter of M. Gounaris, but I declined to permit the publication of the answer of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In declining to consent to
348
that publication I was moved by the fact that he was at the time abroad carrying on difficult negotiations, and I considered I would be making a mistake if I allowed his reply to appear in the columns of the newspaper. That is why I intervened to-day when the noble Earl was about to quote from that letter.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl relies entirely upon those two letters that have been published, but he must have known perfectly well for many months what was the position. On more than one occasion I have raised the question, pointing out that the assistance or encouragement given to Greece was a breach of faith towards Turkey, and I ventured to prophesy that persistence in this dangerous and hazardous enterprise would end in disaster to Greece. It seems to me absolutely unnecessary to rely upon those two letters as betokening a lack of candour or failure to supply information to the noble and learned Earl.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to your Lordships. I find there will be a formal stage of a Bill to be got through on Monday, and therefore I beg to move that the House do adjourn till Monday.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of December 6.]
The Lord Ebury—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at twenty five minutes past five o'clock until Monday next, a quarter past four o'clock.