Sitting of 25 July 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Fife Trust Estate Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Ayr Burgh (Electricity) Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Chester Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to, be read the Third time.
Black Country Tramways and Light Railways Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That Standing Orders No. 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill To-morrow—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  UNITED SERVICES FUND.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Secretary of State for War what are the names of the members of the Council of the United Services Fund; what, if any, payment is made for their services; and if the Council meets daily?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am informed that the names of the members
  182
  of the Council of Management of the United Services Fund are as follow:

  Field-Marshal Earl Haig, K.T., G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., K.C.I.E. (Chairman).

  Major-General Lord Loch, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.V.O. (Vice-Chairman).

  Captain W. R. Briggs.

  Mr. H. E. Giles.

  Mr. R. C. Grace.

  Captain J. H. Hay.

  Mr. W. C. Lees.

  Mr. T. F. Lister.

  Mr. E. Peace.

  Major W. O Prichard.

  Mr. J. F. Ryan.

  Captain D. Simson.

  Mr. J. Whitehead.

  None of them receives any remuneration as members of the Council, but four are whole-time employés of the Fund, and, as such, are paid for their services.
  It is not necessary for the Council to meet every day, but meetings are held, approximately, every six weeks.
  The Council have appointed a General Purposes Committee consisting of six of its members. This Committee meets every week.

  POLICE.

    EAST RIDING CONSTABULARY.
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the East Riding Constabulary have secured their pension under Section 6 (3) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921; whether these officers are being given a non-pensionable addition to their pay in order to retain them; and how many ex-service men who joined the force since 1918 have been discharged during the current year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am informed that one member of the East Riding Constabulary has had his pension secured under Section 6 (1) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and has been granted a non-pensionable allowance of £26 a year under Section 6 (3). Ten others have had their pensions secured under earlier Acts, and receive similar

    183
    allowances. Five ex-service men, who joined the force since 1918, have left it during the current year—one resigned, one was dismissed for drunkenness, and three were discharged as unlikely to become efficient constables.
    Sir J. REMNANT: If these time-expired men, who by reason of length of service have earned the right to retire on pension, took their pensions, would the necessity for discharging the ex-service men throughout the country arise?
    Mr. SHORTT: There is absolutely no connection between the two actions.

    ECONOMY IN EXPENDITURE.
    Sir J. REMNANTasked the Home Secretary whether he has given any instructions to police authorities as to the measures to be adopted in reducing the strength of the forces; and, if so, whether in any future instructions which might be issued, he would request police authorities to effect such reductions by retiring officers who have completed 30 years' service rather than by discharging ex-service men engaged since 1918?
    Mr. SHORTT: In connection with the measures for securing economy in police expenditure, I have suggested to police authorities that a reduction in strength should be secured by leaving vacancies unfilled. I have no information which would suggest the need for a general instruction in the terms suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    CANAL BOATS AND CARAVANS CHILDREN).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the conditions of life of children living on canal boats and in caravans; if he is aware that probably more than half receive no education whatever and the remainder only the most intermittent education; and if legislation can be introduced which will prevent the continuation of a mode of life which is inimical to the health, education, and general wellbeing of those who at present have no permanent dwelling except in canal boats and caravans?
    Mr. SHORTT: The matter has been engaging the attention of the Government, but it is not practicable to propose legislation at the present time.
    Mr. BRIANT: Is it not possible to propose legislation for next Session? As this has been considered for the last 20 or 30 years, and nothing has been done, is it not time that something was done?
    Mr. SHORTT: I was answering about the present time. The matter is under consideration.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISON: Is it not the duty of the local authorities' officials to visit these places continuously?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Education.

    KENYA (OFFICIALS).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of officials and the cost of their establishments in Kenya Colony for the years 1914 and 1921?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I have not sufficient materials for answering my hon. and gallant Friend's questions as regards native and Asiatic officials, or as regards the total cost to the Government of the European officials. In 1914, there were 1,036 European officials (including military and railway), costing in salaries and house allowance, £301,547. In 1921, there were 1,441 officials, costing in salaries and house allowance, 2713,847. The increase in numbers was due to the closer administration of certain districts owing to the advent of European settlers, and to the expansion of certain services of the first importance. Apart from the increased numbers, the increased charge for salaries is due to the same causes which have led to the higher cost of personal services everywhere, and, in addition, to the fact that before the War the scale of salaries in East Africa was admittedly lower than in other parts of the Empire. The increase is specially marked in the case of the lowest-paid Europeans. The figures are based on the Estimates, and in 1921 establishments in many departments were below the strength shown on the Estimates. Drastic retrenchment has been effected in 1922.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is this colony self-supporting?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will there be anything to meet the interest on the debt, without a Grant-in-Aid?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is a very unnecessary suggestion.

    SOUTH-WEST AFRICA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings in the mandated area of South-West Africa, which include the bombing of Hottentot villages containing women and children, and of one 'plane dropping from a low altitude no less than 40 bombs and spraying with 2,000 rounds of ammunition a party of 500 Hottentots, involving heavy losses; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to put a stop to these proceedings?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware that the Administration of South-West Africa have found it necessary to take military action against one of the native tribes. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Mandate for South-West Africa is held by the Government of the Union of South Africa.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Government holding the Mandate make a report to the League of Nations on these occurrences in South-West Africa?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is surely not a matter in which I am concerned. The Government of the Union of South Africa hold the Mandate, and they are responsible to the League of Nations. There is no locus either for me or for the hon. and gallant Member to interfere in the matter.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there no locus standi in the matter by reason of the fact that we are members of the League of Nations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope we shall find something better to do on the League of Nations than attack our own Dominions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not any member of the League of Nations entitled to address inquiries on reports of this sort to a fellow member of the League, without any question of interference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot be dealt with by a supplementary question.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that during the great War the Christian burghers of Rehoboth, South-West Africa, refused to join the German forces in fighting British troops; that they were then attacked by a German force, against which they fought victorious engagements in spite of heavy losses; and that the relations of this republic with Germany were regularised by a Treaty giving them independence, under which they have built up a successful State with its own Parliament; and whether His Majesty's Government, in the event of the Rehoboth Christians becoming involved in present hostilities, will consider what, if any, steps can be taken to restore peace to this community of British subjects?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first two parts of the question, and I am also aware that a Treaty was concluded between the Rehoboth Bastards and Germany in 1885. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to my reply to the previous question.

  IRELAND.

    MURDERS (INQUIRY).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps at the earliest possible moment to take advantage of the suggestion of the Irish Provisional Government and arrange for a joint inquiry into all the circumstances attending the murders of British officers and men at Macroom, Cork, Dublin, and elsewhere since that Government came into being?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that my Noble Friend will agree that the question of a joint inquiry is not a practical one at the present moment, but I can assure him that the British Government have no intention of remitting their exertions to secure the apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators of these crimes.
    Viscount CURZON: While I quite realise that at the present moment it is impossible to have an inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that at the earliest moment that may be possible—we hope it will not be very long—a real inquiry will be instituted into all the circumstances leading up to these and similar outrages?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I had better adhere to what I have said. We have no intention of neglecting any exertions which we can make to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me some sort of assurance that there will be an inquiry? The Free State Government has suggested a joint inquiry, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that at the earliest possible moment he will have an inquiry?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The country is still in the hands of the insurgent forces. The Free State is not yet established in that area, and I should prefer to review the circumstances afresh, when the Free State Government are in full control of the territory.

    REPUBLICAN COURTS.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, contrary to the terms of the Treaty, district and parish Republican courts are still operating in Southern Ireland and even in Dublin, that their proceedings are reported in the newspapers, and that they impose fines and other penalties; whether he will inquire of the Provisional Government whether this is done with their sanction; and whether he will represent to that Government the necessity of stopping such proceedings at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave, on the 14th June last, to the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Foxcroft), and would, at the same time, paint out to him that, as I have previously stated, there is no provision in the Treaty prescribing what courts may or may not function within the area under the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: is it in accordance with the terms arranged with the Free State Government that Republican courts should function in Dublin, impose fines, and have their orders carried out?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, and the position of the Free State Government has been made abundantly clear. At this particular period of transition there is a certain amount of duality, as I have explained before, and there is a dual set of courts existing. That is a very unsatisfactory state of things to the people of Ireland, but we have every reason to believe that it will be put an end to.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Free State Government that they should put an end to this dual system of courts, including rebel courts, at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No one has a greater interest than they.

    NIGERIA (PALM KERNELS).
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the market value of palm kernels to-day at Lagos, Nigeria, and the percentage of export duty, excluding the differential duty upon kernels shipped to a foreign port?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The latest information which I possess is that in May the average price of palm kernels at Lagos was about £11 a ton. The export duty is £2 a ton; so the export duty was about 18 per cent. of the then average Lagos price.

    AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES (UNCOLLECTED REVENUE).
    Mr. MYERSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what amount of revenue remained uncollected at the close of the year 1921 in the Dependencies of Kenya, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast and Nigeria?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am unable to supply the hon. Member with this information, as it. is not in my possession.

    COCOA, CAMEROONS.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the mandated area of the Cameroons is a cocoa-producing area; and whether any export duty has been placed upon cocoa?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Cocoa is produced On a considerable scale in the British sphere of the Cameroons, and there is an Export Duty of £2 6s. 8d. a ton on cocoa, as in Nigeria.

    IRAQ (MOTOR TRANSPORT).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a service of motor omnibuses has been established between Bagdad and Aleppo; whether this service is expected to be self-supporting and, if not, how will the deficit be met; who is providing the original capital; whether the Arabs along the proposed route are to be paid a subsidy so long as they do not attack these vehicles; what is the amount; and who is finding this money?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question, but I have received no Report from the High Commissioner for Iraq on the subject. The Hon. and Gallant Member may take it that any project of the kind that may be contemplated is a purely private venture, and that no financial responsibility will be incurred by His Majesty's Government. I understand that more than one private group has been considering the question of linking up Iraq by motor transport, either with Syria or with Palestine.

    HALFPENNY POSTAL PACKETS DELIVERY).
    Mr. GRANTasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that postal communications bearing a halfpenny stamp posted in London after 3.30 p.m. are not delivered to London addresses the following day; and if he can see his way to expedite such delay?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): Halfpenny packets posted after 3.30 p.m. in London should ordinarily be delivered in London the following day. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any cases of delay, with covers of the packets, I will have inquiry made.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Pensions the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men lodged in institutions conducted by his ministry who are certifiable under the Lunacy Acts, but who have not been certified; and if these men are lodged in the same institutions as non-certifiable patients?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): When the mental condition of a patient in one of the Ministry neurological hospitals unhappily deteriorates towards insanity he is kept apart from the other patients, and every approved means of cure known to modern science is tried. Should the treatment fail to arrest the development of the malady before the stage at which certification is required by law, the necessary steps are at once taken for the patient's removal to a mental institution approved by the Board of Control.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Pensions the greatest sum that the widow of a deceased private soldier may receive under the alternative pensions scheme, and the greatest sum that a widow whose son, her sole support, was killed in the War may receive under any Government scheme?
    Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is 66s. 8d., and to the second part 26s. 8d. a week.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is the Minister contemplating any action to remove the obvious anomaly disclosed in his answer?
    Major TRYON: I am not prepared to say the compensation due to the wife of a professional man who may have been earning a considerable salary is identical with that to a parent who loses a son.

    ROYAL FUSILIERS (J. LINDSAY).
    Mr. GEORGE EDWARDSasked the Minister of Pensions if he will make inquiries into the case of Mr. James Lindsay, of Shropham, Norfolk, whose pension was stopped on the death of his

    191
    son. Private Albert Edward Lindsay, No. 3279, Royal Fusiliers, he being in the battle of the Somme, 1916; and, seeing that this man is 74 years of age, has only his old age pension, and is only able to do very little work through suffering from a chronic disease, will he take steps to have the pension restored?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that it has been found possible to make a further award of pension to Mr. Lindsay.

    CHILDREN ALLOWANCE (J. DEAS).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Private James Deas, No. 20166, Machine Gun Corps, was transferred to Class W of the Army Reserve on the 23rd November, 1916, for work in the mines; that he received notice to join the Army for permanent service in April, 1918; that he subsequently received a notice to report at Grantham for permanent service, which he did; that while on service at Grantham allowances were paid in respect of his child Mary; that his claim in respect of this child and also his child John has now been disallowed, on the ground that they were born 280 days after the date of his transfer to Class W of the Army Reserve; and if he will explain why the date of his transfer to the Army Reserve, in consequence of demobilisation, has been ignored in deciding the question of his eligibility for allowance in respect of his two children mentioned?
    Major TRYON: The facts are substantially as stated. As, however, the man rendered no effective Army service after November, 1916, he is not eligible for allowance for children born more than nine months after that date.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Is it not the case that, this man was recalled to the Colours for permanent service on the second occasion, and the matter of his effective service should not interfere with his eligibility for allowance?
    Major TRYON: My information is that he did not perform any effective service. If the hon. Member is in possession of any information to the contrary, I shall be happy to consider it.

    DISABILITY CLAIMS.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the frequent rejection of claims to pension, made by either a man or widow, on the ground that removal from duty was not due to the disability on which the claim was based and/or that no continuous medical history was shown; whether he is aware that the latter fact was due in many cases to men refusing to report sick until absolutely compelled; that in respect to widows' claims the number of cases where low vitality caused by war service disability prevented resistance to a secondary disability, and that widows are thereby precluded from pensions rights; whether he has received any protests from pensions committees as to the injustice and hardship following on such decisions; and whether he can take steps to secure any necessary powers which will enable such claims to be met?
    Major TRYON: I gather that my hon. Friend has in mind two classes of case in which claims to pension are now made for the first time, namely, claims from demobilised men and claims from widows of ex-service men who have died without themselves making a claim to pension during their lifetime. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in the case of claims thus made for the first time more than three and a-half years after the termination of hostilities, the Ministry are bound, before they pay compensation, to be satisfied on very clear evidence that the disability or death was, in fact, the consequence of the man's war service, and the two criteria to which my hon. Friend refers in the first part of his question are simply indications of the kind of evidence which, in the nature of the case, must be sought in order to establish connection with service. In the case, however, of a man claiming on the ground of war disability, removal from duty during his war service is not by any means a rigid condition of the admissibility of his claim; it is only one of the kinds of evidence which the Ministry desire in order to connect the disability with service.
    On the other hand, in the case of claims from widows, the physical effects of an admitted war disability, as contributing to the fatal termination of a secondary illness, constitute a factor

    193
    to which the Ministry always gives full consideration. In conclusion, I would remind my hon. Friend that in every case of claim, such as he has in view, which is rejected by the Ministry, there is a right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal, who have full statutory title to determine the issue of fact.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE.
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Pensions the numbers of the staff engaged in the Pensions Issue Office, distinguishing ex-service men, non-service staff and women staff?
    Major TRYON: Excluding typists, messengers and cleaners, the total staff of Pension Issue Office is 4,497, of whom 359 are ex-service men, 13 non-service men and 4,125 women. I may add that the number of women occupying substitutable posts in the Ministry as a whole has been reduced to the limit recommended by the Lytton Committee and that the large majority are employed in Pension Issue Office.

    PENSIONS FINANCE OFFICER, ULSTER.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Pensions whether temporary non-service officers who have become substitutable in one branch of the Ministry of Pensions have been transferred to another branch; whether the regional finance officer, who has been sent to the North of Ireland under the Ministry of Pensions, is a non-service man who was removed from Newcastle owing to being substituted by an ex-service man; if so, if he will explain why this procedure is being permitted in his Department; and if he will undertake to have all such non-service officials substituted by ex-officers or men who have fought in His Majesty's forces during the War, as recommended by the Lytton Committee?
    Major TRYON: It is not the practice to transfer temporary non-service men from one branch of the Ministry to another. The services of the regional finance officer in the Ulster region have been temporarily lent to the Government. of Northern Ireland and provision has been made for his absence by the temporary loan of an established civil servant from the East Midlands region.
    194
    During the last 12 months the number of non-service men in posts covered by the Reports of the Lytton Committee has been reduced from 287 to 83 and of the temporary male staff of the Ministry 99 per cent. are ex-service men.

    AIR TRANSPORT, LONDON TO INDIA.
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any applications have been made by air transport lines to operate an aeroplane service on the London to India route; and, if so, what action is being taken?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): As I informed my hon. Friend on the 12th of this month, the answer to the first question is in the negative, and the second does not, therefore, arise. We are aware, however, that certain firms are watching this question and its possibilities, and I anticipate that something definite may be put forward after the publication of the Civil Aviation Advisory Board Report, which is approaching its final form. I have hopes that it will be signed and submitted to me this week.

    KENSINGTON PALACE (STATE APARTMENTS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has been able to consult the Lord Chamberlain as to the possibility of reopening the State apartments at Kensington Palace to the public on Sunday afternoons in the event of it not being possible, on grounds of expense, to open them to the public throughout the week?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (For the First Commissioner of Works): No funds are at present available to meet any expenditure incidental to reopening the State apartments at Kensington Palace, but the First Commissioner is consulting the Lord Chamberlain as to the possibility of making provision in next year's Estimates. Meanwhile I would remind the hon. Member that the majority of the objects of interest which formerly attracted visitors to Kensington Palace have since been transferred to the London Museum at Lancaster House.

    HORSE GUARDS PARADE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, for what purpose a but is now being erected on the Horse Guards Parade; and what it is expected to cost?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No but is being erected upon the Parade. Hoardings are, however, being erected in connect-ion with certain works of underpinning required to safeguard the west wall of the Horse Guards building.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the hoarding to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers at the north-east corner of the Parade, close to the Admiralty?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PERSONNEL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total personnel of the Royal Air Service, male and female, respectively; how many of these are considered to be available to act as pilots and observers in the air, respectively, when required for active service, and not including personnel under training; and how many of these latter are allocated for service with the Royal Navy?
    Captain GUEST: According to the latest returns available, the answer to the first question is 28,906 and 46 respectively, the latter figure representing the personnel of the Royal Air Force Nursing Service; to the second, 1,714 fully trained pilots and 109 observers, excluding those under flying training. It would be difficult to assess the proportion of this number of pilots and observers who can be said to be employed on naval duties, but there are 373 first line aeroplanes in service units without counting training or reserves, and these are manned by 461 pilots and 92 observers, of which 84 pilots and 35 observers work with the Navy, namely, about 20 per cent. Of the remaining 1,253 pilots, the proportion employed on work with the Navy is probably about the same.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think
    196
    it very anomalous that, with a very big Navy and a comparatively small Army, only 20 per cent. of the available pilots are attached to the Senior Service?
    Captain GUEST: The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that two-thirds of the Royal Air Force is stationed oversea.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have we not got numerous Fleets overseas, and ought not they to have their proper proportion of plots?

    TORPEDO SCHOOL, GOSPORT.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give details as to the experimental Royal Air Force torpedo school at Gosport and as to the work carried on there."
    Captain GUEST: The Air Force establishment referred to at Gosport is not a torpedo training school: it is a flight maintained for experiments with the running of torpedoes from aircraft and for the study of modifications to aircraft fittings and to torpedoes in connection with such work. In this work the Naval Torpedo School, described as H.M.S. "Vernon," closely co-operate. The flight consists of three machines, with an establishment of 4 officers, one of whom is attached from the Navy, 18 other ranks, and 3 civilian assistants.

    PRISONS (BORSTAL SYSTEM).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to certain criticisms of the prison and Borstal system contained in a Report on prisons recently issued; and, in view of the nature of the criticisms and the fact that the Committee responsible was unable to obtain evidence from prison officers, if he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of the penal system now in force?
    Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Central Division of Portsmouth on the 11th instant.
    Mr. BRIANT: It will not take the right hon. Gentleman long to say, yes or no, whether a Committee is going to be appointed.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have nothing to add to what I said on the 11th instant.

    POOR RELIEF.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief and indoor relief on 1st January, 1921, 1st July, 1921, 1st. January, 1922, and 1st July, 192.2, respectively?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement containing the information desired by my hon. Friend.
    Following is the statement promised:
    The numbers for England and Wales were as follow:

    In receipt of Outdoor Relief.

    In receipt of Indoor Relief.

    1st January, 1921

    376,258

    198,992

    1st July, 1921 (approximate)

    1,174,000

    202,000

    1st January, 1922

    1,183,439

    215,773

    1st July, 1922 (approximate)

    1,478,000

    210,000

    Lunatics in lunatic asylums are not included in the foregoing tables, nor are vagrants.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (DRIVERS' LICENCES).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Home. Secretary whether he will consider introducing legislation in order to prevent the granting of licences to drive motor cars and other motor vehicles to persons who are unsuitable and who cannot pass a simple test?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the Second -Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, and, for the reasons therein stated, I am -unable to propose legislation.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime. Minister whether he can state, approximately, the amount of the taxation per head in Great Britain and Germany, respectively, in British sterling; whether
    198
    many wealthy Germans are removing their securities and moneys in large amounts from Germany to neutral countries to evade taxation; whether the German Government is spending large sums of public money in developing the railways, canals, public works, and the industrial resources of Germany; and whether he can make any statement as to the evasion by Germany of her obligations to make reparations under the Treaty of Versailles?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): With regard to taxation per head, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham on the 15th June. But I should point out that all such estimates are profoundly affected not only by the rapid movements in the exchange but also by the future effects of the depreciation of the mark on the yield of taxation, effects which it is impossible to foretell. The question of taxation in Germany, and the questions referred to in the second and third parts of the question, are primarily matters for the Reparation Commission, which is dealing with them on the Report of the Guarantees Commission at this very moment, and I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to excuse me making any fresh statement on this aspect of the reparation problem at present.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me an answer on the question of fact raised by the second and third parts of the question, namely, as to wealthy Germans removing their securities from Germany and as to the German expenditure on the development of their own resources in evasion of their payment of reparations?
    Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid it would be difficult within the possible limits of an answer to a question to give fuller information than my right hon. Friend has given in the course of this answer.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the Government really no information at all upon this very important question of fact?
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman some means of ascertaining whether there is this large movement of German capital in the way suggested by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. HURD: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell me that these specific questions were being referred to the Reparation Commission for the information of His Majesty's Government, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any reply has been received?
    Mr. YOUNG: I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd). As to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) it is extremely difficult to get information of statistical accuracy in regard to this matter of the exportation of capital. It is a current that runs below the surface, and it is only possible to obtain information by means of indirect indications, almost, I might say, hints.

    GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that only four out of the seven German war criminals, whose names were submitted by the British Government for trial at Leipzig, were brought to trial; that one of these men, Commander Karl Neumann, was proved to have deliberately torpedoed and sunk the British hospital ship "Dover Castle," carrying wounded British soldiers, but was acquitted on the pretext that he acted under superior orders; that three others were convicted of acts of extreme brutality against British prisoners and were sentenced to only 10 months' or six months' imprisonment; and that Lieutenant Dittmar and Lieutenant Boldst were proved to have murdered some of the survivors of the torpedoed British hospital ship "Llandovery Castle," and were sentenced to only four years' imprisonment; whether any of these convicted criminals have since escaped from their German prisons; and whether, in view of these facts, he will urge on the Supreme Council the necessity of trying, in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, the numerous other German war criminals?
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now satisfied as to the inadequacy of the sentences inflicted by the German Courts on the German war criminals specially selected for trial to ascertain whether adequate justice would be meted out by the German authorities in respect of the crimes perpetrated by Germans during
    200
    the War in connection wills the sinking of hospital ships and otherwise; and whether a demand will now be made for the surrender of the other war criminals, hitherto untried, to the Allies, so that their cases may be tried before an international court and adequate sentences inflicted on all persons found guilty of the crimes charged against them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The facts as to the number of war criminals tried on the British list, and the results of the trials, are set out in the White Paper presented to this House on the 8th August, 1921. Lieutenants Boldst and Dittmar escaped from their German prisons, and very strong protests have been made by the British Government to the German Government upon this most regrettable and disquieting result. The whole question of the trials of war criminals under the Articles of the Treaty of Versailles is awaiting consideration by the Supreme Council and it would be premature, to make any statement until the completion of the discussions which are now in progress between the Allied Governments.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Does the right non. Gentleman realise the disastrous results that would follow if immunity is given to these German War criminals, against whom there is evidence of the most atrocious crimes?
    Mr. MILLS: Has the Leader of the House considered that the forthcoming marriage of the Kaiser of Germany is regarded as sufficient punishment?
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge upon the Supreme Council the advisability of investigating whether some people implicated in the escape of these Hun officers are the same-group who are responsible for the murder of Herr Rathenau?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have thought that was a matter for the German Government rather that: for ourselves. It is sufficient for the Allies to consider their own, without taking into account any additional cases which tie German Government may have against these men. I would ask the House to excuse me from making a statement about the attitude of the British Government on matters which must come before the Supreme Council and which are the subject of consideration between the Allied Governments.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government are satisfied with what most of us think are very inadequate sentences? Surely he can say whether or not the Government are satisfied.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no public advantage to be gained by a statement on that subject.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that this matter has been hanging fire, without anything effective being done since the Treaty of Versailles, will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter before the Supreme Council and urge upon them the necessity of dealing with the matter?

    ALLIED COMMITTEE OF GUARANTEES.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members of the Allied Committee of Guarantees dealing with Germany; whether the Committee has any powers beyond the right of inspection; if so, what powers and what means of enforcing them; and whether it is proposed to call into counsel again the leading bankers of Europe and of the United States?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): The members of the Committee of Guarantees which is appointed by and responsible to the Reparation Commission are Monsieur Nauclére (France), Signor d'Amelio (Italy), Monsieur Bemelmans (Belgium), and Mr. Kemball-Cook (Great Britain), with Colonel Logan (United States of America) as Unofficial American Representatives. The powers of the Committee, are set out in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 12 (a) added to Annex II to Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles by the Protocol signed at London on the 5th May, 1921. (The Protocol printed as Command Paper, Command 1349 of 1921.) In reply to the last part of the question, the reconvening of the Committee of Bankers is a matter for the Reparation Commission by whom it was appointed.

    HOUSE OF LORDS.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister (1) what will be the number of each of the classes of which the new Upper House is to be composed;
    (2) whether the new Joint Standing Committee to consider Money Bills will have the powers, and follow the procedure, of Joint Committees of both Houses?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Both the matters to which the hon. and gallant Member refers will no doubt be discussed while the Debate on the Resolutions is proceeding in the House of Lords, and it would be premature for me to attempt to deal with either of them at the present stage by question and answer.
    Captain BENN: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the simple specific Question 47—whether the Cabinet have made up their mind about this?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have invited the House of Lords to co-operate with them in the reform of that House. I do not think we can enter into negotiations with success, and produce a cut-and-dried scheme, without reference to the discussion which is proceeding.
    Captain BENN: Does not the Prime Minister think that the House of Commons might be asked to co-operate, too?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In due course it will be asked.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it fair to ask the House of Lords to co-operate in committing suicide?

    UNEMPLOYMENT (NECESSITOUS AREAS).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's refusal to accept the definition of a necessitous area for the purposes of a special grant recently submitted on behalf of certain local authorities, he will state what further steps the Government propose to take to prevent the bankruptcy of these necessitous areas, due to increasing unemployment, and to whom the relief afforded by the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act is quite inadequate?
    Sir A. MOND: As at present advised, I have no reason to suppose that the needs of the situation are not adequately met by the arrangements under which local

    203
    authorities can, with my sanction, contract loans to carry them over the present difficult times, the Government itself lending in certain cases of exceptional stress. I might add that the hon. Member's suggestion that unemployment is increasing is incorrect. The amount of unemployment has fortunately been steadily decreasing since the beginning of the year.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the total amount of unemployment is decreasing, in certain industrial areas it is increasing steadily, and is nothing to be done before the House rises to meet the problem which will arise there in the autumn?
    Sir A. MOND: The problem arising in the autumn cannot be dealt with at present.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the advisability of appointing among its representatives or substitute representatives on the Assembly of the League of Nations, to be held in Geneva in September, some person or persons who may be considered representative of the wage-earners and the women of the country; and who these persons or person are to be?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday, this subject is now being considered in all its bearings, and he hopes to make an announcement before the House rises.
    Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that announcement will be made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say anything more definite than that he hopes to make a statement before the House rises.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Government favourably considered the device very successfully adopted by France of substitute representation, thus giving representation on all important committees?

    TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
    Mr. BRIGGSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guarantees the Treasury have stated their willingness to give under the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, since the date, 30th June when the last list was published?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Treasury has agreed, since the 30th June to guarantee one further loan, amounting to £10,000, to be raised by the Levant Tin Mines.

    STATUTORY EXPENDITURE RETURN).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Return of Total Expenditure under certain Acts of Parliament is to be brought up to date for 1921; and, if so, when the Return will be presented to the House?
    Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Return is now ready for print, but as yet I cannot give the date on which it will be ready for presentation.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: Has it been represented to my right hon. Friend that the existing form has given rise to a good deal of misrepresentation and exaggeration, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Return will be in exactly the same form as last year?
    Sir R. HORNE: Representations have not been made to me, but: I shall be glad to consider any suggestion which my hon. Friend may make.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of the members of the Departmental Committee who are to consider the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, in accordance with the terms of the reference already announced?
    Sir R. HORNE: The following have been invited, and hay, consented, to serve on the Committee to which the hon. Member refers:

    The Right Hon. Lord Emmett, G.C.M.G., G.E.E. (Chairman).

    Lord Kenyon, K.C.V.O.

    205

    Sir Albert Hobson.

    Sir Michael Sadler, C.B.

    Sir J. Struthers, K.C.B.

    Sir A. W. Watson, K.C.B.

    Miss S. M. Fry.

    Duncan Fraser, Esq.

    W. L. Hichens, Esq.

    Hugh R. Rathbone, Esq.

    H. J. Simmonds, Esq., C.B., C.B.E.

    G. C. Upcott, Esq., C.B

    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any and, if so, how many are officials of the Board of Education?
    Sir R. HORNE: I do not think any of them are officials of the Board of Education, but Sir J. Struthers has long served in the Scottish Office.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education the amounts paid by the Government in each of the last two years in the way of pensions to teachers in elementary schools, in secondary schools, and in technical and other schools and the amounts which he estimates he should receive in each of the next two years from a contribution of 5 per cent. on the salaries then payable to teachers in elementary, in secondary, and in technical and other schools?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The amounts spent on superannuation of teachers during the last two years are as follow:—

    1920–21

    £1,245,392

    1921–22

    £1,552,723

    Many teachers retiring from secondary and technical schools have served in elementary schools, and pensions cannot be classified in separate categories relating to service in elementary, secondary and technical schools. The receipts from contributions in 1022–23 are, approximately, estimated at £1,925,000, and the estimates for 1923–24 will in due course be submitted to Parliament, but the estimated total for a full year is approximately £2,300,000.
    Mr. THOMSON: Do not those figures show a considerable balance in excess of the amount paid out to the teachers?
    Mr. LEWIS: The expenditure on pensions will grow from year to year. If my
    206
    memory serves me rightly, the cost will amount to between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 in 1929, and will amount to from £9,000,000 to £10,000,000, ultimately. Therefore there is no reason for limiting the contribution in the earlier years to the actual cost.

    APPRENTICES (TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
    Mr. MYERSasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the effects of unemployment on apprentices in the skilled trades; whether he is aware that apprentices are in many cases losing the knowledge and experience they have already gained, with disastrous results to themselves and to the community as a whole; and whether he will, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, secure for unemployed apprentices opportunities for technical instruction?
    Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has not received any representations on this point, but he will discuss with the Minister of Labour the question whether, in present circumstances, the suggestion of the hon. Member is practicable.

    BRITISH DEBT TO UNITED STATES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of interest has so far been charged on our debt to the United States of America; and whether, in view of cheaper money, this rate will now be reduced pending funding?
    Sir R. HORNE: The demand obligations by which this debt is at present represented carry interest at five per cent. The point raised in the second part of the question will be one of those for discussion in the negotiations regarding funding.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    DUTIES.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give details of the commodities imported from Germany upon which the sum of £107,000 has been collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and can he also give similar details concerning the £46,000 duty collected

    207
    on imports from the United States and the £35,000 from France?
    Sir R. HORNE: The information desired cannot be obtained without considerable labour and consequent expense, which I regret I am unable to sanction.

    AIR RAID, DEPTFORD (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that many persons in the Borough of Deptford, whose houses were wrecked as a result of the air raid in 1015, have as yet received no compensation for such damage; whether any money is now available for the payment of such compensation and, if so, can he state when the claims of these sufferers are likely to be met?
    Mr. YOUNG: Apart from the grants made in 1915 by the Air Raid Compensation Committee, the sum of £5,000,000 has been provided in the Estimates for grants to be made on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, presided over by Lord Sumner. The Royal Commission has already dealt with numerous cases, and is dealing as rapidly as possible with the remainder of the very large number of cases submitted to it.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is not the hon. Gentleman conscious of the real hardship indicted upon working class people by their claims remaining unrecognised for seven years, and can he see his way to expedite these small claims?
    Mr. YOUNG: The aspect of the matter to which my right hon. Friend has called attention is present, not only to myself but to members of the Royal Commission who are administering the grant. I am confidently assured that they are pressing forward with all possible haste the rather difficult inquiries in many cases, and they are dealing with the cases in the order of emergency, so that they will deal first with those cases which are most urgent.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one particular case the parents lost their lives, while the owners of the property are still without redress?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CONDEMNED VESSELS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any vessels have been, or are intended to be, sunk when condemned as obsolete instead of being broken up for scrap purposes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The hon. Member no doubt has in mind the vessels to be scrapped under the Washington Treaty. No decision has yet been made regarding the method of disposing of these ships but the hon. Member may rest assured that every effort is being made to secure such benefit to the National Exchequer and assistance to employment as is consistent with the fulfilment of the Treaty. I may mention that the Admiralty have discussed the question in detail with the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers and this body, at the suggestion of the Admiralty, is at present negotiating with the ship breakers. One battleship is being used as a target for gunnery and bombing experiments.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it a fact that 10 large ships, including the "Lion," are being sent over to Germany in order to be broken up there? Could not they be broken up in this country and thus afford employment?
    Mr. AMERY: If it is posssible to get ships broken up in this country we endeavour to do so.
    Dr. MURRAY: How many are going to Germany?
    Mr. AMERY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.

    OFFICERS (AIR TRAINING).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will clear up misunderstandings by stating the reasons why young officers were not forthcoming when the Air Ministry asked if 400 could be seconded from the Royal Navy?
    Mr. AMERY: There is no record at the Admiralty of the Air Ministry having asked for a definite number of officers (400) to be seconded to the Royal Air Force. Early in 1920, however, the Air

    209
    Ministry asked that a certain number might be seconded for training as pilots, and, after discussion, a Fleet Order was issued in July, 1920, inviting officers to volunteer. The response to this invitation was very unsatisfactory, in spite of senior officers having been asked to bring the matter to the notice of young officers, and only seven names were received, these seven starting training in. Spetember, 1920. During the winter of 1920–21 further discussion took place with the Air Ministry with a view to the seconding of a further number of officers, the ultimate, total aimed at being 100, but the conditions, which the Admiralty thought were necessary to secure enough volunteers to make the scheme a success, were found to be unacceptable to the Air Ministry. As there appeared to be no possibility of agreement, the matter dropped, the Air Ministry taking steps to find from other sources all the pilots required. The Admiralty have, of course, no power to second an officer to another service without his consent.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: Will the offer be repeated?
    Mr. AMERY: I am willing to discuss the matter with the hon. and gallant Member.

  AGRICULTURE.

    LOCAL TAXATION.
    Captain TERRELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the policy of the Government on the subject of the relief of agriculture from local taxation; and whether there is any expectation of legislation being introduced at an early date to deal with the matter?
    Major BARNSTON (for Sir Arthur Boscawen): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is not in a position to make any statement on this object at the present time.

    FARMERS (FINANCIAL POSITION).
    Captain TERRELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether indications have reached him within recent times showing the economic embarrassment of farmers, due to inability to complete the purchase of their farms and to pay the interest on mortgages; whether he is aware that in many cases
    210
    they were compelled to make these purchases by finding their farms sold over their heads; whether, to avoid their getting into the hands of moneylenders and selling stock wanted on the farms, he will consider and recommend to the Cabinet the policy of hiring out money at a cheap rate to farmers thus embarrassed and whether, if further information is needed, he will at once institute an inquiry into the whole subject?
    Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the difficult situation of many farmers who, owing to the breaking-up of estates, had to borrow money for the purchase of their farms in order to avoid dispossession from their holdings. He understands that an inquiry into the matter has recently been made by the National Farmers' Union and that proposals will be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, but he is not in a position at present to make any statement on the subject on behalf of the Government.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the Government consider the alternative suggestion of guaranteeing farmers for a period, so as to prevent mortgagees from foreclosing?
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the Government guarantee the working men?

    INCOME TAX, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although normally the annually revised local valuation rolls in Scotland are adopted as the basis for taxation under Schedule A of the Income Tax, and must by statute generally be, so adopted, arrangements have been made whereby recent annual valuations in Scotland have been ignored by the Inland Revenue, the 1919–20 valuations being taken as the basis for that and succeeding years until the proposed reassessment for Schedule A in England and Wales becomes operative; and by whom, and at whose instance, were such arrangements made?
    Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Under the law the Valuation Roll does not fall to be adopted for the purposes of Income Tax, Schedule A, for any year for which the previous year's values are

    211
    expressly continued under the provisions of the Finance Act. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to a reply given on the 22nd March, 1921, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply.

    HAGUE CONFERENCE.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether any papers in regard to the Hague Conference will he circulated to Members in time for to-morrow's Debate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. A Command Paper has been laid, and copies are now available in the Vote Office. Full circulation will be made to-morrow. The Paper could not be got ready for circulation this morning, and, therefore, copies have been placed in the Vote Office, to give Members an opportunity of earlier perusal if they wish it.
    Captain BENN: Will there be a preliminary statement by a spokesman of the Government in the Debate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will open the Debate with a general statement.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Prime Minister speak to-morrow?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Prime Minister may be tempted to break his silence.

    CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO (DIVISION LIST).
    Mr. WILKIE: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to repair an omission in the Division List of last night. For years I have taken a very strong interest in the question of the Canadian cattle embargo. I voted yesterday in the "Aye" Lobby. Through some inadvertence my name does not appear in the. Division List. I wish it to be known publicly that I carried out my promise to my constituents.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will see that the error is corrected. Perhaps the hon. Member himself will go to the Public Bill Office and speak about the matter. H may be able to get it attended to earlier than I can.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
DAVID REES GRENTELL, Esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Gower Division)—
MR. HORATIO BOTTOMLEY.

  ORDER TO ATTEND HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I beg to move, "That Mr. Horatio Bottomley do attend this House in his place upon Tuesday next."
  In making this Motion, I feel that the House will not require any long statement from me. I am acting in accordance with what I believe to be the settled tradition and procedure of the House in matters of this kind wish to say only that, if this Motion be carried, I shall at once move a further Motion that the necessary warrant be issued to secure the attendance of the hon. Member for South Hackney, should he desire to attend. The House always makes the Motion for attendance, but that is in the interest of the Member concerned, lest we should do any injustice to him. The-House does not order the authorities in whose custody he may be to bring hire to this House, unless he wish to attend the House.
  Sir F. LOWE: If the hon. Member for South Hackney were adjudicated a bankrupt, would not that, ipso facto, vacate his seat? Were that procedure adopted, would it not be very much better than asking the hon. Member to attend here, and moving a Motion for his expulsion?
  Mr. J. JONES: If it be in order, I would like to ask whether those who used the hon. Member for South Hackney as a political tool will also be summoned to explain their conduct in this House?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member for South Hackney be made a bankrupt, that does automatically vacate his seat, after six months: but I imagine that the House, in accordance with precedent, would desire to take the case into early consideration, and might think it neither proper for the House to wait for six months, nor fair to the constituency which the hon. Member represents, were he prevented from attending.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  "That the Governor of His Majesty's Prison at Wormwood Scrubs do bring the said Horatio Bottomley in custody to this House upon Tuesday next, if the said Horatio Bottomley shall desire to be so brought up, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants to the said Governor and to the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House, accordingly."—[Mr. Chamberlain]

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill; not amended (in the Standing Committee), to he taken into consideration To-morrow.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AND SIGNALLING BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to he printed. [Bill 210.]

  BILLS REPORTED.
  Lambeth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bolton Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Cambridge Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Shoreditch and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Superannuation) Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee [Titles amended]; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
  Special Report brought up, and read: Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir William Pearce to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and the Post Office (Parcels) Bill); and Mr. John William Wilson as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill [Lords] and the Allotments (Scotland) Bill [Lords]).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to he printed. [Bill 211.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Whale Fisheries (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment
  Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
  Exeter Corporation Bill,
  Neath Corporation Bill,
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
  Grampian Electricity Supply Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords] without Amendment.

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee 13 (in respect of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill [Lord]: Mr. Acland, Sir Arthur Boscawen, Sir Watson Cheyne, Mr. Thomas Davies. Viscount Elveden Lieut.-

  215
  colonel Fremantle, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Mills, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Myers, Mr. Pratt, Major Steel, Mr. Townley, and Mr. Waterson.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill [Lords]): Mr. Hannon; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Charles Williams.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the, Post Office (Parcels) Bill): Mr. Kellaway and Mr. Pease.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Eleven Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill and the Allotments (Scotland) Bill [Lord]): Sir Gervase Beckett, Sir Arthur Fell, Mr. Finney, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Sir Philip Magnus, Major-General Seely, Major Steel, Lieut.-Colonel Stephenson, Captain Watson, Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White, and Mr. James Wilson.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Dr. Worsfold.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (during the consideration of the Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords]: Mr. Foot. Mr. Hayward, and Mr. Holmes; and had appointed in substitution: Major Barnes, Mr. Penry Williams, and Major Mackenzie Wood.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee C (during the consideration of the Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords]: Sir John Baird and Lieut.-Colonel Stanley.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged
  216
  the following Member from Standing Committee D) (added in respect of the Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill): Captain Hacking and Lad appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Sir Philip Richardson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE, WORK OF SESSION.

  MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I beg to move:
  "That, except on Fridays, Government Business, until the Summer Adjournment, be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any order, rule, or regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."
  I wish to call attention to the fact that the Motion is confined to this portion of the Session, and does not extend—I am certain that the House would be unwilling that it should extend—to our autumn meeting. I do not think that the House will consider it an unreasonable Motion for me to make at this period of the Session, or that I have been unduly hasty in moving it. The House will expect me to give some indication of the business which the Government do not, propose to take, and of the business which they do propose to take, before we adjourn. Among the Bills which we propose to allow to stand over for consideration in the Autumn Session are the following:

  Agricultural Holdings Bill for England and Scotland respectively,

  Clinical Thermometers Bill,

  Coal Mines (Temporary Provisions as to Safety Lamps) Bill,

  Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (further stages),

  Fishery Board (Tenure of Office of Chairman) (Scotland) Bill,

  Legitimation Bill,

  Measuring Instruments Bill,

  Merchandise Marks Bill—

  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]that is if it prove contentious.
  Rabbits Bill.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the rats?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:

  Sale of Bread Bill—should it continue to be contentious.

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill.

  Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill.

  232
  Two Bills in another place are in the same category, namely, the

  Fraud and Falsification Bill, and the

  Smoke Abatement Bill.

  One other Bill is to be introduced in this portion of the Session, but we shall make no attempt to proceed with it until the autumn. That is the

  War Charges (Validity) Bill.

  That leaves us the following Bills, which we must ask the House to dispose of before we rise:

  Appropriation Bill,

  Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,

  which have still to pass all their stages, and the following which have to pass Report and Third Reading:

  Allotment Bill,

  British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill,

  Criminal Law Amendment Bill,

  Electricity (Supply) Bill,

  Oil in Navigable Waters Bill,

  Three of these—the first mentioned and the last two—have come down to us from another place. Then there is the

  Telegraph (Money) Bill,

  which stands for Third Reading, and the following Bills which are before Standing Committees:

  Allotment (Scotland) Bill,

  Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill,

  Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill,

  Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill,

  and should it not prove too contentious, as I have already mentioned, the

  Merchandise Marks Bill

  and four small Bills, about which there is no contention, namely, the

  Naval Discipline Bill.

  Post Office (Parcels') Bill,

  Solicitors Bill,

  Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill.

  Then we have to consider and deal with the Lords Amendments, if any, to some of the above Bills, and to the following, which have passed this House:

  Air Ministry (Kenney Common Acquisition) Bill.

  233

  Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill.

  Constabulary (Ireland) Bill.

  Lunacy Bill.

  National Health Insurance Bill.

  Post Office (Pneumatic Tubes Acquisition) Bill.

  Representation of the People (No. 4) Bill.

  School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.

  War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill.

  Whale Fisheries (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill.

  That sounds a more formidable programme than it is. Though the number of Bills is considerable, they are not of a contentious character. In these circumstances I have every hope that with the continued assistance of the House—and I would like to pause for a moment to express the obligation which the Government feels to the House for the measure in which all parties have contributed to our progress recently—I hope with the continued co-operation of the House, the Motion for Adjournment can be made on Friday of next week, and I would put before the House tentatively, the following programme:
  To-day we shall take the Report and Third Readings of the Electricity (Supply) Bill, Allotments Bill, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill—it is very important that we should obtain these, in order that there may be sufficient time for their consideration in another place and their return to us, if that return should be necessary—the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill, and the Third Reading of the Telegraph (Money) Bill—I hope all may be taken to-night. I do not think there is anything contentious about the last three I have mentioned, and I think we are nearing agreement, if we have not reached agreement, about the first three.
  To-morrow (Wednesday) and Thursday we propose to complete Supply.
  On Friday we shall take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill Second Reading and other Bills.
  On Monday we shall take the discussion on Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the Orders under it.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Black Monday!
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On Tuesday we have ordered the hon. Member for South Hackney to attend, and I propose to take the Motion, which it will probably be my duty to make on that day, and the further stages of several Bill and Lords Amendments.
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the Appropriation Bill, Second and Third Readings
  On Friday, Lords Amendments to some of the above Bills, and the Motion for Adjournment.
  I understand there is a strong wish on the part of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and his colleagues on the Estimates Committee that an opportunity should, if possible, be found for a discussion on the Report of that Committee. I think that is a most reasonable demand, and that the suggested discussion is one which the House would desire to have. If we can arrange, I think it is possible—although I am not certain—that time might be found on Tuesday for such a discussion. If so, we shall be very glad to co-operate in that arrangement.
  As regards the date of the Adjournment, everything depends on the progress which we can make with the Bills I have enumerated. I am encouraged by the proceedings of the last week or two to believe that the House, having to meet again in the autumn, would desire to rise as early as possible, and to reduce discussion on those Bills within as narrow limits as are consistent with our duty to our country and our constituents. If we are able to get this programme through, I shall make the Motion for Adjournment on Friday week, and I shall propose that, subject to a provision for summoning Parliament to an earlier meeting, should occasion arise—of the character which we had, I think, not last year but the year before—I shall propose to move the Adjournment until Tuesday, 14th November.
  There is only one word that I would add, and I add it not so much to this House as to the public outside. I think the public outside this House has an imperfect appreciation of the labours which Members of this House have undergone during the present Parliament, and many of us

  235
  in the preceding years. Parliament has been in almost continuous Session, and I cannot think that it is good for the work of Parliament or a reasonable exaction to expect from Members that they should continue further so close an attendance without a reasonable recess. I hope Members will contribute to secure that recess, and that when it comes they will be enabled to enjoy it.
  Mr. CLYNES: I do not rise to debate generally the announcement which has been made or the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. My purpose is to put two questions arising out of the announcement. First, may I be allowed to say that, though this announcement be customary, it is no less unsatisfactory than it has ever been in a preceding Session, and clearly it is time that the Agenda of this House were so arranged, and the business so presented, as to prevent, towards the close of each Session, such a step as a Minister is obliged to take before the House of Commons. Some dozen Measures of importance, some controversial, all in some degree interesting, again have had to be dropped, greatly to the disappointment of their promoters and also of the interests which are covered by them. I cannot acquiesce in this Motion for the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule, because on principle it is bad at any time for the House of Commons to sit after that hour. The House must find, either by the process of meeting earlier or by the process of not taking up as much time as has been taken in this Session and during the last few years with matters that very well could have been left alone, time within what might be termed normal and suitable hours for the general discharge of House of Commons duties, but I do not regard this moment as a fitting one for taking up more time with general observations. I want to ask whether the Leader of the House can make any announcement on the Government's attitude towards Private Bills in the course of the Autumn Session when it is begun. It would be of advantage to many of us interested in Private Bills to know the intentions of the Government in regard to such Measures. Secondly, I observe that one of the Bills which is to be carried over is the Sale of Bread Bill. As I understand, there is a Food Order which will lapse at the
  236
  end of August, and between the end of August and the passing of the Bill mentioned in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman there will be an interval in which there will be no Order or Regulation affecting this point. I would like to ask, therefore what step the Government can take to repair that deficiency? I presume it must be repaired, either by hastening the passage of the Bill or extending this particular Order.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The Leader of the House thought the country had a rather imperfect appreciation of the labours of this House. I think, on the contrary, they seem to have all too accurate an estimate of the value of the labours of this House during the past three years, and I want to say a word or two by way of comment on some of the Measures which we are taking, and the time which the Government propose to give them. It is perfectly true that we all wish for a holiday, and I hope we all deserve it. There is no man in the House who deserves a better holiday than the Leader of it, and we all wish him the rest, recuperation and renewed strength which he needs. There are one or two points to which I should like an answer. Let me remove any dubiety in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman at once as to the contentious character of the Merchandise Marks Bill. I think he must at once put that off to the Autumn Session, as it is a highly contentious Measure, and I would ask him so to regard it. There is a Measure to which I do not think he made any reference, and that is the Ecclesiastical Charges Bill. Is that included in the list?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been discharged.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am very glad to hear that, because it would have raised a considerable amount of discussion in the House. In regard to the business for to-day, like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Measures which he has indicated will not be very contentious and that we shall be able to rise at a reasonable hour after 12 o'clock to-night. I shall do what I can to facilitate it this evening, but I do not pledge myself further than to-night. In looking at the Measures which the Government have introduced, it might be of

  237
  interest to the House to know that the Government have introduced no fewer than 69 Bills—I am not quite sure whether it is not 70—and I hope that the War Charges (Validity) Bill, of whose introduction we have had notice this afternoon, is going to be the last Bill that the Government is going to introduce, not only before the House rises, but when we meet again. What I want to enforce upon the Government is this—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There will be the Irish Bills.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Of course, we must have them in the Autumn Session, but we have had far too much legislation. I will not say the promises, but the hopes and expectations of the Leader of the House at the beginning of this Session have been falsified, as they nearly always are falsified. The Departments have a large number of Bills in cold storage. They seize any opportunity of pressing them upon Ministers, who are not nearly sufficiently strong-minded in this matter. They get Ministers in a weak moment, the Bills are introduced, and before the House realises what has happened we are faced with the Second Readings of a large number of Measures, most of them expensive, and every one of them adding to the cost of the community. There has not been a single Session of this Parliament, or indeed of the Parliament which preceded it, in which that fault has been so prominent as in the present Session. Every Department has a long list of Bills which are put in, I will not say surreptitiously, because I would not accuse my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury of that for a moment, but with a pleasant forgetfulness of the desires of the House. I hope that the House is going to take this matter into its own hands in what remains of this Session, and will see that the time is devoted to the purposes for which the Government have declared it is intended, and that we shall not have a number of Departmental Bills put before the House again and the Opposition and other Members in other parts of the House put in the unpleasant position of looking as if they were obstructing business, when, in fact, they are discharging a public duty in preventing too much legislation being rushed through the House. How much more profitably the
  238
  time could have been occupied if the Government and the Leader of the House had carried out the undertaking or expectation or promise held out in the King's Speech? This is what was said in the King's Speech:
  "Every effort has been made to reduce public expenditure to the lowest possible limit, regard being had alike to the security and efficiency of the State, to public obligations and to the necessity of relieving our citizens to the utmost extent from the burdens which now rest heavily upon them."
  Then they go on to say that
  "Economy must be practised by all and in every direction."
  They then indicated that they were going to introduce some Measures which would facilitate that object, and we all remember the now famous phrase that
  "There will he laid before you a Bill substituting yearly audit in the case of rural district councils and boards of guardians, and other Measures framed to give effect to the policy of retrenchment."
  They have carried out their undertaking with regard to the rural district councils and boards of guardians, hut, with regard to the other Measures for promoting economy, the only Bill before us is that known as the Economy Bill—the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—which excites very great controversy and which has been relegated to the Autumn Session. What ought the Government to have done? Instead of bringing in these Departmental Bills, expensive and unnecessary, they ought to have given at least. 10 days more to Supply. I acknowledge, with such gratitude as I can summon to my aid, the grant of one extra day of Supply, but time and time again—you cannot avoid it—the Estimates raise large questions of public policy, and, of course, the attention of the House has been concentrated on those great general questions. As for that close intensive examination of the Estimates on the Floor of the House, quite apart from the work of the Estimates Committee, there has been very little indeed. It is that to which the House ought to have devoted itself in Committee. There was no reason at all why it should not have been done. There was ample time, but, unfortunately, there was not the inclination or desire on the part of the Government to give the opportunity which, at any rate, the Opposition and some Members in other parts of the House

  239
  wished to have to give attention to this most important question. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper to-day, they will see the number 105. That indicates the number of days that the House has sat. Out of 105 days, we shall, by the time the House rises for the Recess, including Appropriation Bills, the Consolidated Fund Bill, and Supply itself, have devoted about 32 days to the question of finance and how retrenchment can be effected.
  The charge which we make against the Government is that, out of time not loaded up with great Governmental Measures exciting controversy on a large scale, they have neglected once more to give that opportunity which they alone could give to the House of Commons to discharge its primary function, namely, the guardianship of the public finances and the retrenchment of extravagance wherever it may be found. That is the principal charge which I make against the Government with regard to its programme. They have passed a great number of Bills, alarming in complexity, and often very useless and irritating in administration, thereby taking up time which could have been well devoted to other and more fruitful purposes.
  Sir HERBERT NIELD: I do not propose to criticise in general terms the programme sketched out, but, since the right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention of proceeding with the School Teachers' Superannuation Bill before the Recess, I do want to ask him also to bear in mind that the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Bill has not only passed this House by common consent and has received support from all quarters of the House, but has gone to anther place and is passing the Report stage to-day and the Third Reading tomorrow. If I bring him, as undoubtedly I shall be able to do, a memorial from all sections of the House asking that the Lords Amendments which have been agreed with the Ministry and to which there is no objection at all—Amendments which could not be moved here because of the pressure of time appropriated to private Members' Bills; owing to discussion indulged in purely for the purpose of warding off other Measures, we were only able to get the Committee stage concluded at two minutes to four on the penultimate day and the Third
  240
  Reading on the last private Members' day—may be considered here, will he afford facilities for taking those Amendments, about which there is complete agreement and which will receive universal assent. I ask him, therefore, to let this Bill pass concurrently with the School Teachers' Superannuation Bill.
  Sir A. HOLBROOK: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the threatened opposition to the Merchandise Marks Bill, he will, if opportunity occurs, re-introduce the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Bill before the Recess. That Bill was promised in the King's Speech three years ago. It is not contentious—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is VI —and it would take a very short time. I do ask him whether it cannot be introduced before the House rises for the Recess.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give some indication to the House as to what the Government propose to do before we rise with regard to making a statement, an authoritative and constructive statement I hope, on a question which is agitating the country and alarming all sections of the community more than anything else, namely, the question of the present position as regards reparation from Germany, the collapse of the mark, and the general collapse of the European exchanges. The whole question is bound up with the collapse of the mark and with our relations with our Allies, particularly with France, and above all, with the question of the interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles. I know that the Government perhaps will reply that there will be an opportunity for this matter being raised on the Appropriation Bill. If we are invited to do that without any promise of a statement from the Government, hon. Members will raise the question, and there will be a Debate, which will be answered very ably by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He will say that the matter is under consideration, that primarily it affects the Prime Minister, and that therefore he is not in a position to give any more definite information to the House, and the matter will go over until the 14th November. If that be the Government's intention. I maintain that it is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I make no reflection on my hon.

  241
  Friend who speaks for the Foreign Office. This is a question more nearly in the hands of the Prime Minister than of the Foreign Office, and he is perfectly justified in refusing to be the head of his chief in this matter. He knows that I mean no discourtesy or reflection of any sort on him.
  There is no use burking the fact. The business community, bankers, and workmen who think at all and who find themselves out of employment are agitated about this question of reparation and the collapse of the mark. Wherever you go and talk to people, you find them saying to you, "What are you doing about the exchanges? Is there no remedy? You have all the information available. What is being done about it?" We have been put off for some months. I myself have had a Motion on the Paper for about nine months. I have repeatedly invited the Government to find time to debate it, and they have always said that the time is not ripe and that there will be an opportunity later. Two or three times a week, hon. Members, like myself, ask questions about this matter, but we are only met with evasive answers. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to inform us whether it is possible before the House rises for the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he be directed and instructed to do so, to make some statement to the House plainly setting forth the difficulties with which we are faced, what we propose towards their solution, and, above all, what steps we intend to take to meet the present state of affairs. The mark to-day is sagging between 1,800 and 2,400 to the £. All hon. Members here who have the misfortune to be engaged in the export trade to Germany will bear me out in saying that this is putting the greatest difficulty in the way of finding employment for our people, and from that point of view alone it is of the greatest importance to this country. In addition to that, if the mark in Germany is going to follow the kronen in Austria—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to enlarge upon that subject.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg your pardon. I was, perhaps, led away by my apprehension of what would follow if the Government proceed to do
  242
  nothing at all. But I would beg of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal really to consider that this is not simply a matter raised by the Opposition to make trouble for the Government, but that there is a strong feeling in the country, especially in the City of London, that this thing must be tackled at once, or disaster will result. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will bear me out.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will take the opposite point of view. At any rate, there is a great deal of feeling in business circles in London, if I may put it that way, and I do hope the Leader of the House will use his utmost endeavours to see whether, between now and the rising of the House, an opportunity cannot be found for a suitable statement to be made by the Government, and, of course, the opportunity given to criticise it.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire to put one question, and it is this. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the Lords Amendments to the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill will be brought before this House at some time when there can be a reasonable discussion of those Amendments? They are very important in themselves. They excite a large amount of interest among various sections of this House, and they are matters of exceeding great importance to the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary themselves, especially in view of recent events in Ireland. If these important Amendments were to come before the House between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, we should have, in the first place, very few Members present, I fear, and further than that, those who were present would be rather disposed to accept the decisions of the Government without adequate consideration. I am sure that is a result which, in the abstract, at any rate, the Government would greatly deplore. They do not want this House to be a mere registering institution—at any rate, I should be sorry to imagine that they did, and I am sure they do not. Therefore, may I ask the Leader of the House if he can ensure, as far as possible, that these Amendments shall come before the House when there can be some fair and reasonable opportunity of discussion?
  Sir J. REMNANT: May I put in a plea to the right hon. Gentleman to give, if he possibly can, facilities for the Rating of Machinery Bill? Although it has not got so far as the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend opposite, it has undergone vast revision, and was prevented from getting its Third Reading in this House owing to the same tactics that were utilised, and are so well known in this House, when Members are anxious to stave off subsequent Bills. The Rating of Machinery Bill, I venture to think, is one that is undoubtedly of great necessity to the industries of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] It is practically unopposed, except by a few hon. Members who, after all, are not very seriously affected by it. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he will find for this Bill, which has got so far in its progress, some facilities in order that it may be passed. It is likely to have a considerable effect in the relief of unemployment, which is so rampant at present, and is also required and desired by the great industries of the country.
  Mr. WIGNALL: May I say a word in reply to the hon. Member who said the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill was not contentious? I wish to inform him that it is contentious, and in its present form will be most vigorously opposed by some of us on these Benches, and by many other sections of the House.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A good many questions have been put to me, and I will do my best to answer them. I am afraid it is the fact that there is a disposition on the part of those in charge of Bills to regard as entirely non-contentious projects which, in other parts of the House, or by other Members, are not viewed in quite as favourable a light. The Government in these matters must deal with things as they are, and be guided by the signs of the times. The two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke first from the front Bench opposite have a great advantage over most of those who have occupied their positions in similar 'circumstances. Neither of them has yet been responsible for the conduct of business in this House, and they can therefore still talk with a light and an airy grace of what they would do, without having their promises compared with past performances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) thinks
  244
  that it is an intolerable thing that every year before the Adjournment we should suspend for a certain time the Eleven o Clock Rule, and sit later than our normal hour. When his time comes, I shall follow with interest the development of the plan by which he will secure that all the business which the Government find it necessary to ask the House to pass, is passed with adequate discussion, with no more than adequate dicussion, strictly within the normal hours allotted to business, and without encroachment upon private Members' time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Start earlier!"] I know it is very easy to say "Start earlier," but it does not follow that you finish any earlier, or that you will be any further advanced, or that when you come to the end of your prolonged labours, my right hon. Friend will not still be appearing in this House and saying, with much regret, but in accordance with the practice set by all his predecessors, he must ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and so forth.
  Then there is my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). He is always most genial when he is lecturing the Government on their sins. He has found matter for reproach in our conduct of the business of this year. We have introduced too many Bills. He took the trouble to count them, and found that we had introduced no less than 69, or it might be 70, Bills in the course, of the present Session. An active and energetic friend of mine was so stirred by this that he went to see how far he could make any comparison with previous years. He found that in the year 1911, for example, the House passed 58 Acts, and in the year 1908 the number of Acts passed was 69, or exactly the same number as the number of Bills which we are condemned for introducing to-day. I never heard a protest from the right hon. Gentleman in those days against over-legislation by the Government, and I am interested now to find that the complaint of the Independent Liberals against this Government is not, as it has usually been, against the Government, in which Unionist Members form a part, that we have done too little, but the complaint is that we have done too much. As regards his further complaint, that we have devoted too little time to finance—and I am sorry he is not here at the moment—
  Captain W. BENN: He was called away.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I make no complaint. He is one of the most conscientious in his attendance, but I am only sorry to be replying to his observations in his absence. With regard to the complaint that there has been too little time devoted to finance, I make two observations. First of all, his definition of financial discussion was so limited, or restricted, as to give a very imperfect impression of the proportion of the Session which has been devoted to financial business. In the second place, I make this reflection. I had, before Easter, to ask the House to give me control over the time of the House for the purpose of getting through the necessary business. The right hon. Member for Peebles then said that I was making an wholly exorbitant demand upon the time of the House for the business which there was to be done, and I said if it were not required for the programme I had announced, I would give it back to private Members. My right hon. Friend's prophecy as to the length of time Bills would take at that period of the Session was falsified before Easter came. Every hour was required. I beg hon. Members to observe that when you get near the close of the Session the Government at any time can count upon some measure of that genuine co-operation that we have had in the past week, and hope to have in the next two weeks.
  I come to the more specific questions. The right hon. Member for Platting asked me about the Bread Bill. I am sorry to say that that Bill appears to be considered highly contentious by Scotland, for what reason I am not informed. There is no chance of getting it through without a considerable prolongation of our labour before the Adjournment.
  Mr. WATERSON: Could not my right hon. Friend see the necessity of bringing in a special Bill to deal with Scotland, and leave England to be dealt with alone, seeing that Scotland is already protected?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Introducing a special Bill for Scotland on a subject which has already proved contentious does not seem likely to me to remove contention. As the Bill is contentious, and, as a matter of fact, is opposed by a large section of the House, it is not possible for us to pass it before the
  246
  Adjournment, and it must stand over. I am sorry to say it follows inevitably that there will be a gap between the expiry of the present powers and the coming into operation of the powers which the Bill will give.
  May I deal with Private Members' Bills l It is obvious that with the programme I have sketched I cannot give time for any Private Members' Bills before the Adjournment. What may be possible in the Autumn Session it is too soon for me to say, but it is quite clear I cannot deal with one Bill without surveying all the Bills mentioned to-day, and some others which have been pressed upon me outside this House, or at different times within it.
  Sir H. NIELD: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that in relation to the Bill I mentioned, there has not been a discordant voice at any stage of it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be, but the programme which I have sketched does not leave me any option with regard to Private Members' Bills, for I cannot deal with one Private Member's Bill without being prepared to say what I may be able to say or do in regard to the others. Private Members who have taken a Bill up to a certain stage with a certain prospect of success, come to me and plead the particular merits of their Bill, and the particular circumstances which differentiate their claim from the claim of every other Member in the House. I am afraid, however, that I have had too much experience of the sanguineness of hon. Members as against the difficulties of passing a Bill to feel reassured by the confidence of the sponsors of Bills that the House will let one Bill go through without putting forward a claim for others. A question was put to me by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). I have not yet got the Bill to which he refers. The Amendments have been put in in another place.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: The Bill has been sent down.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, I have not yet got it, and I do not know when we shall get it. I cannot make any promise with regard to the time at which we shall take the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill. We will do our best to take it at a reasonable time, but at this period of the Session, if we are to rise on Friday week,

  247
  I can make no definite promise as to the hour it will be taken.
  We have had a kind of dress rehearsal by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) of a performance which he hopes to repeat on the Appropriation Bill. Members of the Government sometimes complain of the insufficient notice and character of the questions which hon. Members wish to raise, but, at any rate, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has on this occasion given the Government a very full sketch of the case he will make. I can only say that I take notice of the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise—
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me, but he has promised that before the House rises this question is to be dealt with.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All I can say at this moment is that I take note of the desire of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise this question on the Appropriation Bill, and his desire for a statement of the policy of the Government. I am not in a position to-day to say how far it will be within the power of the Government to add to such statements as they have previously made. I am a little inclined to doubt whether in the present state of affairs we can usefully add anything to the statements made on behalf of the Government. I can only say I will inquire. The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks as if the solution of this question depended on us alone, or even upon us as the sole power. That is not so. Nothing that we can do by ourselves, nothing we can do of our own sole action, will relieve the situation or cure it—so far as policy can cure all these evils of which he spoke—that is for joint action. Whether it will be possible to make any further statement or not on behalf of His Majesty's Government I cannot say, but I take note of the desire of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for discussion, and I will bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: Is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill in the Autumn Session to carry out the wish expressed by the House last night?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Government be able to find time for the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent Charges (Rates) Bill which is merely a formal matter?
  Captain BENN: There are several questions I should like to put, and I have a few observations to make. In respect to the Sale of Bread Bill, as I was one of those who put my name down in opposition to it, I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman that it is only Scotland that objects to it. If you are to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill a satisfactory settlement might be arrived at. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I only throw that suggestion out. As regards the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill if it were the Government's intention at a later part of the Session to give any facilities for the further stages of this Bill they would meet not only with the opposition already displayed by the Labour party, but the opposition, I think I may say, of the whole of the Members of the Independent Liberal party in this House who were responsible for the passing of the original Act, and consider that it needs no amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the merits of the Government can be made known by an enumeration of the Bills that have been put forward. My right hon. Friend stated that they had brought in 59 Bills, and the right hon. Gentleman retorted by saying that the Liberal Government in 1908 passed 69 Bills. [An HON. MEMBER: "Acts."] Yes, but the difference was that the 59 Bills brought in by the Government are mostly bad, and the 69 Acts passed by the Liberal Government were mostly good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not seem to be in agreement with the majority of the House; but I never heard yet that legislation had to be measured by the simple process of counting noses. The complaint of one hon. Member against the Government was that we have not had enough time to discuss finance. That is a very great pity. It is unfortunate that the Estimates Committee has, as a matter of favour, to seek late in the Session an opportunity to say something. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a sturdy opponent of the House of Commons control of expenditure. He wants the control exercised by outside bodies or by some extraneous machinery. Many of us

  249
  want expenditure controlled by the House of Commons itself. I certainly feel that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said about the inadequate amount of time given to the House of Commons to control the expenditure of the Government is true, and I venture to think that it was not only in these Bills which are being passed, but in the list of Measures which were not to be passed that the House can find a good deal to think about. We have been told that of two Bills, the Rabbits Bill, is not to pass, and the Clinical Thermometers Bill is. When you examine the programme that the right hon. Gentleman put forward for this part of the Session, and its effect upon the programme of work to be accomplished in the remainder of the Session then we get some real enlightenment of what the Government intends to do. We meet again on 14th November. That will leave about five weeks before the House will be prorogued. An Irish Free State Bill will be essential. There must be an Irish Indemnity Bill. There will be a great deal of Finance, and the remaining stages of Government Bills which have been held over from this part of the Session. It is obvious that there will not be time even for a Measure abolishing the Ministry of Transport, which I think would be, widely welcomed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"] It is very doubtful whether there will be time for a Bill to give effect to the Resolution passed by this House last night. It is more than doubtful. But after all the House of Commons is supreme in these matters, and not the Government, and it is very significant that when the hon. Member for York put a question he was not able to get an answer from the Leader of the House—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted when I was about to answer that question.
  Captain BENN: I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will afford us an answer as to when he is going to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Resolution passed last night. Will he answer that question now?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not care to interrupt, or I could have done so before. I waited till I thought all the questions that were to be put had been
  250
  put to me, and then I rose. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the Parliamentary form, and I was proceeding on the assumption I was answering the questions put to me when the hon. and gallant Gentleman got up to put other questions. The Government have had no opportunity since last night of considering what action they should take upon the Resolution, but I frankly say I do not think there is a prospect within the limit of the Parliamentary Session of this year of passing a Bill on this subject. I am speaking merely personally at the moment. I have had no opportunity of consulting my colleagues since last night on what should follow the Resolution of last night.
  Captain BENN: The interval between 25th April, 1911, and 24th July, 1922, ought to have been sufficient to have enabled the Government to make up their minds as to whether they would bring in a Bill on this subject, but the right hon. Gentleman has given an answer. There is not to be a Bill, so that what we drew inferentially from the programme he sketched the right hon. Gentleman has practically implemented in a positive manner. Then there is the other question which we see cannot be dealt with in the programme, and which have been brought forward. I see the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir G. Younger) present. It is quite obvious that in the programme now presented there is no chance whatever of dealing with what the hon. Baronet in a speech the other day announced as "one of the most important problems of the day," being disposed of, at any rate, this year. I presume the hon. Baronet is quite satisfied with that announcement. We were told at the beginning of the Session in the gracious speech from the Throne that this Measure —no, on 21st November, 1918, that this was urgently required, but certainly there is little light as to the Amendment of the Parliament Act, to restore the powers of the other House. This was urgently required in November, 1918! Now we have the programme from which we can see quite clearly that the Resolutions have been introduced in this matter that leave the subject without form and void. There will be nothing definite so far as this year is concerned. All this throws some light on the way the Government intend to do what they have

  251
  promised to carry out the mandate by which they secured their election, and by which they keep together the various parts of their parties.
  Mr. HAILWOOD: Is there not considerable opposition to the Sale of Bread Bill in many parts of Lancashire?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will not give time this Session to pass that short Act repealing that section of the Administration of Justice Act, whereby the subject was deprived of his immemorial right to have his case decided by a jury? The matter has been greatly commented upon by the High Court, as Mr. Speaker doubtless remembers. It should be possible to restore trial by jury to the subject before we separate.
  Mr. THOMAS SHAW: Will the Leader of the House give an opportunity to discuss the conditions alleged to be demanded by the allied Governments in regard to the control of German expenditure? Will he say if it be a fact that all expenditure on public services of sums over 500,000 marks are to be controlled by allied officials, 500,000 marks being equivalent roughly to £250 at the present rate of exchange. I would like to know whether it would be possible to have an estimate of the number of civil officials required to control this expenditure; whether it is likely that the reparations we shall receive will be sufficient to pay for the civil officials we have to employ; and whether a definite statement will be made on this matter before we adjourn.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope that before the House separates an opportunity will be found by the Government, if it is at all possible, to make a statement on the reparation question. I am afraid I should be out of order in discussing this question, but I think I am in order in saying that it is unquestionably the most important European question of the day, and upon a satisfactory settlement of that question probably a very great deal of the immediate future history, not only of this country, but of the whole of Europe, may depend. To separate until the 14th November, and then meet for an Autumn Session to deal only with such a specific question as the Irish Constitution, I think would be very deplorable if it could be avoided.
  252
  The House has always been in the habit of saying that the Executive of the day must, in the last resort, say whether or not they can make a statement upon a particular question of foreign policy, The House has always recognised that that is the responsibility and privilege of the Government. I do feel, however, that it will be little short of a disaster if this House should separate without something having been done to enlighten the public mind on this question, and without indicating some hopeful scheme for settling this very grave question. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has referred to one aspect of this question, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to another aspect, but I am sure that the Government must recognise that, as this question really is the basis of the whole international position of the present day, some settlement must be found. I trust that the Government will be able to make some statement on this question before the House separates.
  Mr. MALONE: Before the House pass this Motion I want to ask the Leader of the House a very important question. I may say in passing that I see no reason why, given careful management and arrangement, we should be called upon to pass this Motion to-day. If the House had before it the record of the work done in the last six or eight months it would be found that nearly 50 per cent. of our time has been spent on very small Measures of no real import. There was the Measure dealing with law charges and Courts of Law, which may be of some importance to the legal profession, but it was of no real national importance. We spent six or seven days on the Measure dealing with miscellaneous war charges, and, after reading through the OFFICIAL REPORT in regard to both these Measures, I find that the Members who have spoken have been almost exactly identical in the case of both those Measures. We have spent, several valuable days in discussing the important question of zinc phosphates, while really important business, such as the Washington Conference decisions and matters of that kind, have been rushed through on a Friday afternoon. I want to ask the Leader of the House a very important question. It is one that, affects the whole attitude of mind with which we

  253
  approach the legislation which we are going to be asked to consider in the Autumn Session. I think we ought to know at this time when there is going to be a General Election. I d0 not know whether I am in order in discussing that question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will answer that question at once. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that question.
  Mr. MALONE: I think that is a question which I ought to address to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), but I hope the question will be answered before we re-assemble for the Autumn Session.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I would like to ask if the Government will be able to make any statement before we adjourn with regard to their policy concerning the Report of Lord Dunedin's Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland. This Committee has been sitting in Scotland for a very considerable time. It reported two months ago, and we have not had any statement from the Government in regard to it. We have repeatedly asked far a statement, and unless we get it before the House rises we shall be met during the Autumn Session with the reply that it is impossible to give effect to those recommendations because there has been no opportunity of discussing them. I ask the Leader of the House if he cannot make a statement that may be considered in Scotland during the Recess in order that we may have legislation on this very important subject during the Autumn Session.
  Mr. LUNN: There are many hon. Members who would like to know what is to be the attitude of the Government towards the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill. May I take it that the answer given by the Leader of the House to the hon. Member who introduced the Motion last night, which was carried by the House, that no time can be given for a Bill dealing with the subject matter of that Motion during this Session means that no other Bill or a Bill similar to the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill will receive any time or support from the Government. It is very important, in the country, at all events,
  254
  that we should know where the Government stand upon a Measure of this kind.
  Dr. MURRAY: I missed from the statement made by the Leader of the House any indication as to when there would be an announcement as to the appointment of the Royal Commission upon the question of Honours which is agitating almost every section of the community at the present time. Some of them are in fear and trembling lest their names may be forgotten, but from every point of view I think we are entitled to some indication as to whether such a statement will be made. I should also like to suggest to the Leader of the House that he should not allow Ministers in charge of Bills to accept Amendments at short notice which make such Measures far more contentious than they were in their virgin state.
  The Postmaster-General the other day brought in an innocent Bill, and he accepted a manuscript Amendment which turned it into a, most contentious Measure. It was an Amendment setting forth that you are not allowed to send a message that tends to subvert public order in the country. The Prime Minister might go again to Limehouse and make speeches tending to subvert public order. I do not think Ministers should be permitted to accept Amendments which make their Bills more contentious than when they were first submitted to the Committee.
  Mr. WATERSON: I listened with very great attention to the speech of the Leader of the House, particularly that portion in which he replied to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). As one who was put upon the Committee to deal with the Sale of Bread Bill, naturally I feel disappointed that the Government has felt it necessary to drop this important Measure. I am not going to suggest to the House that there is not some opposition to it, because it would be idle to do so. I do claim, however, that the difficulties of the Bill have been due entirely to the position of Scotland, and if the Government could have seen their way clear to introduce a special Measure dealing with the special circumstances in Scotland, we should have had an opportunity of passing it. The serious position is that on the 31st October certain Orders expire, and if the House is not going to meet until the 14th November there will

  255
  be a state of anxiety, not only as far as the consumer is concerned, but also as far as the baking fraternity is concerned. A special Committee was set up to deal with this question, of which I was a member, but owing to the attitude of one or two members of the Committee the Government have decided to drop this Bill as far as this Session is concerned.
  I notice the Leader of the House said that the Solicitors Bill was to go through before the Session ended. I submit that the Sale of Bread Bill is far more important than the Solicitors Bill. I do not say that the Solicitors Bill is a highly contentious Measure, and I do not know much about its details, but as far as the Sale of Bread is concerned, it is one which affects every individual in the community, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should have given some opportunity for this Bill to go through, because on a straight issue in the Division Lobby I am sure it would have been settled satisfactorily to the baking fraternity and to the great consuming public of our land.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I want to ask the Leader of the House whether, in answering a question I put to him in regard to a certain Bill being withdrawn, he referred to the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent Charges (Rates) Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill coming down from the other House with Amendments which are likely to give rise to much controversy?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I suppose the Government are not going to take it up?
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apparently there is some misconception. Speaking generally, I think the criticisms which have been made were covered by my earlier reply. Take the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and another Bill mentioned by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten). I have already said it is quite obvious that we cannot give facilities for any private Bills in this portion of the Session, and it is too early for me to make promises in regard to Bills of that character to be dealt with during the. Autumn Session. As regards reparations, and, indeed, the
  256
  whole of that problem—not Reparations alone, but international indebtedness arising out of the War—my Noble Friend will not suppose that I regard that problem as less serious, less worthy of consideration, or less requiring wise counsel than he does himself. But, as I have said already, there are others concerned besides ourselves. It is not a case where action of the British Government, standing by itself, could give any solution to an afflicted world. The co-operation of others must be secured. Whether it is possible to have a Conference of Allied Ministers, and I hope it will be very shortly, and whether it is possible to say more than we have said in advance, or whether, if possible, it would be wise, I would not like to answer to-day. All I can do is to convey to my colleague more immediately concerned the desire expressed by Members of the House that a statement should be made on this subject if we are in a position to make it. That I will do. Beyond that I cannot go. There is only on other matter which has been referred to, and it is the reference which the hon. Gentleman opposite made to the Royal Commission with regard to honours. I have no doubt we shall be able to announce the names of the Royal Commission before the House rises. I should hope so, certainly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is at this moment actually engaged in a series of interviews with those whom he promised to consult before he took any definite steps in the matter.
  Sir J. HOPE: Can I have an answer to my question?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps it is the more permissible that I should have forgotten to deal with that point, because my hon. Friend himself has obviously forgotten the answer which the Lord Advocate has given him on two or three occasions. I think my hon. Friend has been informed by the Lord Advocate that this matter is being carefully considered by the Government. It is a very complicated and difficult subject, as we all know. Rating reform is enough to send a shudder through every bench in the House, and, above all, through every Member who takes any interest in safeguarding the taxpayer. It is a very difficult subject, and I do not think there is any statement of policy that can be made before the Adjournment.
  Mr. T. SHAW: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the point I raised?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend has assumed for a Let, that which is not a fact. He will have his opportunity of raising his question, which is part of that large question of national indebtedness of
  which I spoke on the Appropriation Bill. What answer it will be in the power of the Government to give I cannot say at this moment.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 14.

  Division No. 234.]

  AYES.

  5.7 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Murchison, C. K.

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Grant, James Augustus

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

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

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

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

  Neal, Arthur

  Astor, Viscountess

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

  Atkey, A. R.

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

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

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Newton, Sir D. G. c (Cambridge)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Hailwood, Augustine

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

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Norr's, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bartley-Penniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

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

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

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlycn W.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Parker, James

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

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pearce, Sir William

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

  Percy, Charles (Tyntmouth)

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Perring, William George

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

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pllditch, Sir Philip

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Borwfck, Major G. O.

  Hunter, General Sir A, (Lancaster)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Pratt, John William

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Briggs, Harold

  Jesson, C.

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Remnant, Sir James

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Brown. Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Robinson, sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rodger, A. K.

  Casey, T. W.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

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

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

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

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Lorden, John William

  Seager, Sir William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

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

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

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

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. p.

  Slmm, M. T. (Wallsend)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Smithers, Sir Alfred w.

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  MLean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

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

  Stevens, Marshall

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M.

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

  Taylor, J.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

  Martin, A. E.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Fell, Sir Arthur?

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

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Middlebrook. Sir William

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

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Thomas. Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Forrest, Walter

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Gardiner, James

  Morden. Col. W. Grant

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Morris, Richard

  Wallace, J.

  Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Morrison, Hugh

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

  Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

  Worstold, T. Cato

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

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

  Worthington-Evant, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Waring, Major Walter

  Windsor, Viscount

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Warner, Sir T. Caurtenay T.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Winterton, Earl

  Younger, Sir George

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  wise, Frederick

  Whitla, Sir William

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

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

  McCurdy.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hallas, Eldred

  Randall, Atheistan

  Banton, George

  Halls, Walter

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Sutton, John Edward

  Brlant, Frank

  Irving, Dan

  Swan, J. E.

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

  Cairns. John

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

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

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

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M

  Waterson, A. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kenvon, Barnet

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Klley, James Daniel

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Wig nail, James

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck)

  Lunn, William

  Wllkie, Alexander

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Foot, Isaac

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Galbralth, Samuel

  Mills, John Edmund

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

  Gillis, William

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton]

  Myers, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Hogge.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  O'Connor, Thomas P

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Ordered,
  "That, except on Fridays, Government Business, until the Summer Adjournment, be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed, and that at the conclusion
  260
  of Government Business each day, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any order, rule, or regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall he taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Special provisions as to power companies.)
  (1) The Electricity Commissioners may by the Order establishing a joint electricity authority, or after the establishment of a joint electricity authority by an Order made on the application of that authority, exclude from the area of supply of any power company, subject to such terms, conditions, and reservations as the Electricity Commisisoners may think fit—

  (a) any part of that area in which any right of the power company to supply electricity is subject. to the absolute veto of some other authorised undertaker, and where the Order provides for or is made conditional on the transfer to the joint electricity authority of the generating station from which a supply of electricity is given to the part of the area in question;

  (b) any part of that area which at the time of the local inquiry on the scheme to which the Order establishing the joint electricity authority gives effect, or, as the case may he, at the time of the application for the Order, is not being supplied by the power company, and which it appears to the Electricity Commissioners could be better served by the joint electricity authority themselves or by that authority acting through any authorised undertakers; and

  (c) with the consent of the power company any other part of the area of supply of the power company;

  and in any such case the Order may confer on the power company, subject to such conditions as the Electricity Commissioners may prescribe, power to supply electricity for all purposes in any other part of their area of supply which does not at the time form part of the area of supply of any authorised distributors.
  Provided that where on the application of a joint electricity authority it is proposed to make such an Order (not being an Order made under Section seven of the principal Act), and the power company, or any county council, local authority, or authorised undertakers which appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be interested object -to the proposed Order, effect shall not be given to the proposals except by a Special Order under Section twenty-six of the principal Act.
  (2) Where in pursuance of this Section any part of the area of supply of a power company is by Order excluded from such area of supply—
  262

  (a) the exclusion shall not affect any rights of the power company existing immediately before the making of the Order to lay mains through the part so excluded, but any such rights may continue to be exercised by the power company notwithstanding such exclusion;

  (b) the exclusion shall not prevent the power company from giving a supply of electricity at any point in their remaining area for the purpose of haulage or traction on any railway, tramway, or canal, and for the purpose of lighting vehicles and vessels used on any such railway tramway, or canal which they could have supplied if the part of the area excluded under this Section had remained part of their area of supply.

  (3) Section fourteen of the principal Act is repealed.—[Mr. Neal.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It is necessary that I should explain to the House why this new Clause has been put upon the Paper. It is essential to remember that the present Bill is a Bill to amend the Act which was passed by Parliament in 1919, and that it is to be read in connection with that Act. As hon. Members will recall, the Bill as it left this House in 1919, and went to another place, was twofold in character. It had a voluntary aspect, but beyond that there was a compulsory aspect, under which it was possible for the authorities that were to be set up to purchase an undertaking without the consent of the undertaker. Therefore, there were provisions in that Bill which were appropriate to that set of circumstances, but which required reconsideration in view of the fact that the Act, as it took final form, had had eliminated from it the compulsory element, so that there was left only the element of voluntary sale or purchase of the station and mains. In the Act of 1919 there was a Section, Section 12, which is amended by Clause 15 of the present Bill, to which it will be necessary for me to invite the House to give some consideration.
  By Section 12 the powers of the joint electricity authority were defined. They were authorised to supply electricity within their district subject to the exceptions mentioned in the Section, and one of the exceptions was that they were not to supply in the area of supply of a power

  263
  company. An exception was, however, grafted upon that exception, whereby they might so supply, in the area of the power company, to the owner of a station which had been purchased. That was absolutely essential in dealing with compulsory purchase. It was quite impossible that there should have been, in the Act of 1919, a right to buy a station against the consent of the owner, and then to say that the joint electricity authority which had purchased that station might not supply to the owner of that station—that, in other words, the station so purchased should be put out of action altogether. That was the state of things when the Bill of 1919 left this House. It was quite different when it received the Royal Assent. When the present Bill was introduced in another place by my Noble Friend Lord Peel, the power companies thought it necessary to put upon the Order Paper a very large number of Amendments to protect their statutory rights. May I just remind the House in a few sentences what those rights were?
  The power companies had come into existence, after a Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Cross, for the purpose of very substantially enlarging what. I may call the wholesale supply of electricity, as contradistinguished from the more limited right which had been given under the earlier Lighting Act; and those power companies, not very numerous, have invested in them at the present time, I think, something like £20,000,000. Of course, Parliament is bound to give proper consideration to the rights of these power companies who had come into being as statutory companies with certain rights, upon the strength 3f which they had invested their shareholders' money. The power companies in another place, therefore, put down a large number of Amendments, and I have little doubt that they would have succeeded in very seriously hampering, if not defeating, the Bill in another place. It was because of that that my Noble Friend Lord Peel, who was then Minister of Transport., consented to the introduction in the present Bill of Clause 15. That Clause is an Amendment of Section 12 of the principal Act, to which I have already referred, and the one point of amendment there to which I need specifically call the attention of the House is
  264
  that it repealed that part of Section 12 which enabled a joint electricity authority to supply electricity to the owner of a power station which had been sold and transferred to the joint electricity authority.
  Clause 15, therefore, is a Clause by which the Government must stand. It is quite impossible for the Government to meet its opponents in one House, dispose of opposition in that House, and then, in the second House, when other opposition develops, to seek to abandon the provision by which it obtains support in another place. In Committee on this Bill Amendments waste put down, and they re-appear on the Paper to-day, to strike Clause 15 out of the present. Bill, but, for the reasons which I have explained, they could not be entertained by the Government. It was said on behalf of local authorities, mainly on behalf of municipal corporations, "See what yon are doing. When the station has been sold to the joint electricity authority, the joint electricity authority that, has bought. it may no longer use that station for the purpose of supplying the corporation from whom they have bought. it." My reply to that, on behalf of the Government, was that that was not the intention of the Clause, nor was it a result which the Commissioners feared, because the Commissioners had, under Section 14 of the Act of 1919, certain powers of adjusting districts which would prevent that from happening: and, speaking with the full authority of the Electricity Commissioners, who had carefully studied the matter, I said that in practice it was not believed these difficulties Mould arise. Notwithstanding that, and I make no complaint, I was very strongly pressed that the Clause as it stood was sensible of an interpretation which might make the transfer of these stations to the joint electricity authority impossible. I pointed out that they could only be transferred by consent, and that no one would consent to transfer a station if the result was that that station was to be put out of action for the purpose of supplying the district in respect of which it had been built. I promised the Committee, however, that I would approach the Power Companies' Association, and would ask them to meet me in a reasonable spirit and to consider whether it was not possible to find

  265
  words which might be agreeable, in the form of a new Clause, which would remove the fear of the local authorities.
  I invited the Power Companies' Association to see me. They met me in exactly the spirit in which I thought and hoped they would, and they did consent to a modification of the position, which is embodied in the Clause, the Second Reading of which I now move. Following upon that, I had the advantage of several discussions with representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the Clause as it now stands on the Paper has been agreed by the Government with the Power Companies' Association and with the Association of Municipal Corporations as being a reasonable way in which to meet the difficulties which had been foreshadowed. I ought to say that I think I am in perfect agreement about the wording with both associations, but that, since the Clause was first put on the Paper, the Parliamentary draftsman has suggested some very slight verbal alterations, not altering the sense, but conforming better to his views as to drafting; and I think I am entitled, therefore, to say that this Clause is one which meets with the approval of the parties who were in antagonism before the Committee.
  The Clause provides that the Electricity Commissioners may, when they are establishing a joint electricity authority, or after the establishment of a joint electricity authority, by an order made on the application of that authority, exclude from the area of supply of any power company, subject to such terms, conditions and reservations as they may think fit, three separate matters. The first is any part of that area in which the right of the power company to supply electricity is subject to the absolute veto of some other authorised undertaker, where the station is being transferred; that is to say, where a municipality has erected its own station, and by its statute has a right to say to the power company, "You shall not sell in our district except with our consent," and that right is absolute, then the Electricity Commissioners may exclude that municipal area from the area of the power company, making such terms and conditions as they think fit. Subsection (1, b) is really part of the old Section 14 of the Act of 1919. It says that the Commissioners may exclude from
  266
  the area of the power company any part of that area which at the time of the local inquiry, or at some later time, is not being supplied by the power company, and which it appears to the Commissioners could be better served by the joint electricity authority themselves or by that authority acting through any authorised undertakers. I hope that that is clear. The Commissioners, considering the matter, say: "Here is an area which is within the limits of the power company, but which in point of fact can be much better served by some other station belonging to the joint electricity authority. Therefore, we will exclude that from the area of the power company."
  The Commissioners may also exclude, with the consent of the power company, any other part of the area of supply of the power company; but at the same time they may enlarge the powers of the power company by giving it the right to be a distributor for all purposes of electrical energy in its area; that is to say, they may map out separate districts and say, "This district will be best served from the station of the joint electricity authority; that district will be better served by the power company." Then there are certain provisos with which I need not trouble the House for more than a moment. The exclusion of an area from that of a supply company is not to prevent them from laying their through mains for the purpose of connecting up their districts, and it is not. to prevent them from selling their electricity for purposes of haulage or traction on any railway, tramway or canal, and for the purpose of lighting vehicles and vessels used on such railway, tramway or canal. The last part of the new Clause repeals, because it has been enacted in better words, Section 14 of the Act of 1919. In moving the Second Reading of the Clause, I desire to acknowledge my indebtedness both to the power companies and to the municipal corporations for the way in which they have endeavoured to meet the Government and to find something which would be satisfactory to all parties.
  Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I listened, as I always do, with very close care and attention to the explanation which my hon. Friend has given of his Clause. I think he has hardly done justice to the facts of the case. While he has generally sketched the programme which led up to

  267
  Clause 15 of the present Bill, he has in some particulars omitted to lay before the House clearly all the information of which it should be fully seized if it is to understand the full import of this Clause and how it comes to be proposed. May I explain it, without offence to my hon. Friend, as I understand it? It is to give power to the Electricity Commissioners to exclude part of a power company's area. I take no exception at all to the proposed provisions regarding the supply given on generating stations being transferred. On that point, I am more or less in general agreement with him. I am confining most of my remarks to the operation of the Clause as it is given effect to in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) states that any part of that area which at the time of the local inqury on the scheme to which the Order establishing the joint electricity authority gives effect, may be excluded from the area. I will leave paragraph (b) for the moment, because I should like to direct attention to the declaration made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, which he has lightly touched upon this afternoon. He said:
  "When this Bill was introduced it met with a great deal of opposition and a very large number of Amendments were tabled for the protection of the existing statutory rights of power companies, and there was grave danger—I say this quite advisedly— that the Bill would not have had a favourable reception in another place but for some such Clause as Clause 16,"—
  which is now Clause 15—
  "being inserted and it was therefore accepted by Lord Peel. On the strength of that acceptance of the Clause many Amendments disappeared from the Order Paner and the passage of the Bill was facilitated."
  Subsequently, in the same speech, my hon. Friend made a few other observations in the same sense. He said:
  "The power companies were seeking to protect their position in the other House and this Clause—I must state it quite frankly on behalf of the Government—was given to them as a measure of protection, and from the main object and intention of the Clause it is quite impassible for me, speaking on behalf of the Government, and as my Noble Friend said in another place, to depart."
  That was the position so far as Clause 15 was concerned. I have only read what my hon. Friend said in Committee because I think the House should be fully acquainted with his words there. Am I
  268
  right in saying plainly that those statements made by my hon. Friend were definite, binding, irrevocable pledges of His Majesty's Government? I think I am. I do not think my hon. Friend will challenge that they were binding, definite, irrevocable pledges.
  We now turn back to Clause 14 of the principal Act. My hon. Friend states that this Clause now proposed only gives effect to certain provisions of Section 14 of the principal Act. But it was because Section 14 was in the principal Act that the power companies originally were anxious to obtain this new Clause in the Bill of this year, so as to have subsequent legislation, making it perfectly clear that you had no right, if a power company was able and willing to supply in a given area, to excise a portion of that area.
  To go back to the point at which I broke off in paragraph (b). What must the Electricity Commissioners do now, if this Clause is adopted, if they wish to cut out a portion of a power company's area? The first thing they could do would be to institute a large number of inquiries, and the moment those inquiries are instituted it is automatically in the power of the Commissioners, when they make an Order setting up a joint electricity authority, to omit from the area of the power company any portion where it so happens that a supply is not given at that particular moment. What is the effect of that? There are several power companies in the country at present where in fact supplies are not being given, but, where, in fact, supplies will be given the moment any consumer wishes a supply, and where, in fact, arrangements are tentatively being made, no doubt, for supplies at present, and money has been spent in anticipation of putting supplies into those areas. If this Bill became an Act, it would be within the power and within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, after inquiry in certain areas, to exclude large portions of areas where in fact there may have been money spent in anticipation of putting supplies into those areas. I am sure my hon. Friend must have omitted that consideration. I am not anxious to prolong discussion or to delay the proceedings. I think my hon. Friend will admit that in Committee I did everything to facilitate the passage of the Bill, but I cannot possibly allow this Clause to pass

  269
  as it stands without some strong opposition, unless I have some undertaking that, he is prepared to insert simple words which will reinstate the position and will give effect to the definite, binding pledge given upstairs. The second and third Amendments in my name do no more than give effect to the pledge my hon. Friend gave on behalf of the Government. If he says he will not accept those words, I shall have a good deal more to say. He remains silent. He referred in his speech to an undertaking given in Committee to discuss the matter with the Power Companies' Association.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Might we have an answer to the question. It would save a lot of trouble.
  Mr. NEAL: I am entirely in the hands of the House whether I make an answer now or later. My point is that I have fully redeemed the pledges which I gave. I said I would consult the Power Companies Association, which represents all the power companies. I have done that. The Clause on the Paper is put there with their full consent, and so far as I know, my hon. Friend is the only person who dissents from that view.
  Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend, I am sure, would not willingly or knowingly use words here which are contrary to the words he used in Committee. But I challenge him directly. Members who are on the Committee will know whether I am correct. He never used the words "confer with the Power Companies Association," and quite rightly so. He never referred to meeting the Municipal Associations when we were discussing it in Committee, and quite rightly. I think it was his business and his duty to confer with the Members of the Committee who were making Parliamentary representations upstairs, and not, immediately the Committee broke up, to hobnob with various associations and put a Clause on the Paper without discussing it with those Members of Parliament who were serving on the Committee. What happened? I was called away on urgent business. I heard that this Clause was down, and I made inquiries. It is true my hon. Friend had a meeting with the Power Companies Association. Why did he not acquaint me with the fact? Why did he not take the trouble to ask me to he present? I suggest that it was because I should have challenged some of the
  270
  statements which were made to that association which induced them to agree to this Clause. I think my hon. Friend said to the members of that association that, if some such such Clause was not agreed to, there would be grave danger of imperilling Clause 15, which had been given as a binding pledge by the Government. Why did he discuss it in private with the members of the Power Companies Association when no Member of Parliament was there to challenge his presentation of the case, and why did he warn them that there would be serious and grave danger of the Government breaking a pledge?
  Mr. NEAL: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think I am not overstating the case. It has been put to me by LI member of the association whose veracity I have no reason to doubt.
  Mr. NEAL: I certainly have never said, either in Committee or in private or here, that the Government will withdraw from Clause 15 at all. What I said—and let there be no misunderstanding about lt—was that there was a great agitation growing against. Clause 15, and that the House might defeat it. But the position of the Government has always been perfectly clear. We stand by the pledge we gave to the House of Lords in Clause 15.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Of course, I accept without question what my hon. Friend tells me. It rather confirms the view I have expressed. I never suggested that he raid the Government wished to withdraw Clause 15. But he said there was grave danger—I think those are the very words he used—of losing Clause 15 if some such Amendment were not accepted. May I ask him what happened in Committee? Surely, we are not concerned with the tittle tattle outside. We are not concerned with the notices the technical Press, who boldly state that they would far rather trust for public legislation to the Electricity Commissioners than to Parliament. This discussion arose in Committee on an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley). He moved quite a small Amendment, relating to generating stations, in connection with Clause 15. He made no speech, even, in support of his Amendment. He said he

  271
  moved it, and he should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation. The Parliamentary Secretary made a long speech. He made a case not only for my hon. Friend's Amendment but he made a case, which I cannot help feeling he wanted to make, to show that Clause 15 required amendment. It did not come from any Member of the Committee. We have had assurance after assurance that no doubt a form of words could he made to meet us. That form of words has never been found. The hon. Gentleman met the Municipal Associations and the Power Companies Association but not those, or some of those, Members who have taken a close interest in the Measure from the beginning, hon. Gentleman has not made out his case. He has absolutely broken faith, and has done it in a very ingenious manner, displaying a skill very similar in type to the skill he displayed when, by an acrobatic feat, he translated himself from the bench where I stand to the seat he now occupies. I demand in the interests of clean Parliamentary life that we should have these discussions carried on between Members of Parliament and not between His Majesty's Ministers and associations. I make no allegation or suggestion against the association in question. I am a member of that association. The members of that association are most estimable and honourable gentlemen, all trying to discharge their duty, but it is not their business, between the Committee stage mid the Report stage to deal with these things, except through Members of the Committee, who served on that Committee. I say, with very great reluctance, that I must hog of my hon. Friend that he should keep faith and not break a definite pledge given by His Majesty's Government, otherwise, we must rely upon another place to deal with the matter.
  Sir R. ADKINS: As a Member of the Standing Committee, I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) has adopted so high a calorific standard in his comments upon this Bill. It is very easy for Members, equally honest and having equal intelligence, to have differences of opinion on some of the details of the Bill. While I have had my differences with the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill, and while we are all anxious that our
  272
  different points of view should be embodied in the Bill in its final stage, I must he allowed to say that the charges made by my hon. Friend come so near charges of wilful deceit that I think they overstate what he really means, and that what has occurred might very easily occur in a Bill of this complexity. Here is a Clause brought in by the Government after hearing Members of the Standing Committee, and after conferring, as they are entitled to confer, with all interested parties, which does not in some of its details meet with the approval of my hon. Friend, for reasons which we shall hear when he moves his Amendment. While I am very much opposed to pieces of Bills being together outside Paeliarment—I am afraid I have worried the House by making that protest frecinently—I submit that where you have had a matter discussed in Standing Committee, it is not quite correct to say more than that it is unfortunate if any prominent Member of that Committee interested in an aspect of the Bill does not happen to have been brought into conference, when other people were brought into conference. Therefore, to that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead, but I cannot believe that there has been any attempt to arrange this new Clause to the exclusion of the point of view of which my hon. Friend has special knowledge.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: My point is that this Clause was arranged with certain gentlemen outside this House, and with no Member of the Committee present—it is not a personal grievance on my own part—until we have the Report Stage in this House.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I perfectly understood that to be my hon. Friend's point. The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon), who was one of the Members interested in local authorities, was present at the conference.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That was another conference.
  Sir R. ADKINS: My hon. Friend has a full knowledge of the occurrences which take place, and those of us who have not that knowledge may lie allowed merely to say that we are sorry that he was not present, because he would have assisted in the construction of the Clause, and in the passing of the Bill to-day. Am I

  273
  right in understanding from the Minister that in cases where there is some alleged ground for taking over parts of the area of power companies which at the moment are not being used, although from the moment the local inquiries are held there is power in the Commissioners to take over, that it is only the machinery of a special inquiry or Order which gives an opportunity to Parliament, not to go into the details, but to say whether they will approve or not? If that is the effect of the proviso, although the new Clause is not perfectly inspired, it removes those elements which might cause some sting.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: Much as I differ from the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) in the point of view from which he approaches this Bill, I find myself in agreement with him as to the way in which this new Clause has found its way on the Paper. It is most unfortunate that a new Clause such as this should be arranged between interested parties, and not by the Committee as a whole. I can say this the more freely because I happen to have had the honour of an invitation to meet the Parliamentary Secretary and those who were to consider the matter from the point of view of the municipal corporations. I was, however, not able to be present. I think the whole principle of the thing is wrong, that, behind the backs of Standing Committees, those who consider they are specially interested should confer together and table a Clause of this kind. The people chiefly interested were not consulted. The people who are chiefly interested are the consumers, the public: at large. The Parliamentary Secretary met privately members of the power companies, and he also met those representing authorised distributors through the municipal authorities, who look at the matter from their particular point of view, but there were no representatives there who specially represented the public at large, so that the interest of the consumers could be put forward. Therefore I agree with the protest made by the lion. Member for Hampstead, much as if differ with him on the general question.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this Clause as being a bargain I know that it is unfortunate for anyone to seek to disagree with a bargain that may have
  274
  been made between people who are supposed to be specially concerned; but in regard to this particular bargain I must enter my protest, and take what steps I can later, although they may be very ineffectual, in voicing the protests which I raised in Committee in regard to Clause 15. Clause 15 is not now before the House, and, therefore, I shall be out of order in discussing it, but in so far as this new Clause is supposed to remove any objections which I voiced in Committee against Clause 15, I must dissent from accepting the Clause as giving in any way an adequate safeguard in regard to the objections that some of us felt, and still feel, respecting Clause 15. As the Clause stands by itself, it is possibly an improvement on what was in the Bill originally, and possibly an improvement on Clause 14 in the original Act. Therefore, taking the Clause by itself, I think it is one to be welcomed, but I must reserve my right to protest against Clause 15, and to say now that I do not consider that this agreed Clause as between interested parties in any way meets the objections which some of us still feel to Clause 15.
  Mr. KILEY: On behalf of 40 local authorities in and around London owning electricity undertakings who were profoundly dissatisfied with the Clause inserted in another place, I was requested to put certain Amendments on the Paper for the Committee stage. When the Committee came to deal with one of these important Amendments I thought it best, in the interests of the Committee, not to take up any great amount of time, as the Parliamentary Secretary was aware of the disstisfaction, and the material placed in my hands amounted to 20 or 30 folios. I was anxious to know what course the Parliamentary Secretary was going to take. He went very fully into the reasons why the Clause was inserted in another place. He knew that that Clause did not give satisfaction to the municipal authorities, but he requested that I should withdraw the Amendment, and said he would take an -opportunity of having a conference with the parties concerned to sec whether or not a compromise satisfactory to all parties could be arrived at. That conference, I understand, has taken place, -but satisfaction has not come out of the conference for any party. I understand that the power

  275
  companies are not satisfied, and the local authorities are not satisfied. Whether or not that means wrecking the Bill is a matter which the House will have to consider. The authorities which I represent are not at all satisfied with the position in which they find themselves.
  Mr. NEAL: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) has made a protest against me personally. The last thing I would wish to do would be to treat either him or any other hon. Member with disrespect. I cannot admire the complacency with which he made his complaint. My hon. Friend many times spoke in Committee, but not, as representing the power companies. We had that iterated and reiterated many times. He assured us that he was only taking part in our discussions as the hon. Member for Hampstead. A position of very great difficulty arose, which jeopardised Clause 15. The municipal corporations were using all their influence with hon. Members and many hon. Members well knew it; and associations were also using their influence to defeat Clause 15. By Clause 15 the Government must stand. It was given to the power companies, and they are entitled to it. Upon that, what was the position I took up? I was put into a position of difficulty by the course that was taken by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley), who formally moved the first of a series of Amendments to wine out Clause 15.
  Hon. Members who served on the Committee will bear me out that I stated perfectly impartially to the Committee the case for both sides, and then I said that it was possible to get concessions. Concessions from whom? From the hon. Member for Hampstead, who was not speaking for the power companies? Certainly not. From the persons interested. I will quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate to justify myself. I said that we might get practical concessions from the persons interested. I asked my hon. Friend, who has charged me with something approaching a breach of faith, was he the person interested that I was to approach? He told the Committee many times over that he was there as a disinterested Member of Parliament to do his part in the shaping of this Bill. I did the only thing that could be done. I got into communication with the
  276
  persons interested, the power companies, an association of which my hon. Friend is a Member. It was perfectly open to that association—they chose their own delegation—to have selected my hon. Friend to come and discuss the matter with me. I wish they had done so.
  Mr. BALFOUR: What did you propose in Committee which gave rise to this discussion? There was nothing in Committee.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. NEAL: The hon. Member must allow me to make my statement in my own way, on a matter which affects my personal honour. I got into touch with the persons interested in the power companies. I did so because they had the protection of Clause 15, and if there was to be anything taken away from that Clause it must be with their consent. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who has only just come into the House, and has not the faintest notion of what has been happening, sneers in his usual manner.
  Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Member has no business to say that. I was only remarking on the curious ideas that the powers of this House should be curtailed by any company outside.
  Mr. NEAL: I never said anything of the kind, nor do I intend anything of the kind to be understood from what I say. These companies have statutory rights, and if the House is to interfere with statutory rights it must do so with great care. Clause 15 has been given to them in another place. By that Clause the Government stand. If a concession is to be made it must be made by them, and on that point I will read some passages from the discussion in Committee. Speaking on the 5th of this month, I said:
  "Still, it does seem me that there is room for consideration of words, to see whether it is not possible, with the good will of everybody, to get a Clause which shall in no way destroy the advantages which the Government conceded in another place, and yet, at the came time, shell make it quite clear that the rights of the consumer, who is, ultimately, the real person to be considered, shall not be prejudiced, I cannot accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, but I hope that the discussion will throw light upon the matter, and that finally, we may be able, at a later stage, to get words satisfactory to everybody."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 5th July, 1922; col. 96.]

  277
  In the course of the Debate my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) said:
  "I hope that this controversy will be brought to a close and that the Parliamentary Secretary will meet the various interests in the spirit which he suggested and that a solution will be found, but that solution must not lose sight of the interests of those people who have put their capital into this industry and have taken the risk of making the industry what it is to-day."
  Then the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) said:
  "I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the suggestion I made, and I am sure he is anxious to meet the wishes of all parties. I take it that the whole of the points that are raised in connection with Clause 16 will be considered by him at the conference, and that all parties who are directly interested in various ways will join him."
  To that I said:
  "I may have separate conferences."
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth then said:
  "As far as the hon. Member is able consistently to meet the various parties lie will de so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 5th July, 1922, col. 116.]
  Had I failed to meet those persons who are interested I should have definitely gone back on my pledge. This Clause meets the approval of the Power Companies' Association, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) is a member. I regret that he was not consulted. Apparently he was not in his place during the last few days. I should have been glad to see him, and confer with him upon it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have been in the House constantly since last Monday night, when the Clause was put on the Paper.
  Mr. NEAL: I had not the good fortune to see my hon. Friend. In view of the explanation which I have given, I ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Clause.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The Members present must have heard with consternation the tone of the whole discussion on this Clause. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill seems to regard legislation very much as he might regard an action in the County Court. The Standing Committee upstairs represents the County Court judge. He represents one party,
  278
  and all the people financially interested in the Bill represent the other. Every now and then he disappears from the Court, sees Counsel on the other side, with the object of coming to an arrangement, and then he comes in and tells the judge, "We have agreed between ourselves to such and such Clauses and to such and such Amendments." The discussion on this Clause does folly justify those of us who opposed this sort of legislation from the start. I do not think it right when Parliament expressed its opinion on the former Electricity Bill, in the way in which it did, that this method of trying to get. back to an old Bill by a side wind should be adopted by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. I do hope that Members, if they go to a Division, will bear in mind that we may be knocking away the whole of the power of Parliament in proceeding with this Amendment. The agreement between myself and the hon. Member for West Middlesbro (Mr. T. Thomson) is a remarkable fact in itself, and when in addition to that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) is also in agreement, it is indeed time that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill should pull himself together, and consider the matter. But I have noticed that the whole tendency of legislation now is a series of bargains between one financially interested person and another, in the sole hope of being able by action in this House to get what they want. If this House could he induced on this particular occasion to record its opinion as to the methods of procedure adopted by the Ministry of Transport ever since it was first formed, I do think that we might get a rather better basis of legislation in this House.
  Major BROWN: I have listened with great interest to this discussion, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has said. Just consider the futility of going on with this at all. I understand that it was introduced after Clause 15 was agreed on, and the Government pledged its solemn word about it because opposition arose about Clause 15. Now I understand from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) that, in spite of this new Clause being introduced, though he likes it somewhat, still his opposition to Clause 15 is going to remain the same. In that case it seems to me to be futile

  279
  to attempt to buy off the opposition in this way, and a much more manly and honourable course on the part of the Ministry of Transport would be to withdraw the Clause altogether. It would be more satisfactory to the House to fight out our differences on Clause 15, and I suggest that this course might well be adopted.
  Mr. MILLS: My colleague the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) had intended to put the Labour view on this question. Unfortunately he is detained by committee work, and I desire very briefly to support the protest which has been made here to-day. I do so because it is the desire of the borough council with which I am associated that as far as possible ail that remains of the 1919 Act shall be left upon the Statute Book. For that reason I do hope that the Ministry of Transport will pay some heed to the representations that have been made.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: There is a series of Amendments to the Clause standing in my name on the Paper. I have no desire to adopt any tactics which may be regarded as in the slightest degree obstructive. I have made my remarks in connection with this Clause already on the Question "that the Clause be read a Second time," and they cover the greater part of the ground. With a view to saving time, I would ask my hon. Friend whether he is prepared to accept one or other of my Amendments to this Clause. By leave of the House, I will defer my remarks to the third and fourth Amendments. If my hon. Friend will accept either of those, I will be content. The third Amendment simply provides that, if a power company is able and willing to supply, it shall be allowed to do so. In other words, it shall he allowed to fulfil the definite binding obligation, given under Clause 15, and this allows the Government to fulfil the undertaking, which in my view, rightly or wrongly, they are attempting to evade by arranging in Committee a discussion upon an Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Whitechapel. Alternatively, will the Parliamentary Secretary accept
  280
  the last of the Amendments on the Paper in my name? I feel certain that on reflection my hon. Friend is bound to agree that I am not asking him to make any concession, but simply to fulfil the obligations which he has already undertaken.
  Mr. NEAL Mr. NEAL indicated dissent.
  Mr. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend is evidently not prepared to accept any of the Amendments. Therefore I will move only the last of the series. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:
  "Provided also that the Electricity Commissioners shall not by any such Order exclude from the area of supply of any power company any part of that area to which the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Sub-Section may apply unless and until a special Order has been made in virtue of the provisions of Section fifteen of this Act with regard to such part of the area of supply of a power company."
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. NEAL: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, The Clause, as it stands, provides that the Electricity Commissioners may, by the order establishing a joint electricity authority, or after the establishment of a joint electricity authority, by an order made on the application of that authority, exclude from the area of supply of any power company what is mentioned in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) does nothing more than reproduce Section 14 of the Act of 1919, in a form which is consonant with the present legislation. We are not enlarging the powers of the Commissioners: we are saying only that they may make these orders on two occasions. One is on the establishment of an authority, and the second is when the authority has been established on the application of that authority. But, before the authority can be established the Commissioners have to hold at least two public inquiries. They then make their order, which requires confirmation by the Minister. The Minister may order a further inquiry. A very cogent criticism has been urged upon me at Question Time in this House to the effect that a multiplicity of inquiries means a great waste of public money. I am very anxious to avoid the multiplication of inquiries. The Amendment would set up further inquiries still. What would

  281
  happen if the Amendment were accepted? The Commissioners will hold their first inquiry. Then they have a further inquiry as to the scheme. That matter requires confirmation by the Minister, with the possibility of a third inquiry. It then comes to this House and to another House for definite confirmation by an affirmative resolution. Following all that, my hon. Friend would suggest that we start all over again under Section 15 by another special order, with more inquiries and more resolutions in this House.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  New Clause.—(Provision as to railways, etc.)
  Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or Order electricity supplied by a joint electricity authority within their district to any company or authority being the owners or lessees of a railway, tramway, or canal undertaking may be used by the company or authority receiving the supply for the purposes of haulage or traction or for lighting vehicles or vessels used on the railway, tramway, or canal on any part of the system of such company or authority.—[Major Hills.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The subject is not free of difficulty, though the Clause is quite simple. It allows a railway company which takes supply from any joint electricity authority to use that supply outside the area of supply of that authority, as well as inside the area. When a railway company takes a supply of electricity it ought not to be limited to the area of supply, but ought to be allowed to use that supply for the purpose of traction. It often occurs that the line of a railway company crosses the boundary of several areas, and it would be extremely inconvenient if, when the train of the railway crosses an imaginary line, a fresh supply of electricity had to be taken. In fact, it would be a quite impossible position. You could not electrify any great length of line unless you could carry your power forward into a fresh area. Electric traction is only now beginning. The fact has been recognised, and it is now permissible to companies to use the power outside the area of supply under Section 5 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1909. Section 5 of that Act authorises that to be done, but only with the
  282
  consent of the Board of Trade, and the powers of the Board of Trade are now vested in the Transport Ministry. If the matter rested there, there would be no difficulty. But the Clause goes on to say that the Board of Trade shall not give such consent until they have given notice by advertisement, and have allowed an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and have, in fact, held a local inquiry. Therefore, no railway can get this very essential power until it has gone to the Minister of Transport and he has held an inquiry.
  I am sorry to have to weary the House with more complicated details, but I cannot put the whole ease unless I deal with the Act of 1919. The House is aware of the circumstances in which that Act was introduced. One of the objects certainly was to facilitate the use of electric power upon railroads. To a certain extent, the Act does so. But it does not meet this special point. In fact, it rather darkens counsel in this respect. In Section 12 of the Act, of 1919 are the provisions for the supply of power to a railway company. But there the supply is limited to supply within the district of the Joint Electricity Authority, and there is no power to use the power outside the area. Again, although Section 5 of the Act of 1919 authorises schemes to be prepared for the supply of power, yet it also contemplates the use of that power only inside the area of supply. Further, the whole of the Act of 1919 is stated to be construed as one with the Electric Lighting Acts, and that expression includes Section 5 of the Act of 1909. So it comes back to this—that wherever you go you always have to obtain the consent of the Minister of Transport, and he cannot give that consent without an inquiry. I welcome the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary made on the last Amendment. He told us that he was very much opposed to a multiplicity of inquiries. I hope I may pray that statement in aid. If you go under the Act of 1919, and a railway applies for authority to use power outside an area, two inquiries have to be held. One inquiry is concerned only with the persons inside the district itself, and the second inquiry is concerned with those outside. This cannot be clone by a single inquiry, for the interests are quite different.

  283
  It is certain that the use of electric power is going to increase rapidly. I submit that the best thing for the public is that companies should use electricity, whenever they can get it, on their system. What would happen in practice is that the supply would be taken at a substation and used along the line as long as it was profitable commercially. Why should a railway not be able to take the supply on the most economical terms? it surely is to the general advantage that they should do so. I ask, is it not time that these restrictions should be removed? I am not asking for a very big concession. All I want to do is to remove the bar and the expense and the delay entailed by these two inquiries. If the Government feel that they cannot accede to this request, I shall drop the matter, but it is a very important question, and it is in the best interest of the country that electrical power in traction should he facilitated in all ways possible.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to second the Motion.
  The hope of this country is in cheap electricity. We have seen the manner in which Germany utilised her electrical power resources both in war and peace. We, in some singular way, have failed to turn electricity to the same advantage. You can only get cheap electricity if you get the railway companies to use it, and I think they should be encouraged to use it and the supply of electricity to them should be facilitated. I hope the time will come when there will be an amalgamation of companies for the supply of electricity for this purpose. It is absurd to think that when a railway company reaches a certain limit it should be under the necessity of having to comply with these requirements and that we should have a reproduction of what they have in Australia., where there are different gauges involving loading and unloading from one train to another. We must give the railway companies freedom to buy electricity in the best place they can buy it and from the best power company. If we do that, and if the railway companies can get electricity cheaply from the power companies—and if they get it cheaply enough—then we can double, treble and quadruple the efficiency of the railways, cheapen the cost of running them, and bring all the great terminals into enormously increased efficiency.
  284
  America is doing it as fast as possible, and she has found she can increase terminal efficiency by five times in this way, and the railway companies have increased their efficiency twice, and expect soon to quadruple it. I hope the Minister will not allow antiquated causes and small local jealousies to interfere in this matter. If we continue the artificial obstacles which at present exist, then we are striking a blow at the purpose at which this Bill has, namely, to get a cheap supply of electricity, and I trust the Minister will accept this most wise and far-seeing Clause.
  Mr. NEAL: I find myself in complete agreement with what has fallen from the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Second Reading of new Clause. I should point out that when the Act of 1909 was under consideration a Section to which this refers was put in for the protection of undertakers through whose territory these supplies might be taken. Pesonally, I think the lime has come when that might reasonably be taken away. I am entirely at one with the desire to remit inquiries, and further, may I say, I think it extremely desirable that where possible we should have the matter dealt with in the say suggested and not left to Departmental administration. Therefore, unless there is some opposition manifested here or elsewhere of which I know nothing, the Government see no objection to the new Clause.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Viscount ELVEDEN: I beg to move, after the word "authority" ["supplied by a joint electricity authority"], to insert the words "or power company."
  There seems to be no reason why a railway company should have power to get electricity from a joint electricity authority any more than from a power company or in any easier way. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and it seems to me the argument that the railways might be able To take electricity from one generating station but not from another without an inquiry, is illogical.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The House has obviously seen the reasonableness of the new Clause moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills). This is merely a

  285
  logical, and I venture to say, an irresistible addition to that Clause.
  Mr. NEAL: I certainly fail to see any distinction between the two, and I offer no opposition to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move, after the word "tramway" ["owners of lessees of a railway, tramway or canal under-taking"] to insert the words, "dock and harbour."
  This is only to safeguard undertakings which are in the same position as a tramway or canal undertaking.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "tramway" ["used on the railway, tramway, or canal"], insert the words, "dock and harbour."—[Mr. Inskip.]
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Stand-by supplies of electricity.)
  Notwithstanding anything in the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, or in this Act, or in any other Act of Parliament, or any Provisional Order or Special Order made under any such Act, a person shall not he entitled to demand or continue to receive for the purposes of a stand-by supply only from any authorised undertakers a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply of electricity or a supply (in use or ready for use for tie purposes for which the stand-by supply of electricity is required) of gas, steam, or other form of energy unless he has agreed with the undertakers to pay to them such minimum annual sum as will give them a reasonable return on the capital expenditure incurred them in providing such stand-by supply and will cover other standing charges incurred by them in order to meet the possible maximum demand for those premises. The sum to be so paid shall be determined in default of agreement by arbitration.
  (2) Section fifteen of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, is repealed.—[Mr. MacVeagh.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be react a Second time."
  The object of this Clause is to take the place of Section 20 of the principal Act, and it is what is known as the stand-by Clause. The view taken by many of us in Committee was that Section 20 is not in reality a stand-by Clause, and does not achieve the object which the framers
  286
  of a stand-by Clause have in view. It is agreed by all the authorities concerned that there should be a stand-by Clause, and this is really only a question of drafting. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary very properly said he thought there was a great deal in the objection which had been taken, and between then and the Report stage he promised to consider whether an agreed Clause could not be arrived at which would give effect to the object we all have in common. I think the Clause on the Paper achieves that object.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. NEAL: I entirely agree with the Mover, and on behalf of the Government I accept the new Clause.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Conditions under which restriction on, generating stations and obligation, to take supply from are not to apply.)
  The Electricity Commissioners shall not—

  (a) refuse, under Section eleven of the principal Act, their consent to the establishment of a new, or the extension of an existing, generating station by any authorised undertakers if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the undertakers are or will, if the consent be given, be in a position to give a supply of electricity adequate in quantity and regularity to meet present and prospective demands of their consumers at a cost not greater than that at which they could give a supply if they obtained a supply of electricity from sonic other available source designated by the Electricity Commissioners; or

  (b) require under Section nineteen of the principal Act any authorised undertakers to enter into an agreement for taking a supply of electricity from some other specified undertakers if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the period during which the supply is taken, and the estimated financial results likely to be obtained during that period, the undertakers would, if they obtained a supply of electricity from some other source, be in a position to give a supply of electricity adequate in quantity and regularity to meet the present and prospective

  287
  demands of their consumers at a cost not greater than that at which they could give such a supply if they obtained the supply from those specified undertakers;

  unless the Electricity Commissioners determine that such refusal or requirement is necessary in the interest of the general supply of electricity in the district whether provisionally or finally determined under the principal Act.—[Mr. Hannon.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  During the discussions in the Standing Committee the question of the rights of small undertakers coming within the operation of joint electricity authorities gave rise to considerable differences of opinion, and after a lengthened exchange of views, the Minister agreed to consider a form of words in which effect could be given to the contention, that the joint electricity authority should not unduly interfere with the rights of the smaller undertakers and distributors. As a consequence of that undertaking this new Clause has been prepared. In my view, it entirely covers what we sought to obtain in the Standing Committee, and have spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary as to the substance of the Clause. May I make this observation, that in connection with the discussion in the House of highly technical matters of this character, it is only right that conferences should also take place outside among persons competent to give assistance in regard to such a Measure as this. I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) that there should not be any tendency to carry legislation by outside conference. I entirely accept that. At the same time I am satisfied it would be almost impossible to carry through tins House a Measure involving so many considerations and so many interests as this, without bringing together the various people who represent those interests outside, and ascertaining their views. If I may say so, those interests were dealt with in the Committee upstairs with the greatest care and consideration, and the Parliamentary Secretary has very fairly and squarely met the various contentions which have been put forward, with the desire to improve the Bill more particularly in the interests of the consumer. I think the Clause now on the Paper deals very effectively with the point at issue.
  Sir ALEXANDER RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. NEAL: I am grateful to the Mover for what he has said, and certainly I was very much pressed in Committee in reference to this matter. I think it was quite right that pressure should have been exerted. There was a doubt as to whether cases might not arise in which consent would be unreasonably refused to certain new stations or extensions. I promised to consider that matter and this is a Clause which the Government can readily accept.
  Mr. KILEY: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise what, is involved in the last few lines of the new Clause, which gives a very wide discretion to the Electricity Commissioners in any case of dispute or difference of opinion between the authorised undertakers and the Commissioners? Apparently there is no appeal whatever against the decision of the Commissioners. There are 40 local authorities around Load on who view with much concern the fact that there is no such appeal, in case the Commissioners might take a very strong line, and I do not know if that point of view has been represented to the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have an Amendment on the Paper which deals with the same subject from a slightly different point of view. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in Committee a promise was made that he would consider certain words. The Amendment which I refer deals with the transfer of stations to a joint electricity authority, and it might save time if my hon. Friend would indicate if he is prepared to accept that Amendment also.
  Mr. NEAL: I am afraid that I cannot go further than I have gone in accepting the Clause now under discussion. There may be, as I explained t the Committee, borderline cases where there is a very small difference. It may be a difference which will disappear in the process of time, and the Commissioners are charged under the principal Act to endeavour to obtain a more plentiful more effective and more cheap supply, of energy, and they should have regard to the general interests, rather than to be limited by small interests which might well be only of a temporary character. Therefore, the

  289
  Government do consider these general words which are in the last few lines of the Clause essential, and it is in that sense only that I am able to accept the whole of the Clause. It is a very substantial modification of the powers of the Commissioners as found under the original Clause 11 of the principal Act.
  Mr. KILEY: It rules out any appeal.
  Mr. NEAL: There never was an appeal. You are setting up technical Commissioners who are chosen because they are experts in the particular matters which are referred to them. I think it would be quite without precedent to suggest that there should be an appeal to a Court of Law from a decision of technical experts who have been appointed for that particular purpose. Of course, if the Commissioners exceeded their jurisdiction or exercised their discretion capriciously or without consideration, then I am the last to say that the Courts of Law might not be invoked to deal with that. So long, however, as they act with discretion, then I think it is essential that their judgment should be final. We may have an opportunity, I understand, of discussing the matter on an Amendment which my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Balfour) intends to move, but I cannot give any hope, when inviting the House to give a Second Reading to this present Clause, that I shall be able to meet my hon. Friend.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 5 of Principal Act.)
  Section five of the principal Act (electricity districts) shall have effect as if after the word "authority," in Sub-section (2) of that Section, there had been inserted the words "or other body."—[Mr. Balfour.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
  In Committee upstairs an Amendment was inserted to Clause 5, Sub-section (4), which put in the words "other body," and I think it then put the present Bill out of harmony with the Act. This is a matter of drafting, and I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal) will accept it.
  Sir J. REMNANT: I beg to second the Motion.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Obligations and rights consequential on transfer of generating stations to a joint electricity authority.)
  (1) Whenever a generating station is transferred to a joint electricity authority they shall be under an obligation—

  (a) thenceforth to supply to the authority, company, or person from whom it is transferred such quantity of electricity as may he required for the purposes of the undertaking for which the generating station was established and as regards the amount that could have been generated at the generating station by that authority, company, or person at a price not greater than the cost at which it could have been so generated; and

  (b) in the event of any change in the type of current frequency or pressure, to pay such expenses as the authority, company, or person may necessarily incur in consequence of such change;

  and if any question arises as to such amount or cost or expenses the question shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners, and in determining such cost regard shall be had to capital charges (including interest on capital), cost of fuel and labour, and other costs of generation, and to any reduction of cost which might reasonably have been expected to accrue from any improvement of the generating station and plant therein.
  (2) Where a generating station which is transferred to a joint electricity authority is in course of construction, extension, or repair the rights and liabilities of the former owners thereof under any contract for such construction, extension, or repair shall be transferred to the joint electricity authority.—[Mr. Balfour.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This new Clause is in very similar terms to that moved by my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Hannon). I should like to refresh the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary, and refer him to what he said in Committee when I had on the Paper this Amendment in exactly the same words—
  "I think it would be inconvenient if I added anything to the specific statement which I made when the Committee last met I have had under consideration the form of

  291
  words which I shall be glad to show my hon. Friend, and I think his difficulties will disappear when he sees it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee, 10th July, 1922; col. 184.]
  I do not know whether I possess some particularly offensive quality which rather irritates and jars my hon. Friend (Mr. Neal), but again it is my lot—while I have spent many arduous hours in the Committee upstairs, when I had a promise at the time I had Amendments on the Paper and we agreed to leave them to she Report stage, when a form of words would be produced, and no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to arrange matters with me—to be disappointed. I have heard nothing. I have put my Amendments on the Paper, and even since they have been on the Paper, I have not had any communication from the hon. Gentleman. Why? This new Clause really does nothing more than protect the case of stations transferred, whereas the other new Clause just accepted deals with the conditions under which restriction on generating stations and obligation to take supply from are not to apply. I think if these two Clauses are analysed it will be found that they are really a complement of each other. I am afraid without undue delay it would he quite impossible to argue and reason out the whole of this Clause. The other Clause has been accepted. This Clause is in similar terms, and I think it should only be necessary for me to commend it to the hon. Gentleman and remind him of his words in Committee promising to 'consult me as to this Clause.
  Sir J. REMNANT: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. NEAL: I would say at once that if I am at fault in not having carried out any promise made to my hon. Friend (MT. Balfour) I express the deepest regret. I was not aware that I was under an obligation to show him the words of the Clause just passed, but it has been on the Order Paper for something like seven days, and perhaps he will allow me to say with the greatest sincerity that I have been trying to meet him in the precincts of the House, and have not been fortunate enough to do so. I hope that explanation will remove from his mind any idea that there was intended discourtesy to him.
  Mr. BALFOUR: May I at once accept my hon. Friend's explanation, but may I also remind him that I was in constant attendance up to Monday night, when all these Amendments appeared on the Paper, and I have also been here since Thursday.
  Mr. NEAL: I am very sorry. I hope my hon. Friend will accept my explanation, and regard the matter as closed, with the further observation that he does himself a great injustice if he thinks he is not persona grata with myself. Perhaps he will allow me to pass to the merits of the Clause he has moved. I cannot ask the House to accept this Clause. We have by the Clause last passed dealt with the real substance that was desired to be obtained. My hon. Friend moves a Clause that provides that when a generating station is transferred to the joint electricity authority they shall be under an obligation henceforth to supply that authority company, or persons to whom it is transferred, electricity at a cheap rate and under conditions act out in the Clause. The cardinal objection to the Clause is this. Nobody is bound to transfer their stations to the joint electricity authority. If they wish to do so, then they make their own terms and contracts. They may say that they will not transfer their stations, unless the authority undertakes that it will supply them with a certain quantity of electrical energy at a certain price, at a certain frequency, and under conditions which are the subject of bargaining between the parties in their discussions for the transfer of the station. The objection to the new Clause is that it hampers the bargaining of the parties. I desire that there should be the greatest freedom, and that the joint electricity authority that proposes to purchase and the undertaker who has a station that he may, on terms, be willing to part with should be free to make a mutually satisfactory bargain. This was a necessary Clause of the 1919 Bill when compulsory purchase was the subject of legislation. It was, again, a necessary Clause in the Bill the Government first introduced in 1920 which continued the compulsory scheme. Under the purely voluntary principle the party is able to make his own terms for the sale of his station, and I respectfully

  293
  suggest to the House that it is quite unnecessary to say on what terms that settlement should be made.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Suppose a local authority makes a voluntary arrangement to transfer its generating station to the joint electricity authority. What will be the position if that local authority, having very improvidently transferred its station at a big price to the joint electricity authority, makes a contract to purchase electricity from the joint electricity authority at a high price per unit as compensation for the big price paid, saddling the ratepayers for many years—the very reverse from what was contemplated by the Electricity Acts—with a high price for electricity. This proposal would protect them.
  Mr. MILLS: Before the Parliamentary Secretary answers that question, may I put to him another case from an entirely different aspect? There is in the division I represent a generating station owned by a small district council, and many years ago, owing the short-sightedness of the councillors in power at that time, they contracted, apparently in perpetuity, for the supply of electricity to a company outside the division altogether, which leaves a burden on the ratepayers every year. May not that put an entirely different side to the ease presented by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour)?
  Mr. NEAL: I do not think that question arises under this new Clause. I have not had an opportunity to consider it, but I should be glad to look into the matter more closely if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mills) will see me afterwards. To deal with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), I really cannot conceive that the joint electricity authority would make so improvident a bargain. It is under no obligation to purchase any more than the undertaker is under an obligation to sell, and it is inconceivable when you are dealing with, business men who will form this joint electricity authority that they will be likely to enter into a bargain which would have the effect he suggests.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and negatived.
  CLAUSE 1.—(Power of authorities to borrow.)
  (1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned a joint electricity authority may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and subject to Regulations to be made by the Minister of Transport with the approval of the Treasury, borrow money, in such manner and subject to such provisions as to the repayment thereof, and with such powers as to reborrowing for the purpose of paying off a loan previously raised, as may be prescribed by the Regulations, and such Regulations may empower a joint electricity authority to borrow temporarily, to issue bonds and to make arrangements with hankers, and may apply with or without modifications any enactments relating to borrowing by local authorities, including provisions as to the enforcement of the security by the appointment of a receiver or otherwise.
  (3) Any money borrowed under this Section, and the interest thereon, may be charged on the undertaking and all the revenues of the joint electricity authority, or on any specific property forming part of that undertaking, and shall be repaid, within such period not exceeding sixty years, as the Electricity Commissioners may determine.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "mentioned" I "For the purposes hereinafter mentioned "], to insert the words "the Electricity Commissioners may by Provisional Order authorise."
  This Amendment, standing alone, might appear quite ridiculous, and I would, therefore, explain that it is the first of a long series of Amendments put down in the Committee stage. I purposely do not enter into them, because I know they will not be accepted, and I put the first of them on the Paper in order to preserve my right to raise a point which was raised in Committee, which I took up with the Parliamentary Secretary, and which he indicated he would be willing to look into in some form between that and the Report stage. I wish to deal with the control of this House over the financial matters connected with the joint electricity authority. I must refer hon. Members to the Debate which took place on the Second Reading in this House, when the Parliamentary Secretary agreed—I think he will not dispute my representation of the case—to endeavour to find sonic machinery between the Second Reading and Committee stage in order to make sure that Parliamentary control is preserved over the finances of he joint electricity authority. We then

  295
  arrived at the Committee stage, and I am sorry to say this is the sort of procedure that has followed me all through this Bill—promises from stage to stage, bargains with certain other people, without, I am afraid, my having had much luck myself. But in the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman again agreed to do something to achieve this end, and he undertook to make favourable representations to the Chairman of Ways and Means to see whether anything could be done by way of alteration of the Standing Orders. I thought, and I still think, that was quite a reasonable method of approaching this matter. It displayed, I thought, a very fair frame of mind and a very fair attitude on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary.
  7.0 P.M.
  Following that, a proposed Standing Order, No. 191, appeared on the Papers in another place. I am not quite sure whether I am in order—though I think I am—in referring to this matter, as I understood that a like proposed Standing Order would appear on the Papers of this House. This proposal was to provide that any Special Order should lie on the Table, but that Petitions against the Order might he deposited in the House on or before the seventh day after the day on which the Order had been so laid, and petitioners should he allowed to appear and oppose, as in the case of a Private Bill. There are other provisions in the Standing Order, but that is the principal one to which I call attention. My sole object in moving this Amendment is to raise this point, and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is prepared to put a Standing Order on the Papers of this House, and to arrange with the Chairman of Ways and Means that an Order, similar to No. 191 in another place, should appear here? I also wish to ask the Government whether they will give facilities—so far as I can see, it would take but few minutes—to, pass such an Order through both Houses. That would fulfil the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading and the indication that he gave to the Committee. It would be received by nearly all hon. Members of this House gratefully as a clear indication of the intention of the Government to retain control over the finances of these great concerns.
  Mr. ATKEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. NEAL: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, for reasons which I will give. Before I do so, may I give a history of this Clause as we now find it, in order to show the efforts made by the Government in another place and here to meet the points of view which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) and the statements which I made on the Second Reading and again in Committee.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think I made it quite clear that I merely moved this Amendment as a matter of form, in order to ascertain the views of the Government regarding the proposed Star ding Order. The Amendment is a pure formality, to give me the right to speak at, all.
  Mr. NEAL: Yes, but the hon. Member takes the opportunity, while doing that, of suggesting at least that there has not been a complete fulfilment of statements made on behalf of the Government, and I cannot allow that to go forth. The monies to be expended by the joint electricity authority will be monies they will invite the public to subscribe. They will not be monies voted by Parliament—it is quite true that in another Clause of the Bill certain local authorities may, under certain definite safeguards, subscribe—so we are not dealing here with the question of control of money voted by Parliament. When this Clause appeared in the Bill in another place it was minus Sub-section (4), at which perhaps hon. Members will look. The point was then raised by a Noble Lord, who took the same point of view as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead has taken, that the amount of the borrowing powers of the joint electricity authority ought to he stated in the scheme. It was to meet that that my Noble Friend proposed, on behalf of the Government, Sub-section (4), which says:
  "A scheme constituting a joint electricity authority shall fix with reference to the estimated capital expenditure of the authority the maximum amount which may he borrowed by the authority—"
  We thought that the point of view voiced by my hon. Friend had been completely met by that. On Second Reading, however, he and other hon. Members stated that that did not go far enough. I said I was quite desirous of retaining for Parliament

  297
  the last word in reference to this matter of the borrowing powers of the Authority, and I promised to consider whether words could be inserted in Committee to deal with the point. The hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that words had been inserted in Committee to deal with that matter. I should like to call attention of the House to what those words are. The remainder of Sub-section (4) reads as follows:
  "and the authority shall not have power to borrow any sums in excess of the amount so fixed, otherwise than for the purpose of paying off loans previously raised, unless authorised by an Order of the Electricity Commissioners confirmed by the Minister and such Order shall be provisional only and shall not come into force unless confirmed by Parliament."
  So the way in which the matter stands is this. The original borrowing powers of the company will be defined in the scheme, which is subject to Parliamentary control by a special Resolution on procedure. As I explained in Committee, we thought it quite impossible to divorce the scheme, which will say what expenditure ought to be undertaken, from the borrowing powers. That scheme will have been the subject already of two inquiries, and possibly of a third. For the same reason which I gave in dealing with another Amendment, I am quite unable to invite the House to accept this Amendment, which would say that, having had two inquiries, and possibly three, you should then proceed by Provisional Order and have the matter referred to Select Committees of both Houses, with Parliamentary counsel, agents and witnesses, and the whole expense incurred over again. Therefore I must really oppose the Amendment.
  When, however, you come to the second part, namely, subsequent borrowings, which has not been the subject of the same inquiry, I think there is no reason why there should not be a Provisional Order procedure. To that extent I made it clear in Committee, and I did, as my hon. Friend said, promise that I would consult with the Chairman of Ways and Means as to whether some Standing Order of the House might, be made operative to deal with the question which he had in mind. As I understand him, that question was that these special orders are exempted business, therefore they may come on at any hour, and unless hon. Members are put to the
  298
  trouble and inconvenience of watching closely, they may find that these special orders have slipped through in their absence. I did consult with you, Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to say so, on this matter. I was in error in thinking that a matter of this description was within the purview of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Chairman of Ways and Means, I am informed, deals with what T may call the more mechanical parts of the Standing Orders; but Standing Orders which involve the time of the House, and procedure of that character, are matters for the Government. I think I correctly interpreted the advice you were good enough to give me on this question, that I should take counsel with those who had the right to speak on behalf of the Government in this matter.
  I am in a position to say this, with reference to the special Orders which set up joint electricity authorities and which, from their nature., are very important matters—matters not less than of legislative importance—that it is the intention of the Government to put those Orders down on the Order Paper at a time which will give opportunity for their discussion fully and freely by the House. We have a precedent, not very remote, as to how- these matters can be dealt with, in the case of the Burmese Constitution, which, again, was a matter of Resolution, and occupied the whole of a Sitting, when Amendments were moved and modifications made. I hope, in that way, the hon. Member will realise that I am not in fault at all.
  Mr. SPEAKER: As this is a matter of some Parliamentary importance, perhaps I may say something which will clear up the point. This is procedure on an Order which shall not come into force unless confirmed by Parliament. I am of opinion that it would be open to an hon. Member objecting to an Order of that kind to move as an Amendment to the confirming Resolution that it should be referred to a Select. Committee, where the parties could he heard. I gather that that really is what is in the mind of the hon. Member who just now moved the Amendment. That was the advice which I tendered to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport when he came to consult me on the matter.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A rather interesting point of procedure has been raised by what the Parliamentary Secretary has just stated, and what you, Mr. Speaker, have made so clear. Am I to understand that the Clause, as it now reads in the Bill, establishes this procedure for all time, or does it require to be implemented by the promise of the Government to pursue a particular course of action? I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he had consulted the Government, that is to say, the Cabinet, and had received an interpretation of this Clause from them which would enable the matter, while they are in office, to be taken at such a time of day as would give hon. Members the opportunity of discussing it. What is to happen when another Government comes into power? Will the same interpretation be placed upon this Clause as it now stands? I should have thought it would have been safer to use rather more explanatory words: if possible, the same words as were used in the Government of India Act, on which the Burma Rules were founded. They laid down quite plainly the procedure which will be adopted by any Minister making rules under that Act, namely, that he has to come for an affirmative Resolution, to which Amendments of substance and procedure could be moved. It may be that that is the procedure which is permanently laid down in the case of these electricity Orders, but from what fell from the Parliamentary Secretary I was in a little doubt, and I want to have it quite clearly, from him, that his reference to the Government binds future Governments as well as the existing one.
  Mr. NEAL: If I might answer the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), I would say that the Section which deals generally with these special Orders—of which there are many of a formal and non-controversial character—is Section 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. The proviso reads thus:
  "Provided that a special Order made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall not come into force unless and until approved either with or without modifications, by a Resolution passed by each such House."
  I think that deals with the point which the hon. Gentleman has put to me. If I may say so, I am grateful to you, Mr.
  300
  Speaker, for giving me your assistance in the matter, and making the position so clear with reference to Standing Orders generally. We now have it on the authority of Mr. Speaker that a special Order, which raises controversial points, which could not be dealt with conveniently on the Floor of the House could, under his ruling, be referred to a Select Committee. The special Orders under consideration are, of course, of very great importance indeed, and what I was promising, as far as I might, was that if opposition were raised 10 these Orders, the Government would endeavour to give ample Parliamentary time for their discussion, and not try to struggle them through in the dead of the night, when some hon. Members might not be here to take part in the discussion. I hope in that way we have endeavoured to meet quite fully the points that were raised, and that we may dispose of the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Sir H. NIELD: I am not quite sure the House is very clear as to what is to be the procedure in respect of this particular matter. One understands perfectly well the objection to submit to any further inquiry. Those who have had anything to do with inquiries before the Commissioners, even as to area, know how these things drag out, and what enormous expenditure is incurred. Therefore, as far as regards the earlier part of the Clause, I agree that there should be no further inquiry, but the Parliamentary Secretary does distinguish between those matters, and matters which are proposed to be dealt with over and above the maximum amount authorised in the first instance. It is very necessary, I think, that we should have a very clear understanding of the control this House would have over the power to borrow in excess of this amount for the purposes of paying off loans, because large sums of money may be expended and lost upon ventures of this sort, and I suggest that, to make it perfectly clear, we should add at the end of the Clause the words: "by a Resolution in the same manner as in Section 26 of this Act."
  Mr. NEAL: My hen, and learned Friend would really be cutting away from what I have given rather than enlarging it. If I accepted the suggestion of my hon. and learned

  301
  Friend, I should really be setting up a sort of hybrid Committee of Parliament. I should be grafting on to the special order procedure the provisional order procedure, and that would make the matter confusing.
  Sir H. NIELD: I did not advocate for a moment reverting to provisional order procedure, but I do think we might to have ample safeguards before any further capital be raised beyond the original capital sanctioned. The hon. Member thinks it is perfectly clear. I do not share that opinion, but if the House he satisfied, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I shall be pleased to withdraw this Amendment. I am glad my hon. Friend has met us in the direction indicated, and I am grateful to you, Sir, for the useful words you have uttered for our guidance. I should like to say to my hon. Friend that if he would study the Standing Orders, to which I have referred, he would see that no harm would come to existing interests, and it would secure all that we have in view.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask whether it is perfectly clear that the particular order referred to here is governed by the words in the previous Act?
  Mr. NEAL: I think we have made that clear in the Clause itself. I feel sure we have added words to the Clause that make it clear that these special orders shall be orders which have to be confirmed by Parliament. I have no doubt at all about this.
  Mr. HERBERT: My point was as to haw my hon. Friend connects it with the procedure to which he referred under the previous Act?
  Mr. NEAL: The two Acts have to be read together. They are one Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is so. The confirmation would be with or without Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "years," to insert the words
  302
  "in respect of freehold land, thirty years in respect of leasehold land (but not exceeding the period of the lease if such period is less than thirty years), forty years in respect of high-tension trunk transmission lines, twenty-five years in respect of Overhead lines and mains and services, twenty years in respect of plant and machinery, and ten years in respect of any other assets."
  In Committee, originally, it was proposed to leave this period entirely unlimited, except at the discretion of the Electricity Commissioners. The Minister in charge was good enough to allow 60 years all round. That period, I think, is quite fair in respect of freehold land and even such fixed assets as permanent structures, but I think it is not quite wise to leave the borrowing powers of these huge authorities unfettered in the discretion of the Electricity Commissioners, and that we should put some reasonable limit to certain classes of wasting assets. The object of this Amendment is to secure a very adequate limit in respect of different classes of assets, and in no way to hamper the authorities, hut to make sure that in the future these authorities will not be authorised to borrow on very long terms, so that, perhaps, 15 years afterwards, the people who are then using electricity find that they have an asset which has largely wasted for revenue, and have to raise capital again, although there is still an unexpired term of 45 years during which they have to hear the burden of the capital already acquired.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I must say the hon. Member has been very moderate in the alterations he has made. He allows 40 years in respect of high-tension trunk transmission lines, which, I think, he will agree is a very long term even for such transmission lines of the very hest quality. Again, 25 years in respect of overhead lines and mains and services is very considerable, when one realises that the atmosphere in the neighbourhood of large towns is full of acid material. Then he suggests 20 years in respect of plant and machinery. Does anyone, who has any knowledge of electricity supply, imagine for a moment that there is a single piece of machinery in the generating stations in this country that will not be absolutely obsolete in 20 years? It is absolute lunacy, and an example of the folly on which this Bill is based, to

  303
  suggest 60 years, in the first instance, should be allowed for the repayment of loans in this matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I called upon the hon. Member to second the Amendment. He appears to be opposing it.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I am afraid I was damning it with faint praise rather than opposing it. But if I may devote myself more strictly to this part, my argument has the greater strength. If 20 years be ludicrous, surely 60 years is super-ludicrous. The 60 years' period is typical of the whole idea of the Ministry of Transport about electricity supply. The whole attempt of this Bill has been to stereotype technical practice in electricity supply, and there is no engineer in this country who is not perfectly well aware that, at the present moment, to try to stabilise the production and distribution of electricity is simple madness. Practically every piece of generating machinery or transmission line in this country, in all probability, will be hopelessly obsolete within five or ten years. The Parliamentary Secretary looks at me with awe and amazement, as if I were speaking madness. But I do appeal to the House whether I am not telling the truth when I say we are just on the verge of the greatest changes in the supply of electricity which have ever been experienced both in generation and in transmission? If the Minister and his technical advisers, who, apparently, are fast asleep in these matters, would consider for a moment, they must know that the present plan of generating electricity in this country is largely through coal-driven stations with steam-turbines driving large electric units. He seeks to standardise at a time when there is not the slightest doubt that many people who have technical knowledge of these things know that there are three definite and inevitable steps which are likely to be taken in the generating of electricity within the next five or ten years at the most.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Amendment has not been seconded.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I am seconding it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking to the Third Reading of the Bill. He is rather too progressive. Does he or does he not second the Amendment?
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I am seconding the Amendment, but, as you hate ruled that this subject will be in order on the Third Reading, I will defer it until then.
  Mr. NEAL: I am rather glad that my hon. Friend's speech has been deferred to the Third Reading, because it may give him an opportunity of reading the Clause. I am quite sure that the speech he has made in seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend was certainly made without his having taken the trouble to read the Clause, or, I think, the Amendment which he was seconding. The Amendment is to a Sub-section which deals with the borrowing powers for particular expenditure rather than the general borrowing powers of the joint electricity authority. It is a perfectly common form not only in the Electricity Acts, but in every other Act which deals with the control of the borrowing powers of the authorities, for instance, of municipal corporations who have to obtain sanction for their borrowing. Somebody ought to be charged with the responsibility of seeing that these borrowing powers bear as strict a relationship as may be to the life of the asset in respect of which the borrowing is to be made.
  In the Committee I accepted an Amendment to insert the term of 60 years. Unless I am very much mistaken—I have not verified this—but I believe in the Standing Orders of the House there is one which provides for the limit of 60 years in respect of the sanction to borrowing powers by the House in the matter of private Bills. Certainly 60 years is the usual term granted in respect of plant, not of wasting assets. Therefore, I went further, anti I promised I would see, in consultation with my advisers, as to whether we could not include in the Clause terms in respect of the matters specified, and that the Mover of the Amendment has suggested. My hon Friend is immediately answered by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, who says that these terms are altogether inappropriate. He further states that the Electricity Commissioners or the Minister are embarking upon a policy of stereotyping everything. I am now dealing with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson), who says that there can be nothing more inappropriate than an attempt to put in a Clause a term

  305
  of years as a maximum which every applicant would forthwith regard as something he ought to have.
  An Amendment may be put into an Act of Parliament fixing terms for the authorisation of things. At that moment your troubles begin, because the person who wants borrowing powers wants to arrange the kind of terms which ought to he given. Although it is quite true you are not bound by them, it is equally true you raise expectations and find it extremely difficult to get away from them. Does anyone suppose for a moment—dealing with the point just put forward in the speech of the hon. Member who last spoke—that the Electricity Commissioners would dream of giving a long term for wasting assets? The fact is that they are giving very short terms indeed for wasting assets. They are constantly in touch with the industry. No one is better qualified to know what takes place from day to day and from year to year; the improvements that are made, and the obsolescence and depreciation which are necessary. They fix a term of years in consultation with the leaders of the great electrical industry, and they take care that no loan period exceeds the life of the assets. If this Amendment were accepted, they would be very much handicapped in doing exactly what the hon. Member who moved it desired they should do. May I in passing say that if this Amendment were accepted, the low term for a generating station would be 10 years? I am sure my hon. Friend has not visualised that, because he says, "any other assets" 10 years. How would that fit in with a great generating station with a long life before it? That undertaking would have a limited loan period of 10 years.
  Mr. BALFOUR: "Twenty years in respect of plant and machinery." That is what the Amendment says.
  Mr. NEAL: I am not talking of either plant or machinery, but of the buildings. What he has said shows the danger of endeavouring to stereotype in a Clause that which might very well be left to the discretion of the Commissioners who are the best persons to deal with the matter.
  Major BROWN: The observations of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary are rather unsatisfactory. I confess I am not persuaded by his
  306
  argument. It seems to me that what the hon. Member for Hampstead wishes to do is to impose some limitation and some safeguard on the way our credit is involved. It is true that experts deal with this money aspect, but so far as I can see, this money is raised more or less by and with our consent, possibly after Orders have been laid on the Table. At all events, when the ordinary invester knows that this is in some way connected with the, Houses of Parliament, he will think probably that his money has got a Government guarantee. To that extent we are responsible to see that the investors are not misled. I submit that my hon. Friend, in proposing the limitations he seeks to, is in the right. I am not qualified to speak of the matter technically, but I think this House ought to see whether we should not pay more attention to the safeguards, so that people may not be misled in thinking that money invested under an Act of Parliament has a Government guarantee. I quite understand the attitude of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but what Government Office has not always objected to any limitation being placed on its powers? I press again, therefore, the point of view of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and express my regret at the answer given by the representative of the Government.
  Sir H. NIELD: I also join in this respect, that I regret the attitude of the hon. Gentleman, for this really is a matter of considerable importance. I assume that the ordinary person will imagine that the ratepayers have some regard to expenditure, but these Joint Electricity Commissioners are to be drawn, one member here, another there, and another from somewhere else, and there is not the same opportunity for supervision as there is ordinarily. Therefore, I think it is very necessary indeed that we should have some sort of guarantee. Take the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sorry he was so ready to take offence, for we are only exercising our conversational powers in an ordinary way, and, we did not mean to disturb him, least of all myself. He referred to the absurdity of the suggested Amendment. He spoke of the prescribed period of 10 years for a generating station, and asked was there anything more ridiculous? Really he does

  307
  not do himself justice. A generating station is generally freehold or leasehold. It is built upon the ground. Generating stations are not in the air, though they may he some day.
  Major HILLS: We can anticipate?
  Sir H. NIELD: At present they are on the ground, and are either freehold or leasehold. In that case the matter will be determined by the earlier portions of the Amendment, limiting the borrowing powers to the unexpired period. I do not see myself that there ought not to be some control. Some general words might provide for it, such as putting in the words, "having regard to any security." At any rate it should be for a period not exceeding 60 years. Therefore, I think the House will be well advised to insist upon the Amendment.
  Mr. HANNON: I think the Clause should be left as it stands. Surely we must trust the Electricity Commissioners of the district. They have discharged their functions to the complete satisfaction, not merely of the interests with whom they have to do, but the public. You cannot insert in the Bill a continuing series of limitations taking all the powers away from the Commissioners. I should like to know how you can secure adequate capital for the undertaking of the character contemplated in this Bill if you hedge them around by all the limitations suggested in this and other Amendments! I am prepared to trust the Electricity Commissioners in the interests of the country.
  Amendment negatived.
  CLAUSE 5.—(Power of undertakers, etc., to give financial assistance.)
  (4) A scheme under the principal Act constituting a joint electricity authority or other body for the improvement of the organisation of the supply of electricity in any electricity district may include provisions authorising or requiring authorised undertakers, and authorising companies and other bodies, represented on the authority or body to contribute towards any administrative cerpenses of the authority or body.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words
  "for the improvement of the organisation of the supply of electricity in any electricity district."
  308
  and to insert instead thereof the words
  "under the provisions of Section five of the principal Act as amended by this Act."
  This Amendment is merely consequential on the one previously accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Major BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. NEAL: This is a consequential Amendment, but I am advised it is quite, unnecessary in this place perhaps my hon. Friend will not press it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I shall not press it, but if he finds it. necessary perhaps words can be arranged between now and the Bill coming back from another place to this House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CLAUSE 13.—(Suspension of powers of purchase of undertakings.)
  (1) The Electricity Commissioners by al: Order constituting a joint electricity authority or a Special Order clay, as regards any undertaking or part of an undertaking of any authorised undertakers, suspend any powers of a joint electricity authority or the London County Council or any local authority relating to the purchase of such undertaking or part thereof for such period and on such conditions (if any) as the Electricity Commissioners may think fit, and may for that purpose amend the provisions of any Act or Order relating to such undertaking:
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "constituting," and insert instead thereof the word "establishing."—[Mr. Neal.]
  CLAUSE 14.—(Made of exercise of powers by authorities.)
  The powers and duties as to the generation and supply of electricity conferred and imposed by or under the principal Act or this. Act on joint electricity authorities may ho exercised and performed by any such authority either by themselves or, if so authorised by special Order, through any authorised undertakers; and where any such authority act through any such undertakers the undertakers shall have, to such extent as may be provided by the special Order, the powers and duties of the authority under the principal Act and this Act.
  Amendments made After the word "by" ["by special order"], insert the words "the order establishing that authority or by."
  Leave out the words "the special order" ["as may be provided by the special order"], and insert instead thereof the words, "such orders as aforesaid.'—[Mr. Neal.]
  CLAUSE 15.—(Limitation On powers of joint electricity aut4orities in areas of power companies.)
  (1) Sub-section (1) of Section twelve (Powers of joint electricity authorities in respect of the supply of electricity) of the principal Act shall have effect as if—

  (a) the words from "except" in paragraph (b) of that Sub-section to the mid of that paragraph were omitted therefrom;

  (b) the words "or power company" were omitted from the proviso to that Subsection in each place where those words occur; and

  (c) the following proviso were inserted it the end of that Sub-section:

  Provided also that the Electricity Commissioners may by Special Order authorise a joint electricity authority to supply electricity in any particular part of the area of supply of a power company, without the consent of the power company, if in that part of the area of supply any authority, company or person requires a supply of electricity for any purpose for which the power company are authorised to Supply electricity and is prepared to enter into a binding con tract to continue to receive and pay for a supply of electricity upon such terms and conditions (including a minimum annual sum to be paid to the power company) as shall in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners afford an adequate return to the power company and is also (in the case of a company or person) prepared to give to the power company (if required by them so to do) security for the payment of all sums which may become due to the power company under the contract and if the power company are not willing and in a position to supply electricity to that authority, company or person on such terms and conditions. In determining what terms and condition will afford an adequate return to tile power company the Commissioners shall have regard to the following amongst other considerations:

  (i) The period for which the authority, company or person requiring the supply guarantees to take the supply;

  (ii) The amount of electricity and the maximum power required:

  (iii) The hours during which the power company can be called upon to give the supply;

  (iv) The capital expenditure in connection with the supply; and

  310

  (v) To what extent capital expended in connection with the supply may become unproductive to the power company upon the discontinuance of the supply.

  Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  In the course of the earlier discussion the Parliamentary Secretary described this Bill as an amending Bill. I think that, whatever view we may take of Clause 15, we shall all agree it is the substantial Clause in the Bill. Not only does it amend the Act of 1919, but it repeals the arrangements then made under which a power company can refuse to allow an authorised undertaking to come into that particular district. It is some what extraordinary that after all the negotiations which took place, and the consideration which was given to the passing of the 1919 Act, that almost before that Act is well under way the Government should now ask the House to repeal one of the most important parts of that Act. The Parliamentary Secretary well said that this Clause was not in the Bill as originally submitted, but it is surely very extraordinary that a Clause of this substantial character should not have been in the Bill as originally submitted, but that it should have been put in when the Measure was before another place. Why was it put in? The Parliamentary Secretary said it was put in at the request of the power companies in another place, and that the Government must stand by it. This House has a right to consider this Clause on its merits, and its very serious effects, rather than as part of a bargain. I hope the House will consider its effect upon the consumers of electricity and electrical development generally throughout the country.
  The 1919 Act as well as this Act is supposed to cheapen electricity. I think Clause 15, as far as it amends Section 12, will not have that effect. I will recall the gradual development of the terms under which one undertaker may come into the district of another undertaker. This is one of the many trials of strength over a large number of years between the various interests concerned in supplying electrical power and electric light to the public. In the closing years of the last century, electrical development was largely in the hands of local authorities and municipalities, but with the growth of the power companies conditions were

  311
  imposed which prevented those companies going into districts which were already supplied by an authorised undertaker such as a municipal authority: conditions were laid down that where a district was in the hands of an authorised undertaker, they could refuse consent to anyone else coming in unless the people who wished to come in were prepared to supply electricity cheaper than the district could get it from its own particular source of supply.
  When the 1919 Bill was introduced the power companies suggested that this arrangement was not fair or sound when an undertaker wished to come into their district, although they considered it was quite sound when they were seeking to go into the province of some municipality; when it was a question of the joint electricity authorities supplying cheaper electricity in districts in which the power company had the right to supply, then the company said what was good enough to protect the local authority was not good enough to protect them. It must not be merely a question of the price at which they were prepared to supply but also of the price at which the authorised undertaker was going to supply. Those were the terms under the 1919 Act. It is because it is sought to vary these that some of us take the strongest objection to this Clause.
  What does this Clause substitute? It repeals Section 12 of the 1919 Act, which provided that where a joint electricity authority was anxious to go into a power company's area, that company could not object unless they were prepared to supply electricity at the same price as the joint electricity authority, but consent can now be withheld if the power company can show that they are prepared to supply at a price that would yield them an adequate return on their capital. What does that mean? It means that it is going to protect the vested interests of the power companies for all time, because any company will say that it is prepared to supply electricity providing it can get an adequate return on its capital.
  The Minister himself in Committee upstairs admitted that there might possibly be some fear and some danger on this point, and that we might have an Electricity Bill seeking to cheapen electricity
  312
  which was going to prevent a cheaper supply in an area because the power company had certain rights, and were prepared to supply at a higher price which this Clause would protect. The Minister said that no one would wish to adopt such a stupid and unreasonable attitude, but if that is possible, why does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree to the words which originally gave the protection? The reason is to be found in the argument of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott), who said:
  "I want the Committee to observe the real importance and design of this Clause. It is designed to prevent interference with the electric companies power of carrying out their statutory powers and to prevent competition at the hands of the joint electricity authorities. The point is that the power companies have expended a large amount of capital on these undertakings and they are entitled to have this capital safeguarded."
  But surely the friends of the power companies do not object to competition. Why should they object to a joint electricity authority which has new plant and the latest advantage of electrical development? Why should a district be robbed of the advantage of these improvements because somebody years ago invested their capital in an obsolete form of plant and obsolete methods of distribution? Surely by doing this you are protecting vested interests against the general welfare of the community as a whole. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that we were within sight of a great development, of electrical energy, generating stations and methods of distribution, and if that be true then this is not the time to seek to protect those who have invested capital in obsolete plant or plant situated so far from the area of distribution that they cannot supply electricity as cheaply as a new undertaking could do.
  This Clause provides that if the power company is prepared to supply at certain rates they can resist and prevent a joint electricity authority giving cheap electrical power and electric light to those in that district. What are the terms? If the power company is prepared to supply on such terms and conditions as will assure an adequate return to the power company. The Commissioners must have regard amongst other considerations to the capital expenditure in connection with the supply; to the period

  313
  for which the authority, company or person requiring the supply guarantees to take the supply: and they must also have regard to the amount of electricity and the maximum power required and the hours during which the power company can be called upon to give the supply. They must also have regard to the extent to which capital expended in connection with the supply may become unproductive to the, power company upon the discontinuance of the supply.
  There you have the most careful conditions laid down which will protect for all time the expenditure of capital invested by the power company. It is perfectly right that people should have their money protected, but why should investors in one form of industrial enterprise be protected at the expense of the community, while those in other forms of industrial enterprise have to take their own risks in the market. By making this change and altering the Act of 1919, you are retarding the development of electricity and you may be saddling a district with a supply much dearer than they can get elsewhere. In this matter the great hulk of the capital is held, not by power companies, but by municipal enterprises of one sort and another. We are sometimes inclined to think that the great power companies working for profit are the only people who should supply electric power, whereas, as a matter of fact, the undertakings in the hands of municipalities and urban districts hold two-thirds of the total capital invested in these public undertakings. No less than£62,000,000 out of £92,000,000 invested is held by local authorities, leaving some £30,000,000 in the hands of companies. Surely it is a serious matter to repeal an Act, to give to the investors of £30,000,000 a protection which is not given to the holders of the £62,000,000. I do hope that the Government will have regard to the broad public interest, and realise that if they pass this Bill and repeal Section 12 of the 1919 Act, which gave adequate protection to power companies, they are going to hinder very seriously that development and spread of cheap electricity which is so necessary at the present time. Can we wonder now that these terms have been foisted upon the Government that you have in the public Press flotations of power companies; and what do they say in the prospectus? One company is
  314
  seeking to raise a capital of £1,000,000, and they say:
  "The company, having overcome the legislative and other difficulties which resulted from the War "—
  Mr. NEAL: That is not a power company at all.
  Mr. THOMSON: At any rate, it is a company dealing with electrical development. By altering the terms of the 1919 Act, which was thrashed out before this House and before a Committee, by varying that, not in the interests of the consumer or the public, we are doing a great deal to retard and not to help electrical development. We have been told that the 1019 Act was originally compulsory, whereas it is now on a voluntary basis, and the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that that fact made a difference as to the terms under which a power company might come in. But surely protection of the public is equally necessary whether the arrangement is compulsory or voluntary. Therefore I hope, in the interests, not of local authorities and not of the power companies, hut in the interests of consumers as a whole, the Government and the House will insist upon the terms of the 1919 Act and not seek to repeal it.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  8.0 P.M.
  I do not propose to add many words to what has been said by the last speaker, who was a member of the Committee, but I desire to point out that the urban district councils throughout the country are thoroughly dissatisfied with this Clause. They would propose to fight the thing very fully but for the fact that those who might have been expected to fight with them have come to a compromise with the power companies. The urban district councils are not satisfied with the compromise come to. It seems to me of the greatest importance that the interests of the public and of the local authorities as representing the public should be preferred rather than those of the power companies, and more particularly in a matter such as this of the distribution of electricity, on which the future of our country depends to so large an extent—the industrial future of the distribution of cheap power and possibly, eventually,

  315
  also a very great change in the conditions of life, by heating electrically rather than by filling the atmosphere with black smoke and poisoning the life of the people. From the point of view of the immense importance of cheapening electricity in this country, and from the point of view of the rights and interests of the consuming public and the local authorities representing them, we say that this Clause is most objectionable and ought to be deleted.
  Mr. NEAL: I find myself in some difficulty. The hon. Member who moved the deletion of the Clause is associated with the Municipal Corporations Association, who have agreed to it as meeting to the fullest possible extent the objections which he has raised. My hon. Friend, apparently, thinks that they do not understand their business, and that the Electricity Commissioners and the Government are out to encourage dear electricity. Let me disillusion him, once and for all, on that point. There is no such design in, and no such possible result from, this Clause. The hon. Member has carefully avoided dealing with the new Clause, which must be read alongside this. If he will look at Section 12, his fears must vanish. I am advised by the Commissioners, who know the whole of the area and have looked at it district by district and authority by authority, that the fears the hon. Member has expressed have no ground whatever.
  Mr. THOMSON: Why not?
  Mr. NEAL: I stated the reasons in Committee, I will tell the House, briefly, now. Section 12, which was a limitation on the powers of the joint electricity authorities, was in the Bill when compulsion was possible, when it was possible to take away a station from its owner without his consent. It was, therefore, necessary in the Bill to put in words providing that the owner of the station should have a supply from the joint electricity authority to whom his station had passed. But that state of things has gone entirely. No one is bound to sell his station unless the terms are satisfactory, and no municipal authority or urban district authority would ever dream of Felling their stations unless the terms were satisfactory. Does the hon. Member,
  316
  who is himself a member of a local authority, suggest to me, who was for many years a member of a local authority, that it is possible to find anywhere in the land a courted, a borough, a county borough, an urban district, or a rural district authority that would sell its station to the joint electricity authority, and find that by doing so it was unable to get a supply from that station?
  Mr. THOMSON: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my speech, he will find that I did not make any reference whatever to the question of generating stations. I based my argument entirely on the question of the right and power of the company to refuse the joint electricity authority a supply.
  Mr. NEAL: With great respect, my hon. Friend must allow me to answer the point I was dealing with. This rests entirely on the sale of a station. If the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to look at Section 12, paragraph (b), he will find it says that the authority shall not supply electricity
  "in any part of the area of supply of a power company for which the company are therein authorised to supply electricity without the consent of the company except to the precious owner of a generating station"—
  these are the material words—
  "which has been transferred to the joint electricity authority."
  The whole basis of chit Clause, and of Clause 15, and of the new Clause, is that the authority has voluntarily sold its station to the joint electricity authority, and having done that, I pat again to the hon. Gentleman the question: Does he suggest for a moment there is any local authority in the land which would sell its generating station to a joint electricity authority if thereby its district was to be cut off from being supplied from that station? The matter really only needs to be stated for it to be realised that the hon. Member's fears are groundless. Under these circumstances what is happening? The Municipal Corporations Association have approved of these words. My new Clause, which is designed to alleviate any fears they might entertain on the subject, provides that the Commissioners may, when they are marking out their area of supply exclude altogether from the area of supply the power company of the district which is served by a generating station which has been transferred to the

  317
  joint electricity authority, and they may do it on such terms and conditions as they think right, their action being subject to Parliamentary control. Under these circumstances, what becomes of the idea that this is intended to give some extraordinary right to the power company, and that we ought not to consider the interests of the people who have invested many millions—I think the hon. Member put the amount at £30,000,000—in these undertakings. What becomes of the idea that we ought to say to these people, "Your statutory rights upon which you have invited subscriptions of public money are nothing and are to be ignored." If that is the hon. Member's view I doubt if he will find any other hon. Member of the House to support him in that view.
  Mr. THOMSON: What about the 1919 Act?
  Mr. NEAL: Will the hon. Member take the trouble to look at it? The 1919 Act was based entirely on taking property away from the undertaker without his consent. When you do that, when you take property without the consent of the owner and without his having a right to make any bargain, it is obvious you must under those circumstances protect him from the effect of what Parliament has done by depriving him of his property. There is a totally different consideration here, and if the hon. Member would really be guided by the advice of the leaders of the association, of which he is a vice-president, who have considered this matter in the closest detail, and have agreed to the Clause at a conference to which he was invited but did not come, he would not make alarming speeches of the character he has done. By so doing he is hardly treating this matter seriously. I want to say one word in answer to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams). There is, I admit, some distinction between the cases of the urban districts, in whose interests the hon. Gentleman made some observations to the House, and of the other authorities. But I have had that matter surveyed with the closest care. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I do not weary the House at this time by attempting a detailed examination of it, but I can assure him that the Commissioners have looked at and have tabulated the whole of the districts, urban and
  318
  rural, which might be affected, and they have assured me that no harm whatever can come to those urban districts from the effects of Clause 15. The Commission have full powers to deal with this matter in a way that may be just. I do not want to argue the matter at greater length, but I repeat that the fears which have been expressed are not at all likely to materialise.
  Viscount ELVEDEN: The hon. Gentle, man who has just spoken has referred to the necessity for dealing fairly with the capital already invested in these undertakings. I congratulate him on his desire to do that. I believe he is doing it. I want to see more electricity used in this country. If you deal unfairly with the money already invested in these undertakings, you will not encourage other people to put in more money. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will stand by the Clause as it is before us.
  Major BARNES: The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has shown some resentment of the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has dealt with the Amendment. He is not, I am sure, averse to hon. Members attempting to make themselves familiar with matters that conic before them, and his resentment no doubt was solely directed against the form in which my hon. Friend presented his argument. The hon. Gentleman cannot resent the attempts of some of us who understand what is happening under this Clause, in view of the fact that most of us have received from a number of quarters serious representations. My hon. Friend behind me spoke with special authority for the Urban Districts Association, and I think the Minister in charge of the Bill has himself admitted that he put forward a case which needed a reply. Whether that reply has been satisfactory to my hon. Friend, I do not know. It is all very well to say that the Municipal Corporation Associations have conic to an agreement on this matter. But one knows there are often differences of opinion even inside associations. Sometimes very important members of associations find that their interests are not quite the same as those of other members, and a Minister who is as skilful as my hon. Friend is very often able to come

  319
  to an agreement by satisfying the more influential members of the association, while leaving those who are less influential not yet satisfied. I do not think that in addressing himself to the case my hon. Friend finally disposed of it. I understand his case to he that, under the Act of 1919, it became compulsory to transfer these generating stations, and, therefore it was necessary to make some provision there by which the owner of the station could get a supply. My hon. Friend says that that is all gone, that there is no compulsion now, that no owner of a generating station need sell it, and, conversely, that no joint electricity authority need buy it; and that, therefore, the transfer of a generating station will now take place with full knowledge of the position in which both buyer and seller will find themselves after the transfer has taken place, in view of Clause 15. In other words, a person who is going to sell a station now takes Clause 15 into account and fixes his price accordingly, while an authority which is going to buy a station has to face Clause 15, and will take that into account. Therefore, the one will get as high a price, and the other will give as low a price, as he can.
  Mr. NEAL: It does not affect the price.
  Major BARNES: The consideration. If my hon. Friend is going to assure me that the transfer is going to take place without any consideration—
  Mr. NEAL: Section 15 will have no materiality at all on the question of price.
  Major BARNES: I am dropping the term "price," and using the term "consideration." There is to he a transfer, and I understood my hon. Friend to say, when putting the case, that the consideration for the transfer would he affected by the presence of Clause 15, that Clause 15 would have a discounting effect, and that, therefore, no one would be prejudiced, because the whole thing was voluntary. The case against Clause 15, as it has been put to me and to a number of other Members in the House, is that really its presence in the. Bill will affect these transfers. I have had placed in my hands the case against Clause 15 which has been formulated by a number of local authorities, who are not even satisfied with the new Clause. In dealing with the effects of the Clause,
  320
  and speaking subject to the way in which the Bill is now affected by the new Clause, to which I will refer in a moment, they refer to the advantages that are expected to accrue from the establishment of joint electricity authorities—advantages of generating cost—and say that the stations referred to within the area of a power company will be shut out entirely from those advantages, and may be compelled to sell current at increased prices owing to their being compelled to take supplies from the power company. The position therefore, is that they cannot transfer their station to a joint electricity authority. I take it that they mean that they will he prejudiced, and must, therefore, go on with what may he an inefficient station; or, if they transfer their station to the joint electricity authority, the joint electricity authority would be in a position to recoup themselves by the supply of current to that station. Their opinion, therefore, is that the presence of this Clause will really prejudice the transfer of these generating stations. They go on to point out that, if the Clause is passed as it stands, the effect will be that every local authority affected will oppose the establishment of the joint electricity authority, so that one of the prime considerations of the Act of 1919 will he difficult to realise. Finally, they prophesy—prophecy is always dangerous, but still it is their view, and I think the House is entitled to be made aware of it—that local authorities will refuse to assist in the financial arrangements necessary for joint electricity authorities as provided for in the present Bill. From all points of view, therefore, they conclude, the Clause, so far from assisting to provide a cheap and abundant. supply of electricity, threatens very seriously to have the opposite effect.
  That was their view of Clause 15 as it stood. Since then, the new Clause has been put down by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it was within the cognisance of those who were drawing up this case. Their view in regard to the situation is that even the new Clause does not protect them as they think they ought to be protected. It does not meet the situation in which they think they will be placed, and does not save them from the necessity of pressing for the deletion of Clause 15. As I understand, and as they

  321
  appear to understand, the new Clause gives to the Electricity Commissioners power to exclude from the area of a power company certain areas, and, therefore, may be used as a safeguard. On that point I would say that, if Clause 15 is really going to do no harm at all, I do not quite understand why a safeguard should have been introduced. If these powers are to be used as a safeguard, it is pointed out that the procedure of removing a part of an area from the jurisdiction of a power company is very difficult. It requires a special Order, which can only be made, after inquiry, and must first be submitted to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and receive the affirmative decision of each House. There is no guarantee that such a proposal to remove part of an area from the jurisdiction of a power company would not be very bitterly opposed in either or both of the Houses, so that even this proposal does not meet the case, inasmuch as the remedy is contingent, while the evil which it is sought to remedy is actually accomplished if Clause 15 be passed. That is the view of a great many local authorities, and I do not think it has been entirely met by the Parliamentary Secretary. In Clause 15 provision is certainly made for supplies being taken from a power company on a basis which is not at all satisfactory, namely, upon the basis of the cost a production, which is laid down in the Bill as having to take into account certain elements. I think the situation would have been very much better if the Government had seen their way to leave these generating stations to be supplied upon a competitive basis. If the power company wish to take their supply from the joint electricity authority by all means let them do so, but at present I do not feel that either the Bill or the Government has been cleared of the charge levelled against them by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), that, if this Clause be inserted, despite the safeguards, what will happen will be that consumers in particular areas will be loaded with a cost which, if the Clause, were not in the Bill, they would not be called upon to bear.
  Mr. THOMSON: I should not have troubled the House again had not the Parliamentary Secretary been somewhat severe on me in his remarks. I do not object to that, but I think he is wrong.
  322
  In the first place, with regard to the attitude of the Association of Municipal Corporations, he knows that the letter which was sent to him by the association makes it plain that they do not in any way bind hon. Members of this House who may happen to be members of the association. They were only speaking for the committee which met in London, and I have first-hand knowledge that many large local authorities entirely disagree with the view that they have put forward. Therefore, I submit that I was perfectly within my rights as a Member of this House in taking a different attitude, and that I was not in any way bound by the findings of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The hon. Gentleman said that the generating station was the key to the whole situation, and that outside of that there was no substance in my Amendment. Does he really mean that?
  Mr. NEAL: Certainly.
  Mr. THOMSON: May I ask his attention to Section 12, which we are seeking to amend? Section 12 says:
  "A joint electricity authority shall have power to supply electricity within their district subject to the following limitations, that is to say, the authority shall not supply electricity in any part of the area of supply of a power company for any purpose for which the company are therein authorised to supply electricity without the consent of the company."
  It goes on to say, the consent of the company may be withheld on certain conditions. The whole substance of my speech and of my objection to this Clause is that the conditions under which that consent may be withheld are radically altered; Section 12 of the 1919 Act says that consent may be withheld in an area of supply, quite apart from any generating station, if the power company are not prepared to supply at a reasonable price, and a reasonable price means on the same terms practically as the joint electricity authority or authorised under-takikng can supply. Now you alter that condition entirely, and the power company can withhold its consent to the joint electricity authority supplying in their area of supply if the power company can show that they are willing to supply on these new terms, and the new terms are not a question of reasonable price, but of giving an adequate return on the capital expended.
  Mr. NEAL: Will the hon. Member look at the new Clause, which absolutely covers this point in paragraph (b)?
  Mr. THOMSON: I submit that the new Clause does not deal with the matter entirely. It deals with allocating certain areas to certain power companies and certain joint electricity authorities. Apart from that allocation you have other areas where this allocation does not take place where by this Clause you prevent that competition which was given in the 1919 Act, and if my hon. Friend's interjection is
  valid and this amended Clause does what he suggests, what is the need to amend Clause 12? What is the need to vary the terms on which the power company may withhold its consent? Surely that argument cuts both ways. If the new Clause deals with the matter, there is no reason to amend the Clause which he seeks to amend?
  Question put, "That the words of the Clause down to the word 'Sub-section'["the end of that Sub-section"], stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided Ayes, 153; Noes, 80.

  Division No. 335.]

  AYES.

  [8.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir Jamas Tynte

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Parker, James

  Atkey, A. R.

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Perring, William George

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Hamilton, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Pratt. John William

  Barrand, A. R.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Grlffith

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Reid, D. D.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

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

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Briggs, Harold

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Bruton, Sir James

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Scott, A. M, (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Scott, Sir Loslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Seager, Sir William

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

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Simm, M, T. (Wallsend)

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

  Kellaway, Rt. Han. Fredk. George

  Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

  Clough, sir Robert

  Kidd, James

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lew, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Stephenson. Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Sueter, Rea-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Conway, Sir w. Martin

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Surtees. Brigadier-General H. C.

  Cope, Major William

  Lorden, John William

  Sutherland. Sir William

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

  Taylor. J.

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Wallace. J

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Whitla, Sir William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Martin, A. E.

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Evans, Ernest

  Moles, Thomas

  Winterton. Earl

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Wise, Frederick

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Forrest, Walter

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Neal, Arthur

  Gardiner, James

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Dudley Ward.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Cairns, John

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Cape, Thomas

  Ammon, Charles George

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Casey, T. W.

  Banton, George

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Bromfield, William

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

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Rendail, Athelstan

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Irving, Dan

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Sexton, James

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Finney, Samuel

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Sutton, John Edward

  Foot, Isaac

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Swan, J. E.

  Gaibraith. Samuel

  Lawson, John James

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

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

  Gillis, William

  Lunn, William

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard

  Waterson, A. E.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wignall, James

  Grundy, T. W.

  Myers, Thomas

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

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

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

  Hallas, Eldred

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

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Halls, Walter

  Nield, Sir Herbert

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pearce, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Mr. T. Thomson and Major

  Hogge, James Myles

  Raffan, peter Wilson

  Barnes.

  Viscount ELVEDEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), to leave out the words
  "Provided also that the Electricity Commissioners may by special Order authorise a joint electricity authority to supply electricity in any particular part of the area of supply of a power company, without the consent of the power company, if in that part of the area of supply any authority, company or person requires a supply of electricity for any purpose for which the power company are authorised to supply electricity and is prepared to enter into a binding contract to continue to receive and pay for a supply of electricity upon such terms and conditions (including a minimum annual sum to be paid to the power company) as shall in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners afford an adequate return to the power company and is also (in the case of a company or person) prepared to give to the power company (if required by them so to do) security for the payment of all sums which may become due to are power company under the contract and if the power company-are not willing and in a position to supply electricity to that authority, company or person on such terms and conditions,"
  and to insert instead thereof the words
  "Provided that, if in any particular part of the area of supply of a power company the power company are not willing and in a position to supply electricity to any local authority, company, or person, who is prepared to enter into a binding contract with that power company to continue to receive and pay for a supply of electricity upon such terms and conditions (including the payment of a minimum annual sum) as will, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, afford an adequate return to the power company and is also (in the ease of a company or person) prepared to give to the power company (if required by them so to do) security for the payment of all sums which may become duo to the power company under the contract, then and in such case the Electricity Commissioners may, by Special Order under Section twenty-six of the principal Act, authorise a joint electricity
  326
  authority to supply electricity in that particular part of the area of supply of the power company without the consent of the power company."
  Unfortunately, I was prevented from moving this Amendment in Committee, but subsequently the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would accept it on Report. It is an Amendment which I believe is approved by the Parliamentary draftsman.
  Mr. NEAL: My Noble Friend correctly states that this is an improved form of words, and I accept it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This is a very substantial-looking Amendment. I do not know how much substance there is in it, but I hope that this is not making any radical change in the Bill as it came down from Committee.
  Mr. NEAL: There is no change at all.
  Mr. J. JONES: Does it mean that a local authority supplying electricity will be put in an invidious position, as compared with a public company.
  Mr. NEAL: I do not think that question arises. This is a proviso directed to a particular state of things.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CLAUSE 16.—(Limitation, on prices charged.)
  (2) If the receipts of the joint electricity authority on revenue account in any year are insufficient to meet the charges payable out of revenue in that year, the deficiency shall, unless provided for out of a reserve fund, be apportioned amongst the authorised undertakers within the district of the joint electricity authority who take a supply of

  327
  electricity from the joint electricity authority in proportion to the number of units of electricity supplied to them in that year: Provided that in any case in which it appears to the joint electricity authority that the deficiency in any year can by a reasonable adjustment of charges, or otherwise, be made good out of moneys receivable by the joint electricity authority in any succeeding year or years, or that the deficiency is so small as to justify postponement of any apportionment, the joint electricity authority may refrain from making any such apportionment, and such deficiency may be included in the charges payable out of the revenue in any succeeding year or years.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
  The trial of the bureaucrat is all over this Bill, but I do not think that any Clause discloses the trail more clearly than this Sub-section. How are the authorities to know where they stand? If the producing authority is to conduct its business on ordinary commercial lines, it is its duty to calculate properly in advance so that it will be able to meet any deficiency. This Sub-section is an encouragement to sloppy estimates. It is almost to imitate the way that the government of the country is carried on. No electricity authority would think of carrying on its business in that way and have to bring in additional estimates. All Governments do it., and this Government has been as bad as any previous Government. The authorities must know where they stand. There is no provision made for them to collect the money from their own customers. The producing authority is to come along at the end of a year and say, "Our accountant has been off with influenza, and we have made a mistake. We find that a number of units were not accounted for, and we are going to divide it up amongst you." That is something on the lines of the telephone authority which comes along and charges you for calls which you have not had. That may be good enough for a Government Department, but this is supposed to be a business enterprise. Sub-section (1) says:
  "The prices charged for electricity by a joint electricity authority shall be so fixed by the authority, subject to such directions as may be given by the Electricity Commissioners, that, over a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners, their receipts on income account shall be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges), with such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow."
  328
  It is their business to calculate and to make a thorough job of it year by year, and not to come along at the end of the year when all the customers have paid their accounts and say, "We want more money." The thing it utterly unbusiness-like, and the Clause uoght to be deleted and the thing put on to the ordinary business lines of a commercial company.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I second the Amendment with great willingness. We had a similar example of this extraordinary provision for making good the results of inefficiency in another Bill emanating from the Department of the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor, namely, the Railways Bill. In that Bill, charges for freights are always to be arranged so that there is no loss to the company, however inefficient they are, with a certain sort of safeguard as to certain Committees being able to say whether they are inefficient or not. The principle is not that the companies should make good their profit and loss on trading account by greater efficiency, by looking for the wastage, and, if necessary, getting rid of the men who have done badly and replacing them by others, but it is simply arranged that they are to get it from the general consumers. That was carried through despite the opposition of several hon. Members. The appetite grows on what it feeds on, and when the Electricity Bill is introduced we have the position suggested that in managing their concern they may run into debt, they may find that they are spending more money than is coming in, and the consumer, the general body politic, have to make good the losses. That is putting a premium on inefficiency. It is the sort of legislation that we would expect from this Government, and in particular from the Department over which the hon. Member presides.
  Mr. NEAL: The views expressed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Macquisten) who moved the Amendment are not those which I can commend to the House. Section Hi deals with the charges which are to be made by the joint electricity authority. The joint electricity authority will be a public body and they are to fix their charges in such a way as to give a supply as cheaply as may be to the authorities whom they serve, not. to the ultimate consumer, but to those who will distribute energy to

  329
  the ultimate consumer. But when you are dealing with electrical energy it is common knowledge to anyone who has studied the matter at all that you may have a short period where you do not get your return immediately. You have just laid down a little additional plant which does not become fully productive in the first year or two. What are you to do? You know that over a very short term of years it will be fully productive. It is not a question of having estimated at all, but of perfectly accurate forecasting. You know the customers who are coming to you, and you know that over a short term you will be able to get a return on that capital.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is foreseen.
  Mr. NEAL: That is exactly what I am saying, and that is what is provided for by Clause 16.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: No.
  Mr. NEAL: I say that is what is provided for by Clause 16. If the House will just look at Sub-section (1)—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am not dealing with Sub-section (1), but only with Sub-section (2).
  Mr. NEAL: I understand that, but the Clause must be read as a whole. It provides that the prices charged for electricity by a joint electrical authority should be so fixed by the authority, subject to such directions as may be given by the Electricity Commissioners, that, over a term of years, to be approved by the Commissioners, their receipts on income account shall be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges), with such margin as the Commissioners may allow. Let the House consider the case I am putting of something which is not immediately carrying its full load and producing its proper revenue—the Commissioners looking at it, and saying, "Over a term of years this will produce an adequate revenue, and we ought not to burden the consumer at once with an extravagant price in order that next year we may reduce it, and the year after we may reduce it again." We ought to do what is always done in such cases by business people—equate, and if there is some deficiency in
  330
  the early stages, we will make that good in the way which is indicated in Subsection (2), to which my hon. and learned Friend directly applies. Having provided, therefore, that each year is not necessarily to produce such a financial result that you might have to make such a charge as would prevent your getting the customers that are required, and prevent your making your undertaking successful, you have to provide such machinery whereby in the interim that matter may be dealt with.
  Sub-section (2) does it. It provides that if receipts are insufficient out of revenue in that year the deficiency shall, unless otherwise provided for out of reserve—which is a perfectly common business process—be apportioned amongst those undertakers within the district who take the supply of electricity from the joint electrical authority in proportion to the number of units of electricity supplied to them. Who is going to apportion it amongst them? Themselves. They are members of the joint authority. It is not a case, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, of some bureaucrats coming in and dealing with the matter. This Board, which has as part of its constitution those undertakers as essential members of it, considers how to deal with this temporary deficiency which has arisen. It may say: "We will carry it to reserve." It may say: "Well, we all have our own reserves"—as these distributing agents have. "This is a small matter. We will wipe it off by a small levy amongst ourselves." Or they may go further and say: "It is so small, and the margin is negligible, that we postpone dealing with it until next year." In other words, this Clause, I submit to the judgment of the House, provides the ordinary business method by which business people who conduct undertakings of this kind would deal with it. It is not a question, as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, of bureaucratic control at all. It is not a question of bad or loose estimating, but of making provision for a plant which is not becoming fully remunerative in its infancy.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I must say I am rather surprised at this idea of what constitutes business put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. This Subsection amounts to this, that if a manufacturer, that is the joint electricity

  331
  authority, finds out he has made a mistake, or that the price of coal has gone up, or that the engineers are not so efficient as he thought, and thereby makes a loss of revenue during the year, the manufacturer having made, possibly by his own fault, a loss on the transaction, is then to go to the wholesale agents who have dealt with him and say, "I have made a loss on the manufacture of electricity this year. You people must provide the loss which I have made, but I will allow you the liberty of apportioning out amongst yourselves what proportion of the loss you will bear each one." That is the most extraordinary piece of business I have ever come across in my life. You have all these authorities, the undertaker and the joint electricity authority—the joint authority which is going to sell to the undertaker, and the undertaker who is going to sell to the retailer—but if the manufacturer, as this Section of the Clause suggests, through his own loss or through some unavoidable circumstances makes a loss on his manufacture, then the burden is to be borne by the wholesale merchant, who is to have this magnificent privilege, and we are informed by the hon. Gentleman, of consulting with other wholesale merchants who also purchase from that particular manufacturer, and dividing up among themselves the loss the manufacturer has made. It seems to me it is one of the most extraordinary ideas possible to think that the business of this country, or of any other country, is conducted on such lines. This Subsection of this Clause seems to me to be the microcosm of the whole Bill.
  Mr. J. JONES: Some of us are not business men, and therefore we cannot altogether understand the arguments that have just been advanced by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). As far as we are concerned, we recognise the position, those of us who happen to belong to authorities that represent localities where we have invested a great amount of public money in electrical development, and I venture to suggest that if the hon. Member had represented a constituency where they had gone in for the development of electrical undertakings he would not have argued in the way he has just done. A public body investing its money in an electricity undertaking is not investing its money
  332
  for the benefit of people who want profit. It invests its money for the purpose of-developing its industries in its own district. We have spent in West Ham, although we are a poor neighbourhood, nearly £2,000,000 in the development of cheap electricity; and we have, in a period of years, to redeem all the capital invested. I want to point out that the consequence of that has been that we have been able to develop subsidiary industries to our main industries, and have established several factories which otherwise would not have been able to to be carried on. While private firms engaged in electrical production are only expected to pay dividends on capital invested, we are expected to do more. We are expected to produce a profit to some extent upon the result of our activities, and are expected to redeem our capital within a certain limited period of years. That places us in a different category from the ordinary investing public. We have been successful in our task. We have been able to keep the price of gas down as a result of our electrical development. As far as I understand the argument of the last speaker, it is that we must be "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd."
  Mr. HOPKINSON: That is not what I meant. The position under this Subsection is that the authorised undertaker is really in the position of a wholesale dealer and is selling by retail to various people using electricity, and the position of these people, who may be municipalities or private companies or bodies set up under this Bill, may be very awkward because they are to be held responsible for the losses made by someone else.
  Mr. JONES: That is exactly the position of the ratepayer in every case. Suppose we have a municipal tramway service. If at the end of the year there is a loss on the service, that loss has to be made up by the general body of ratepayers. Yet the public get the advantage in cheaper fares, and what they lose on the swings they more than get back on the roundabouts. If business is to be run in watertight compartments and a public body has to prove that each department is profitable, what becomes of the trams, the parks, the recreation grounds, and even the sewers? There is no profit out of sewers except rats. We in West Ham are hundreds of miles away from the coalfields. We ought to have the dearest

  333
  electricity supply in the country. But we have one of the cheapest. Why? Because we have developed electricity for the purpose of providing the means of production in the direction of developing industries in our own neighbourhood. And we have succeeded. If the manufacturer has to pay a little more at the end of the year because of the loss that may have been caused by the development of electricity, he has gained more by the fact. that he has obtained cheap power for the production of his goods. The manufacturers have opposed an increase in the charges for electricity. We on the West Ham Town Council have tried to increase the charges for electricity in order to bring the undertaking up to a profitable level, but the manufacturers have unanimously opposed us. They believe in cheap electricity.
  Mr. HOPKINSON Mr. HOPKINSON rose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I have allowed the Debate to wander rather far afield. This Amendment deals with the distribution of the deficiency. It is not now in order to go into the general question of electricity supply.
  Mr. JONES: The reason for the deficiency has been that in the London area we found ourselves in the hands of a monopoly. The only chance we had of breaking down that monopoly was to develop our own electricity supply, and in doing so we had to run certain risks. Those risks we have run, and the result has been that to some extent we have had to subsidise industry.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I submit that the hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment at all.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already said so.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir W. BARTON: I have had a great admiration for the lucidity of the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary throughout the progress of this Bill. Consequently I regret having now to find myself in conflict with what he has said. It seems to me that the Amendment is thoroughly justified, and that all the arguments used by the Parliamentary Secretary are fully dealt with under Sub-section (1) of this Clause. The quite exceptional power
  334
  which, apparently, is to be given to these joint electricity authorities, would result in sloppy finance. They would know that when, because they put down fresh plant, or when, because of the general management of their undertaking, there would be a deficiency at the end of the year, that deficiency could quite easily be covered by a fresh charge on those who had already paid the price which had been fixed. I agree with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) that that would be, a wholly unbusiness-like proceeding. Surely it is the duty of the authority to spread the deficiency over a period of years. This Sub-section (2) is not only redundant, but mischievous.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I was rather hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary would have given us such an explanation as would have cleared away all possible doubt in this matter. That he has not done. This Sub-section certainly opens up very grave possibilities. The Subsection does not deal with any single private company or any single municipal authority. It deals with some joint concern that may be composed of municipalities or a great private combine. Such a concern might find a very large deficiency to be met at the end of a year. If looseness is permitted there will be negligence, and negligence and looseness together will have the result that there will be no desire to make the income meet expenditure. If the concern is sure that on review at the end of the period, whatever has happened, it can make good that deficiency by calling upon those who are jointly interested in the concern, that is to say, the wholesalers, and that the deficiency can be allocated to the consumer, who has already paid the charges for the particular period, the possibilities are serious. That is the possibility which presents itself to my mind. If that be so, if this Sub-section is giving some covering power to the joint partners in the concern to recover from consumers who have already met their accounts then it seems to me entirely unnecessary, and the first Sub-section should stand by itself. It enables them to meet their charges over a period of years. If there happens to be a deficiency on the first year, then it will make them more careful in their estimate for the forthcoming year and enable them to so rearrange their charges that there will be less

  335
  possibility of a deficiency at the next annual review. It appears to me, in the absence of some more lucid explanation, that the Amendment is thoroughly justified, and if the Mover forces it to a Division I shall be bound to support him.
  Mr. NEAL: I hope a few words may induce the House not to press this Amendment. The main structure of Clause 16 is in Sub-section (I), and it is intended to make the undertaking of the joint electricity authority self-supporting. For that purpose the charges are to be fixed with such a margin as the Electricity Commissioners may decide. We cannot, however, exclude from view the possibility that there may be a deficiency, and surely, when dealing with a public authority which has no private funds of its own, we must provide some means of dealing with such a contingency. The question which has been put to me by the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) is, I think, covered by the Proviso to Sub-section (2). It provides:
  "That in any ease in which it appears to the joint electricity authority that the deficiency in any year can by a reasonable adjustment of charges or otherwise, be made good out of moneys receivable by the joint electricity authority in any succeeding year or years, or that the deficiency is so small as to justify postponement of any apportionment, the joint electricity authority may refrain from making any such apportionment, and such deficiency may be included in the charges payable out of revenue in any succeeding year or years."
  That, in substance, meets the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. The intention is that there shall be no charge upon the undertakings which themselves constitute, in part, if not in whole, the joint electricity authority, if by a readjustment of charges the deficiency can be met, or if the sum is so small that it is not worth while troubling with it in that year. The House must realise that the contingency—I hope the remote contingency—that there might be some deficiency has to be provided against.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not think the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfactory. In the ordinary course the undertakers, the wholesalers, as they have been called by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), go to the producing concern, and ask the price of electricity for the coming
  336
  year. A figure is named, and the undertaker fixes his price to his customers accordingly. He renders his accounts, and these accounts are discharged. Is is to be suggested that, at the end of the year, the producer may go to the wholesaler, and say, "In fixing that price I made a mistake, and I am going to take something more?" Thereupon the wholesaler will turn round and say, "I have sold the stock to my customers, based upon your price, and I have no money to give you." He cannot open up the accounts again; there is no provision made for going to the retail customers. If there was even that, there would be justice in it; if the undertaker could go to the customer any say, "You have had my electricity and the benefit of it, but it was too cheap, and I want something more to meet the demands which are being made upon me."
  Mr. HAYDAY: What would you say if the customer in that case replied, "I paid the price demanded"?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is what he would say, and say justly, and I want the undertaker to be in the same position—to be able to say to the producer, "We paid the price you asked." I submit that the position under the Sob-section, as it stands, is most anomalous. Fancy the belated claims that would come in. No body can possibly fix these charges if they do not know exactly what they themselves will have to pay. If they do not know that they will be helpless, and there will be a continuous resurrection of old accounts. It is all very well to tell us that there is no possible way of meeting the case. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 16 I see the Electricity Commissioners may allow a margin. It is up to the Commissioners to allow such a margin as will enable the joint authority to build up a reserve. They have the control in their own hands. They know what it is going to cost them. They mar make an estimate and arrive at too high a figure, and if they have a substantial surplus, let them keep it to provide for such a contingency as suggested. Are they to come around to a consumer at the eleventh hour, after he has discharged his debt and demand an increased price? Are they to do so, not even at. the eleventh hour, but at the thirteenth hour? It is the case of the unjust steward turned upside down. Are they to come round at the end of the year

  337
  and say to the consumer, "We are very sorry, old chap, but we want more," and if lie says, "But I have paid according to the figure which was fixed," they can reply, "We cannot help that, we have got power under this Sub-section." That is the business-like proposition that is put before us. I say that the thing cannot hold water for one moment, and I beseech the Parliamentary Secretary to wipe out this Sub-section.
  Mr. NEAL: I thought my bon. Friend was rising to make a suggestion, and I gave way to him for that reason. All I was putting to the House was that we must have some scheme for dealing with this possible contingency. I cannot imagine that the difficulties suggested would arise if full effect were given to the proviso, that the authorities may refrain from making an apportionment if it can be shown that the deficiency can be met by an additional charge in future years, or if it is too small a balance to deal with. I think that really meets the case. I would be perfectly willing to strengthen this Sub-section against the making of a levy. I would be perfectly willing, if I carried the House with me and if the present Amendment were withdrawn, to strengthen this by inserting the word "shall" instead of the word "may," the effect of which would be that, where the authority was of opinion that by a reasonable adjustment of charges or otherwise, the deficiency could be made goad out of moneys receivable in future years, or that the deficiency was so small as to justify postponement of any apportionment, they "shall" refrain from making any levy. If that would meet my hon. and learned Friend the Mover of the Amendment and those who have spoken in the same interest I am prepared to move it myself.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Would not the Amendment suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary conflict with the first part of Sub-section (2)? That really is the part of the Sub-section to which the chief objection has been raised, and it specifically states that the loss is to be made out on that particular year. What it comes to is this: Supposing the generating station people have made a loss on generation. The first part of the Clause says that it shall, unless provided for out of a reserve
  338
  fund, be apportioned amongst the authorised undertakers within the district of the joint electricity authority who take a supply of electricity from the joint electricity authority in proportion to the number of units supplied to them in that year. Surely the intention of that part of the Clause is that the undertaking authorities shall pay up out of their revenue for that particular year, and that that year stands by itself. The first part of the. Clause surely refers to a loss made and that has to be liquidated at the end of the year, whereas the second part refers to a provision for carrying forward the loss to future years. I submit that the two portions of that Clause are different, and if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were put in I think he would find, whatever wording was adopted, that it was in conflict with the spirit of the first part of the Section.
  Mr. NEAL: I do not think so, but if that point really has the substance in it which the hon. Member thinks it has, I will endeavour to see whether some Motion may be made in another place. I suggest, however, that if I do meet the point, if I make it imperative on the authority to endeavour to provide for this deficiency by reserves, increased charge, or postponement. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) will agree to that.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Might I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should make the matter more certain, and should deal with the difficulty pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) by changing, in Sub-section (2), "shall" ["the deficiency shall unless provided for"], to the word "may"?
  Mr. NEAL: I will do that also.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think that is exactly what a business man would do, namely, say that he had settled the account for last year, he had shown it to his customer, and he must make up his own loss.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "shall" ["the deficiency shall unless provided for"], and insert the word "may."
  Leave out the word "may" ["the joint electricity authority may refrain"], and insert the word "shall."—[Mr. Neal.]
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Should not the word "may" ["such deficiency may be included"] be also changed to "shall"?
  Mr. NEAL: No. That is quite right, and will be dealt with in another way.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But it says:
  "Such deficiency may be included in the charges payable out of the revenue in any succeeding year."
  Surely the whole sense of the concession should make it that it "shall" be included in the charges payable out of the revenue in any exceeding year?
  Mr. NEAL: It is really not so. It may be so trivial a deficiency as to be carried over, and if you put the word "shall" in, it would defeat that object.
  CLAUSE 18.—(Amendment of Section 16 of principal Act.)
  (1) Section sixteen of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words "under this Act" there were substituted the words "under or in consequence of this Act," and as if for the words "in consequence of this Act" there were substituted the words "in consequence of any such transfer scheme, agreement or arrangement":
  Provided that any question as to whether a transfer scheme, agreement or arrangement, not made under the principal Act, was in consequence of that Act, shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners.
  (2) The Minister of Labour may make rules as to the procedure before the referee or board of referees under the said Section sixteen and may by those rules provide—

  (a) for limiting the amount of costs and providing for the taxation thereof;

  (b) for fixing the fees to be paid to the referee or members of the board of referees and for determining by whom such fees are to be paid.

  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
  "have effect as if for the words 'under this Act' there were substituted the 'words under or in consequence of this Act,' and as if for the words 'in consequence of this Act' there were substituted the words in consequence of any such transfer scheme, agreement or arrangement,'"
  340
  and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "be read and have effect as though the words 'or any other Act or Order confirmed by or having the force of an Act of Parliament' had been inserted therein after the words 'this Act' wherever they occur in the said Section, and as if the words Electricity Commissioners' had been inserted therein in lieu of the words 'Minister of Labour.'"
  This Amendment is brought forward at the request of the electrical engineers employed by the municipal authorities and big electrical companies, and their association, to meet what they represent as a very real grievance. They are afraid that under the Bill, as at present drawn, on the question of compensating them for loss of employment under the Bill in cases where they would not otherwise have lost employment, the provision is weak, and the words I propose to put in would strengthen that. Secondly, they object to the Minister of Labour having the power to set up the referees to decide whether they are entitled to such compensation. They point out that the Ministry of Labour has not the technical staff to deal with a great number of men, and there may be a great many cases waiting to be dealt with. Consequently, they prefer that it shall be the Electricity Commissioners, as in the previous Act. We have heard a good deal about the necessity of compensating capital for any losses it may incur under this Act, and we have heard a great deal about men and corporations who have put their money into electrical undertakings, and that they have great rights of compensation. I am not arguing that now. This Amendment is trying to make some further provision for compensation for men who have put the capital of their whole professional lives into the posts they have gained under, the different electrical authorities. They are men who have given very devoted service in the past for not very high pay, and the positions they have built for themselves represent their whole capital. They want to be certain of fair and swift compensation if they are displaced for no fault of their own under the provisions of this Act.
  When this Clause was brought forward in Committee, the hon. Member in charge of the Bill dealt with it rather lightly. I was not present, but I read the Debate. He talked about these electrical officers

  341
  being like Oliver Twist, always asking for more, never satisfied, and so on and so on. If he were in the position of a man who has got to a certain age when it was not easy to find fresh employment—especially in these days, with the blessings of the Government to which the Parliamentary Secretary belongs, it is not easy for anyone to find fresh employment —and finds through no fault of his own, and owing to the reorganisation of the electrical undertakings in which he works that he is deprived of his post, I do not think he would use that argument. That man is thinking of his future and of his family. He wants to be certain that he will he compensated, as I believe the Bill intends to see that he shall be compensated. It is not fair to joke about that and compare him to Oliver Twist. It is true he is only a highly-skiklled employé, it is true he is not a capitalist—to whom the hon. Gentleman is always very tender —except in the sense I have said, but he has certain rights, and the association feel very strongly that those rights should be strengthened rather more than is provided for in the Act. With that object they have requested me to move this Amendment, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to think better of this than he did in Committee, and to accept the quite simple Amendment, which is not an extravagant request, contained in the proposal I am putting before the House.
  Mr. C. WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. J. JONES: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment means that those men 'who are likely to find themselves displaced as a result of a re-organisation in the electrical industry will also be entitled to compensation in the event of their losing their positions. I would remind him that they are a large number of stokers, engine attendants and others who have worked for many years in connection with the electrical undertakings of the country.
  Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, the Amendment applies to them.
  Mr. JONES: These men may find themselves out of employment in consequence of the re-organisation. If the hon and gallant Gentleman means that all officers and servants shall have the same sort of
  342
  treatment, I am prepared to support the Amendment. If, however, the Amendment only refers to established officers who occupy higher positions, I am going to oppose it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not so, at all. The words of the principal Act, which apply to the Amendment, are
  "Any officer or servant who has … been regularly employed in or about the undertaking."
  Mr. NEAL: With what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) and the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones), I am in sympathy, but their object is fully secured by the Bill. The Amendment goes far beyond that. By Section 16 of the principal Act, full rights of compensation are secured to all officers or servants of whatever grade, if, owing to a transfer of the whole or any part of the undertaking, they are prejudiced owing to the passing of this legislation. That is in conformity with the usual Parliamentary practice, that where you alter the condition of things to the detriment of a workman or other servant, you compensate him. When the Bill was introduced in another place, representations were made on behalf of the members of the Electrical Power Association, asking that the Government would extend the Measure in this way. They said that the transfer might not be under the Act, but it might be in consequence of the Act. Accordingly, Clause 18 was inserted in the Bill to meet their case. It says:
  "Section sixteen of the principal Act shall have effect as if for the words under this Act' there were substituted the words under or in consequence of this Act.'"
  Therefore, as it stands, everyone who is dispossessed through a change in policy which is effected by the principal Act, or by this Bill, gets compensation. The Amendment, however, goes very much further, and provides that if at any time in consequence of some transfer of an undertaking, not because of the new policy, but because the old owner has sold his station to a new owner, then everyone effected shall have a right to compensation. That is a principle which cannot be accepted. That is not something that is done by Parliament. If any body sells his business to a purchaser,

  343
  and the purchaser choses to change his staff, no right of compensation arises in the staff, nor could there possibly be any such Clause introduced or proposed. The compensation is based entirely on disturbance caused by this legislation. If the disturbance is caused directly or indirectly by this legislation, then the servant gets his compensation; if it is something quite outside this legislation, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that the Government cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member in charge of the Bill has not explained the objection to the further part of the Amendment, which seeks to substitute the words "Electricity Commissioners" for the words "Minister of Labour." If I may, I will put the objection myself. There is a good deal more in this Amendment than there seems to be. The gentlemen who instructed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) put forward what appears to be a very innocent Amendment, but it really means a very great deal. If the referees are to be appointed by the Electricity Commissioners instead of by the Minister of Labour, it will make a very great deal of difference. We know perfectly well, from what was told us during the passage of the Grampian Electricity Bill, that the Electricity Commissioners are people of an extraordinarily liberal mind, and that they are willing that taxpayers' money shall be thrown away to any possible extent. It is not their money, and apparently the more the merrier. Evidently therefore, having watched the progress of the Grampian Electricity Bill through this House, and having seen the action of the Electricity Commissioners in advising upon that, these officials have come to the conclusion that if it is to be a question of deciding what they are going to receive as compensation, it would be very much better to be in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners, who cannot be tackled in this House, than in the hands of the Minister of Labour, who can. Therefore I hope the hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment
  Mr. HAYDAY: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up one point. He said that the Amendment went
  344
  so far that, assuming an old proprietor sold out his business to someone else, that fact could be brought sufficiently within the meaning of this Amendment so as to give a right to consideration and compensation. The wording of the Amendment, however, is
  "or any other Act or Order confirmed by or having the force of an Act of Parliament."
  Is it in relation to those words that the hon. Member adopts that attitude!
  Mr. NEAL: Yes, certainly, because many transfers have been made of stations erected under the old Act. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), I must say, in all good temper, that he has not read the Bill. All that the Minister of Labour can do is to nominate an arbitrator.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that those people who are nervous about their future wish to safeguard their future, and I quite admit that that is the case. That is why I am supporting their case here. The idea of a private owner selling something outside the Act altogether, and of the people employed by him wishing compensation in such a case is a very different matter. The words of my Amendment limit the effect to, "Any other Act or Order confirmed by or having the force of an Act of Parliament." That certainly cannot cover the ordinary private sale. If it be a sale of property established originally under some Act of Parliament, it will not be a case of some small concern owned by some private individual—John Smith, or somebody—who sells it to some other undertaking. It will be one of those municipal undertakings, established by the House of Commons. It is in such an undertaking that the officers, employés and servants—who do not get the advantage very often of the higher wages in the ordinary commercial procedure, but who have accepted a lower wage because they thought perhaps that they had security and also were serving the community—are asking for their future to be safeguarded. I must say I think the Parliamentary Secretary is not sympathetic to a perfectly just demand, and I am very sorry indeed the Amendment has not been accepted. If I get any support, I am quite prepared to divide the House.
  Amendment negatived.
  CLAUSE 19.—(Methods of charging and revision of prices.)
  (1) Sub-section (2) of Section thirty-one of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899 (which relates to the method of charging by undertakers), as incorporated with any Act or Order passed or confirmed either before or after the passing of this Act shall cease to have effect, and -where any such Act or Order does not incorporate the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, but contains a provision corresponding to the said Subsection, the Act or Order shall have effect as if that provision were omitted therefrom.
  (3) With regard to any Act or Order passed or confirmed before the passing of this Act which limits the price to be charged for electricity, but does not incorporate the said Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, the Act or Order shall have effect as if the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act, mutatis mutandis, were contained therein in substitution for the provisions therein contained as to the revision of prices, and where any such Act or Order does not contain any provisions authorising the periodical revision of prices, the prices to he charged by the undertakers shall he subject to revision in accordance with the provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act.
  Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "undertakers" ["charging by undertakers"], to insert the words "is hereby repealed, and such repeal shall apply to that Schedule."
  This is a mere drafting Amendment, and I simply move it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "either before or after the passing of this Act shall cease to have effect," and insert instead thereof the words "before the passing of this Act."
  After "1899," insert the words "or incorporates it subject to an exception of the said Sub-section."
  In Sub-section (3), after "1899," insert the words "or incorporates it subject to an exception of the said Section thirty-two."—[Mr. Neal.]
  CLAUSE 20.—(Amendment of Section 15 of Act of 1909.)
  Section fifteen of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909 (which relates to the supply of electricity to premises having a separate supply), shall have effect as if the expression "premises having a separate supply"
  346
  included premises which have a separate supply of electricity or on which a separate supply of gas, steam, or other form of energy is in use or ready for use for the purposes for Which electricity is demanded or received.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  This is purely consequential on a new Clause which I moved earlier in the day, and which was accepted by the Government.
  Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. NEAL: This is, as my hon. and learned Friend said, consequential, and so it may be struck out.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CLAUSE 21.—(Power of persons not being undertakers to supply electricity.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything, to the contrary contained in any Special Act or Order, it shall be lawful for the owners or lessees of any railway generating station, or of any generating station erected under statutory authority for the purpose of working tramways or light railways, to supply electricity therefrom upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed—

  (a) to a joint electricity authority; or

  (b) to an authorised undertaker; or

  (c) to any consumer, subject, in the case of premises situate within the area of supply of an authorised undertaker, to the content of that undertaker:

  Provided that no such supply shall be given under the powers conferred by this Section—
  (i) without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, or otherwise than subject to such conditions as they may impose;
  Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, i), after the word "Commissioners," to insert the words
  "who before giving their consent to a supply to any consumer shall have regard to the interests of any undertakers (other than electrical undertakers) who may be affected thereby."
  This is moved by me in pursuance of a promise, which I made in Committee, to consider some form of protection for gas companies.
  Mr. J. JONES: Does this mean, in the case, say, of the East End of London, where gas companies are very powerful, that the electrical undertakings owned

  347
  by a municipality would have to go through the microscope so far as their rights are concerned?
  Mr. NEAL: This is an Amendment to Clause 21, which deals with the special circumstances under which a railway company, or someone of that kind, may deal with their surplus energy by selling it to some undertaking, as in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1, i), leave out the word "they," and insert instead thereof the words "the Commissioners."—[Mr. Neal.]

  SCHEDULE.
  PROVISION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTION 32 (2) OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) ACT, 1899.
  Provided that if either—

  (a) the undertakers; or

  (b) such number of consumers not less than twenty as the Minister of Transport considers sufficient having regard to the population of the area of supply; or

  (c) in a case where the local authority are not themselves the undertakers, the local authority; or

  (d) in a case where the local authority are not themselves the undertakers and the area of supply is situate wholly or partly within the county of London, the London County Council,

  at any time after the expiration of three years after the confirmation of the special order make a representation to the Minister that the prices or methods of charge stated in the special Order or approved by the Minister ought to be altered, the Minister, after such inquiry as he may think fit, may make an Order varying the prices or methods of charge stated in the special Order or so approved as aforesaid, or substituting other prices or methods of charge in lieu thereof, and the prices or methods of charge so varied or substituted shall have effect on and after such day as may be mentioned in the Order as if they had been stated in the special Order:
  Provided also that the prices and methods of charge for the time being in force may be altered in like manner at any time after the expiration of any or every period of three years after they were last altered.
  Major HILLS: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert a new paragraph—
  "(c) Any one consumer of not less than fifty thousand units annually."
  The effect of my Amendment is this. The Schedule provides an alternative
  348
  scheme to the Act of 1899 for the revision of standard charges for three years, and under this scheme certain parties have got the right to apply to the Minister of Transport, and on that application he may hold an inquiry. The people who have to compel the inquiry to be held are (1) the undertakers; (2) or such number of consumers, not less than 20, as the Minister may consider sufficient; (3) the local authority; and (4) the London County Council. I want to add to that, "any one consumer of not less than 50,000 units annually." It is quite clear that if 20 consumers, who may take only a small amount of power, say, 100 units each, have got. the right to move the Minister, one large consumer ought to have similar power. It cannot give rise to any abuse, for he has to apply to the Minister, and the Minister is not compelled to take any action at all. All he is compelled to do is to hold such inquiry as be may think fit, and after that he may make an Order for the varying of the charges. It is a very reasonable Amendment, for the whole provision is permissive
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. NEAL: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this Amendment. The case of the consumer he has mentioned is almost invariably—if think I may say invariably—covered by Section 32. Large consumers up to anything like 50,000 units almost without exception make contracts, and think my hon. and gallant Friend will see is would be quite inappropriate to ask that contracts should be varied under Section 32. I cannot imagine that if the price be thought excessive to the consumers generally—because that is the case covered by Section 32—it would be impossible to get 20 consumers or the local authority to take action in the matter.
  Major HILLS: I do think this is a case that might well be met. I quite agree the contract ought to be met, but, still, I can conceive a case in which it might be possible that the complaint came from 19 consumers. Since, however, the Minister cannot accept the Amendment, I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I hope the House will really give consideration to this Bill before it is read the Third time. We have had to take so much on the authority of the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers, that a real consideration of what is happening with regard to the supply of electricity does really become necessary at the present time. The main object of this Bill is to give effect to the policy contained in the principal Act. It is to provide the funds and various other things, so that the original Act can be carried out on a practical basis. What is going to be the result of carrying out the original Act? It is going to be exactly the same result which has happened from the policy of the same gentleman—Sir Eric Geddes—on the railways of this country. It is going to put the supply of electricity, just as the transport of the country is at present, on a purely Syndicalist basis, under which monopolies are to be granted, and authorities put in a position to go to the men and officials they employ and arrange the whole industry on a Syndicalist basis. And the consumers are to pay, just as in the case of the railways. That is not a stable position, and it is not, going to be stable when once worked out by the Ministry of Transport, any more than the position of the railway companies is stable at the present time. Both the directors of the railway companies and those responsible for the direction of the National Union, know perfectly well that the present position on the railways is extremely critical, because the Syndicalist method of working the railways, through the system of grouping, is breaking down, after only being worked for a very few months. In the same way the Syndicalist basis of working the supply of electricity is going to break down, and there is going to be immense trouble between the electrical workers and the rest of the community.
  Therefore I do protest against this Bill, and for another reason, that it is going to set up a vested interest in the special technical methods of producing and distributing electricity which happen to be in existence at the present time. There is going to be no reason in the future why anybody engaged in the business of inventing new and better methods of
  350
  generating and distributing electricity, can ever get his new, and possibly better ideas, put into force, so long as this basis for the industry exists.
  This solidification, this freezing of the whole of the technical position in the generating and distribution of electricity is taking place just at that one moment in the history of the industry and invention in this country when probably the whole methods both of generation and of distribution are going to be completely altered in every essential respect. We are just at the end of one age of electricity—just at the end of that age under which electricity is generated by coal from the pits, put under boilers for the purpose of raising the steam, to be put into steam turbines to produce the rotary motion, which is again transmitted to the rotary electric machine, which again generates the electricity which is transmitted to the consumer. That method of production is a method primitive in the extreme. It is very complicated and hopelessly inefficient. For years past, the whole of the inventive capacity of the engineers of the world has been devoted to the invention of some better, cheaper, and simpler method of generating electricity. All those labours have been going on for a whole generation, and engineers, who have throughout the whole time been busy, are rapidly coming to a conclusion at the present time. Already everyone concerned with engineering knows well that the great engines which are to be put in at the present time are going to be obsolete within a very short time. Therefore I do say that the House is taking a very grave responsibility upon itself when, possibly, passing a Measure which may be of the very greatest disadvantage to the industries and to the prosperity of this country. I do hope that those who vote for the Third Reading of this Bill to-night will vote with a full knowledge of what they are doing and of what they may sacrifice.
  Mr. MYERS: I fully recognise that to keep the House at any length at this moment upon this particular Bill is not to the point, because the opportunities for any useful work has gone by. But I think we all feel that we are entitled to express what we believe to be the likely operations of this Bill. If this Bill had its proper title, it would be the Charter of Monopoly for the Private

  351
  Electrical Undertakings of the Country Bill. It is what we expected it to be. Those of us interested in these matters looked upon the Report of the Board of Trade Committee which recommended the setting up of super-electrical stations, the mapping out of the country into districts and areas, and the organisation of the generation and the distribution of electricity, as a very encouraging report, both from the point of view of national economy, and from the point of view of cheaper power; also of ridding the country from the smoke nuisance. When we saw the Act of 1919 we, saw there the framework of this great national scheme which would have been of some benefit to the community. We recognised the necessity for a further Act of Parliament providing the machinery to put into operation the Act of 1919.
  We were anxious during the whole of last Session that the Bill which was before the House should be put into effect and made an Act, but the Government considered it undesirable that that should be done. Now they bring forward a Bill which is only a shadow of the Bill which was before the House last year, and it is framed in such a fashion that it affects a consolidation of the vested interests of the electricity generation of this country. Meanwhile the electricity undertakings have been consolidating their position. If the municipalities desire to go a yard outside their area in order to supply electrical current, they suddenly find themselves within the area of supply of one of the large power companies. They have come dawn to this House, and have secured provisional orders and the like, and have the whole country mapped out as their areas of supply. People who are desirous of having electrical current, and desire to take it from one or other of the municipalities, find they are debarred, because they are encroaching on the area of the power company who perhaps have not a cable within miles and a station within a considerable distance! On the other hand, these companies are encroaching on the areas and boundaries of the local authorities. The companies can supply power and also light. They supply the minimum of power and the maximum of light, and the municipalities are consequently losing at both ends. This Bill makes the private electricity power companies
  352
  a law unto themselves. We are told that the local authorities of the country have accepted certain arrangement during the later stages of this Bill. These arrangements have been made on sufference. The municipalities are only endeavouring to save what they can from the wreck of the Bill which consolidates the vested interests in this matter.
  So far as I can understand this Bill in its application to the Act of 1919, we are going to make the power companies of the country wholesale producers of electrical current, and we are going to make the municipalities of the country the retail traders to sell that commodity which the private companies have produced. It is on a par with many other things that have happened in this House of recent days. The rights of the people on one side, and the interests of the country are very definite. The point of view of economy and health and other similar things have no consideration at all if the interest is sufficiently powerful in this House to influence this House and to influence Parliament. In this Electricity Bill, like other Bills that could be named, they get their way irrespective of the rights of the people or of the country. I repeat that if this Bill got its proper title that would be a Charter of Monopoly for the Private Electrical Undertakings of the Country Bill.
  Mr. HANNON: Before the Third Reading is given to this Bill, I wish to enter my respectful protest against the charge levelled at the Electricity Commissioners by the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson) and his suggestion of their indiscriminate waste of public money: that in the discharge of their duties they are inclined to lavish public money in every direction. It is not my duty in this House to defend the Electricity Commissioners. That can be very well done by the Parliamentary Secretary who is in charge of the Bill. But I have had some experience of the methods pursued by the Commissioners in preparing recommendations to put before the Trade Facilities Committee. I know the process, and I say that a more exact, a more careful, and a more exhaustive way of performing their work could not be devised than that pursued by these Commissioners in order to satisfy themselves of the bona fides of every scheme brought to them for their recommendation.

  353
  If we allow a charge like that, made in the characteristic fashion of the hon. Gentleman, to be scattered about this House against a body of most efficient public officers, who are doing their work in the face of great difficulties and to the entire satisfaction of the country, we shall be doing wrong.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is a great disaster that this Bill was ever introduced. It is a remnant of the old Bill. It is unsound in principle. I do not believe you will ever get, under this Bill, electricity at the cheap rate which is necessary, or under any other Bill which is aimed at electricity being produced ad hoc by ad hoc companies. There is only one way you will ever get cheaper electrical power, and that is by taking advantage of the facilities which might be offered by the railway companies of this country if it were possible for an enlightened Parliament to see its way to grant a franchise to the railways to electrify themselves and provide the power of heat and light which this Bill fails to do in an adequate way. Then you might have the railway companies of this country producing electricity as a side line for public purposes, whereas you have under this Bill ad hoc authorities to supply electric light and power, and long before they have been able to obtain a sufficient volume of business to justify their cost and their heavy overhead charges, they will sink under the weight of their overhead charges, and their unit prices will have to be kept up for a great many years to come.
  The consequence will be that electric consumers will be burdened with charges from which they can never recover, whereas if a more imaginative and practical policy had been adopted, if more vision had been shown, if the railway companies had been told that the State would assist them to electrify themselves and give them powers subject to due provision that they shall not overcharge the consumer, we should have had a more
  rapid development and a more efficient system.
  The scheme now proposed is going to be a millstone round the neck of these electric undertakings. Consider for a moment what the railway companies, if they had been given such powers, could have done. Every farmer and the residents in every village through which the railway lines ran would have been able to get cheap electric power. You only need the skilled technical expert to work under the financial scheme of the railway company. This is the true method by which we could have regenerated the whole of the industrial situation, and we could in this way have provided power and heat and light in every corner of these islands, and we could have made this as great an invention as the invention of the steam locomotive. This bureaucratic Bill, which is framed on syndicalism lines, is standing in the way of natural heritage of the railway companies, and it will be a block instead of an assistance to the development of electricity, and it will do very great harm to the development of the industries of this country.
  Sir R. ADKINS: In regard to this question, the policy was really laid down in what is now the Act of 1919. I think it. is only fair that some of us who served on the Standing Committee which had to deal with questions of fair play for other statutory companies should, at the end of this discussion, which has necessarily been prolonged, say that while the policy of 1919 has failed to justify itself, and can only be justified by practical experience over a period of years, we are grateful to my hon. Friend for the way he has tried to meet us, and we thank him for the skill and courtesy with which he has piloted a very difficult Bill through the House.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 64.

  Division No. 236.]

  AYES.

  [10.2 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Barrand, A. R.

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Bartley-Dennlss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Briggs, Harold

  Balrd, Sir John Lawrence

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.

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

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Pratt, John William

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

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Casey, T. W.

  Houfton, John Plowright

  Rae, Sir Henry N

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  clough, Sir Robert

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Reld, D. D.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Remer, J. R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cope, Major William

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Cowan, O. M, (Scottish Universities)

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

  Kenyon. Barnet

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Kidd, James

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

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

  King, Captain Henry Dcuglas

  Seager, Sir William

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

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

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lindsay, William Arthur

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

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Lorden, John William

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Smlthers, Sir Alfred W.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Forrest, Walter

  Mallalleu, Frederick William

  Taylor, J.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Manville, Edward

  Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Middlebrook, sir William

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Moles, Thomas

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Calonel Sir John

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Gould, James C.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Wallace, J.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Morrison, Hugh

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Gregory, Holman

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Grelg, Colonel Sir James William

  Neat, Arthur

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

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

  Whitla, Sir William

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

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

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

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

  Nield, Sir Herbert

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

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Norrls, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Windsor, Viscount

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Pain, Brig. Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Winterton, Earl

  Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Wise, Frederick

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Parker, James

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Pearce, Sir William

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

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

  Perrig, William George

  Dudley Ward

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Banton, George

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bromfleld, William

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sutton, John Edward

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Irving, Dan

  Swan, J. E.

  Cairns, John

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

  Cape, Thomas

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

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

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Thomson, T, (Middlesbrough, West)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lawson, John James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lunn, William

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam, Neath)

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Wignall. James

  Entwlstlc, Major C. F.

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Finney, Samuel

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Foot, Isaac

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

  Galbralth, Samuel

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Gillis, William

  Poison, Sir Thomas A

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Mr. Myers and Mr. Halls.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ACLAND: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what the Government intend with regard to the remaining business to-day and in the early hours of the morning. I understand that the Allotments Bill is to be postponed, and I want to know what Bills the Government propose to take in its place.
  Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): It had been hoped, as the House, knows, that. we should have been able to take the first three Orders on the Paper to-night, at, any rate, but none of,is anticipated—certainly I did not—that the Order we have just disposed of would have occupied the Rouse until after 10 o'clock. As it is essential we should get the Report stage of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill and its Third Reading, in order that it may go to another place this week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested that we should postpone the Allotments Bill until another day. Therefore, it is proposed to take it as the first Order on Friday, and to proceed immediately with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. I hope the House will be able to help us to rise, as anticipated, at the end of next week by taking three other Orders which are not controversial.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House, and no Debate can arise.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Age of consent for males.)
  The age of consent for young male persons shall he the same as the age of consent for young female persons, and any female person permitting a male person of less than that age to have carnal knowledge of her person shall be guilty of the same offence and subject to the same penalties under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, or otherwise, as if said male person was a female person and said female person was a male person.—[Mr. Macquisten.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This sudden change in the order of Business is very unfair to hon. Members who are interested in this particular Bill, and who are not now present to deal with it. I submit it is not just for the Government to put Orders down on the Paper and then at the fifty-fifth minute of the eleventh hour suddenly change the order of Business in the way they have done to-night. I respectfully say it is not right. I am proposing this new Clause, which provides that the age of consent for young male persons shall be the same as the age of consent for young female persons, and which imposes on the female person permitting an offence the same penalty as male offenders are subjected to. This Bill is entitled
  "A Bill to Amend the Law with respect to offences against persons under the age of sixteen"—
  and I find that in Clause 1 it provides that it is no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a young person under the age of 16 to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency. The Clause I am now, asking the House to add to the Bill is a natural sequence to Clause 1, which, as the House will observe, protects both males and females under the age of 16 against acts of indecency. Why under other Clauses that protection should be removed from the male, I cannot understand, for I hold that guilty parties should be punished for an act of indecency whatever class or sex they belong to, and to provide under one section that one sex should escape punishment for a grave act of I can see no justification for that. On the Second Reading I outlined the Amendments which would he moved in Committee, and in Committee this Clause was only lost by three or four votes, at the outside. I think it is a very necessary Clause. Everyone who has had any experience of life knows that there is not a great deal of difference in regard to rightness or wrongness between mankind, whether they be male or female. The Home Secretary, speaking on this Bill, spoke of the wickedness of old men. There are wicked elderly people of both sexes, and the experiences

  359
  of the War taught the community that young boys, as well as young girls, need protection.
  Where I feel that this Bill will fail in its laudable object, although in many respects I think it is a very dangerous Bill—as to which I shall speak on other Clauses—is that it does not realise that, if you do not protect the adolescent youth from the possibility of being set upon the broad road of vice, if you do not attach similar penalties to his being led astray, you are going a long way to defeat the very objects of the Bill in protecting young females. Anyone who knows anything about life knows that time and again there are probably just as many boys of tender years who are set upon the wrong and vicious road by people very much their seniors, as there are young females set upon that path by older men. The danger to the young female is that, if a boy of 12½, 13 or 14 is once initiated into a vicious life, not only is there the moral damage to his character, the same onset of depravity, as in the other sex, but he becomes a source of danger to the very females towards whose protection this Bill is directed. Anyone who has had experience of Circuit Courts or other Courts where offences of this kind are tried, is astonished, very often, at the juvenility of both the parties, and I think that if an investigation were made into the cases of young lads who have gone astray, it would be found almost universally that they have been initiated into depravity by some person much their senior. It is a very common experience, at all events, and I do say that the code for both sexes should be the same. It is no use endeavouring to protect the chastity of young females if you are going to have young males initiated into vice by elderly females who ought to know better, and these youths in turn become, one might almost say, birds of prey upon the young females. That is where the danger arises. After all, the temple of virtue has two doors, and it is no use closing the one and allowing vice to rush in with double strength at the other. You will make no progress with this Measure unless you provide for both sexes.
  One case in which the need arises for the protection of youth—of both sexes I admit, but of the male as much as the
  360
  female—is this, that there is a horrible, dreadful superstition that prevails among large masses of ignorant people that, if they are suffering from complaints brought about by their own vicious lives, and if they can have relations with someone who has never erred before, then by some process of translation they will be bereft of their disease, and it will be transferred to the innocent person with whom they have had those relations. It is almost incredible that human nature can be so selfish and so wicked, but there is no doubt that superstition is very prevalent, and any medical man will tell you he has had experience in hospitals of boys of very tender years who have been infected for no other reason than the prevalence of that hellish superstition. These mere boys of tender years are just as much entitled to protection as girls of tender years. Objection is taken to the Clause by those responsible for promoting the Bill that this is overloading it. It is not overloading it. It is merely making it one whole. It is merely carrying out the provisions in Clause 1, where a youth is protected from indecent assault but not from something which is very much worse. I therefore appeal to the Home Secretary, and to those who are promoting the Bill, to believe that we who have criticised many of its Clauses are as deeply interested that it should be made a success and should carry out the results which they aim at, namely, the protection of the young, and should postpone to as late a period of life as possible, if not to make it unlikely that they shall ever engage in anything in the shape of immoral or vicious conduct. I ask the Home Secretary to he logical, to make the Bill correspond with Clause 1. If they accept this they will make it a much more complete Measure and, I believe, will attain the object they are aiming at, the protection of young people, in a far more complete fashion than if they leave it truncated and do not deal with both sexes of tender years.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I beg to second the the Motion.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): It may he that this Claus is logical, having regard to the object of the Bill, but I hope the House will come to the conclusion that, at any rate, it is not desirable that it should be pressed at this

  361
  stage. It is true that we all desire to protect young people from contamination, and that to some small extent, comparatively speaking, young boys are liable to contamination from older and vicious women. But it would be idle to suggest that the danger of contamination from those older than themselves to a young boy can approach the danger to a young girl. I am sure those who were in the Committee and those who remember the Debates this year know perfectly well how difficult this is. People perfectly sincere in their views, and I have no doubt all of them equally anxious to protect young people from contamination, have the strongest differences of opinion as to what is wise and what is unwise in legislation, and therefore I ask the House not to put into the Bill another contentious point when it is not really essential to the objects of the Bill. The protection of young boys is a very Proper thing, but to bring in a suggestion of this kind that you are to get a young boy, a well-developed boy of 15, who has been got hold of by a woman, say, of 30, and has been led astray by her, and to expect that boy to give evidence against her, is almost more than you can expect of human nature. It would be very difficult ever to make a Clause of this kind workable. It would be highly contentious here, and highly contentious in another place. It may be that it is perfectly logical that you ought to protect the boy as well as the girl [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I quite agree with hon. Members in that, but when you are dealing with a highly contentious Measure you have to consider your chances, and also consider what is the substantial and the material amount of benefit, and I do not think that anyone would suggest that a young boy runs anything approaching the danger from vicious women that young girls do from vicious men.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: There has always been equal danger since Potiphar's wife, mentioned in the Bible.
  Mr. SHORTT: If my memory serves me, I think that Joseph was rather over the age of 15.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: He successfully ran away.
  Mr. SHORTT: In any case, I do not think that that is relevant. Do let us be
  362
  serious. I am sure that we are all in earnest.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is you who are frivolous!
  Mr. SHORTT: We have great difficulty in getting this Bill through, and every new suggestion that is highly contentious makes the difficulty of getting the Bill through more pronounced. We want, if we can, to get a Bill through this Session which will do something to strengthen the law for the protection of young grils who require protection. I do ask the House to try to get the Bill on that account, without running the risk of wrecking it, either here or in another place. If you are to follow unadulterated logic you would never get a Bill through. You always have to meet opponents, and you always try to do so. I do hope, therefore, that the House will see that this is really an unworkable Amendment. It would lead to very great difficulties. It is not half so necessary as the rest of the Bill, and I ask the House not to jeopardise the rest of the Bill for the sake of this Amendment.
  Mr. JAMESON: I do not think the House has been impressed by the arguments of the Home Secretary. What is the Report stage of a Bill for if it be not to complete and render symmetrical the measures brought before it? As for the excuse that this is not the right opportunity to put straight the errors of omission in the Bill, I submit that if there be an error of omission, such as is clear from the arguments of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) this is the time to put it right, and this is the Bill in which it ought to be put right. I also demur to the suggestion that this Amendment is contentious. It ought not to be contentious. It ought to be agreed to by all sides who are anxious for the Bill not to be one-sided. It is a reproach to this Bill as it stands, that it is a one-sided Measure. With respect to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the girl can be got to bring evidence of this crime and the boy cannot be got, I do not think there is much in that. I should have thought the girl would demur just as much to have her modesty wronged by bringing her into a criminal court and putting her into the witness box as would the boy. As to the danger being less with a boy than with a girl, I also demur There was one

  363
  case which came up in my own knowledge a long time ago in Edinburgh. It was the case of an immoral woman who had got hold of a schoolboy. She practically kidnapped him from his people. She kept him in her house for four months and killed him. She wasted him away. The police tried to do their best. They shadowed the house, and all that sort of thing, but there was no remedy, and they could not interfere. In a case like that, I do suggest that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend does give a remedy and I do not see why it should not be adopted. It would make the Bill very much more fair and a very much better piece of legislation.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The "Noes" have it.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I insist on dividing.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Why did not the hon. and learned Member call "Aye."
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I did call "Aye."
  Mr. J. JONES: Not in your usual stentorian tones.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Clear the Lobby.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND(seated and covered): On a point of Order. As far as I could hear him, the hon. Member said "No."
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I dispute that entirely.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ordered that the Lobby should be cleared.
  The House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 191.

  Division No. 237.]

  AYES.

  [10.34 P.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

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

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G,

  Ratclifle, Henry Butler

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Remer, J. R.

  Sowyer, Captain G. W. E

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rodger, A. K

  Churchman, sir Arthur

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Clough, Sir Robert

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Surtees. Brigadier-General H. C.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

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

  Colfox, Major Wm Phillips

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Whitla, Sir William

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

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Wills, Lt.-Col Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray

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

  Wise, Frederick

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Gould, James C.

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

  Grant, James Augustus

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Norrls, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Mr. Macquisten and Mr. Green.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Bromlield, William

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty4

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Entwlstle, Major C. F.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bruton, Sir James

  Evans, Ernest

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Astor, Viscountess

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Balrd, Sir John Lawrence

  Cairns, John

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cape. Thomas

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Banton, George

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Barker, G. (Monmouth., Abertillery)

  Casey, T. W.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox Univ.)

  Forrest, Walter

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Barnston, Major Harry

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

  Galbralth, Samuel

  Barrand, A. R.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Ganroni, Sir John

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  ! Gilbert, James Daniel

  Birchall, J. Dearman

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

  Gillis, William

  Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Grimth

  Davles, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)

  Glimour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Davles, Rhys John (Wes thoughton)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Davles, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Gregory, Holman

  Brldgeman, Rt, Hon. William Clive

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

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Briggs, Harold

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Grundy, T. W.

  Brlttain, Sir Harry

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemswortin

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Mailalleu, Frederick William

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Manville, Edward

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Halls, Walter

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

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

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Molton, Major John Elsdale

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morefng, Captain Algernon H.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Morrison, Hugh

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Hinds, John

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Sturrock, J. Lens

  Hirst, G. H.

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Hope, Sir H. (Stirling &Crckm'nn'n,W.)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Sutton, John Edward

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

  Myers, Thomas

  Swan, J. E.

  Hope, J, D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Neal, Arthur

  Taylor, J.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

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

  Houlton, John Plowright

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

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

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Insklp, Thomas Walker H.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

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

  Parker, James

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wallace, J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

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

  Perring, William George

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Waring, Major Walter

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Ramsden, G. T.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Reld, D. D.

  Williams, Aneurln (Durham, Consett)

  Lawson, John James

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield. Ecclesall)

  Winterton, Earl

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Lorden, John William

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Wood, Ma|or M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir H.C. (P'nrith)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Lunn, William

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Brldgeton)

  Younger, Sir George

  Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Seager, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Sexton, James

  W. Ward.

  Mr. SPEAKER: The second proposed new Clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Macquisten)— [Offences by females]—is outside the scope of the Bill. The third proposed new Clause, ire the name of the same hon. Member—[Certification of age of girls of 16 and under]—I do not select. With regard to the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson)— [Exclusion of prostitutes from the Act]— I think that should take the form of an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill. There is an Amendment to Clause 2 in the name of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) which deals in a better form with the same subject.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: As long as it is made to apply to Clause 1 as well, I do not object, but my proposal applies equally to Clause 1.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that it related only to Clause 2. In that case I will call it.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exclusion, of prostitutes from, the Act.)
  Nothing in this Act shall apply to a case where it is shown that the young person under the age of sixteen has been leading the life of a prostitute.—[Mr. Rawlinson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is not one of the proposals which I moved in Committee, nor is it one about which I am as anxious as I am about the Amendment appearing next on the Paper in my name. Most of us realise that the Bill is likely to pass, the Government having taken it up, and it is necessary to see if we cannot deal with some of the flaws which exist in the Bill. This new Clause is one which the Government may see their way to accept. If we do not deal with the point in some way or other, the position is this, that we are going to extend the age of consent from 13 to 16 in the case of charges of indecent assault. Again, Clause 2 of the Bill is going to take away the defence which up to the present has always existed, namely, that a man who has had

  367
  carnal knowledge of a girl of 15, had reasonable cause to believe she was over 16. One of the points very strongly urged in Committee was that, in carrying out the legitimate objects of the Bill, we might open the way to blackmailing. Nobody is more sorry for the fact than I am, but those with any knowledge of the subject are aware—and one need only ask any or our chief constables to find out—that there is in Great Britain a large number of girls of 15 living the lives of prostitutes. If we pass the Bill in its present form, and give them its protection, we are simply asking for blackmail. You have the case of a girl of 15 going about the streets; she manages to persuade some man to go with her; if he goes with her, and has connection with her—if he "indecently assaults" her, and "indecent assault" is a very wide term which may, in certain circumstances, include hugging a girl—he is open to this danger. Possibly it is a young man she induces to hug or indecently assault her. That young man, or it may be an old man, is absolutely at the mercy of this prostitute of 15. I am perfectly certain that is not the intention of the Government or the promoters of this Bill, and I am convinced from what they said in Committee that what they wish to do is to protect innocent girls of 15, and that no quarter of the House means that when you have a woman living a life of prostitution at 15—and you have no power to stop it, because if the police send them home the first time they snap their fingers afterwards—and you are going to give the protection of this Act to that woman, there is no sort of defence open to that boy or man, as the case may be. You therefore have a tremendous lever for blackmail at once, and I submit, knowing, as I do, that the supporters of this Bill intend simply to protect innocent girls under 16—I have heard Labour Members speak on this point time after time—that they should support me and accept this Amendment which simply says that where this young man, or whoever it may be, can show that a girl has been living the life of a prostitute—I am sorry to say that it is so in these naval towns of Portsmouth, Plymouth, and places like that —although it is difficult to prove, it ought to be a defence, and the extra protection you are giving to girls of 15 under
  368
  this Act should not be given to girls of that class. If you do you are accentuating the evils dealt with under this Bill, and are simply asking for blackmail.
  As it has been said of me before now, "Ah, you are in favour of immorality," I do hope no one will suggest that. I am simply saying that if this unfortunate position occurs—of course, it is immoral for anyone to go with a prostitute of 14, of 40, or of any age—when a woman is a prostitute you should not give this extra protection to her. In my profession I have to see cases of blackmail time after time. They do not come into Court, in spite of what someone on the Treasury Bench said about cases of this sort coming into Court. It is we who have to advise people in these matters, and we see case after case of the most cruel wickedness in the way of blackmail, of young and old people as well. If we are going at this moment to give this handle to these girls of 15, who know what they are about—take that from me, as I have seen it time after time—we, as a Legislative Assembly, will be making a very grievous mistake, and I hope the House will help me to make this Bill, as I think this will, a far more workable and practicable Bill, by accepting this new Clause.
  Captain Viscount CURZON: I beg to second the Motion.
  Not having spoken on this Bill yet, I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he can state definitely that, if this new Clause be not passed, and the Bill passes as it stands, it will not positively place an incentive in the hands of foreign procureurs to ship over young girls to this country in the hope of making a livelihood and a trade out of this? I see that possibility in this Bill if this Clause be not passed. If it be passed, I think there is a certain protection against it.
  Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) will take it from me at once that the very last thing I would suggest of him was that he was in favour of immorality.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I know you would not.
  Mr. SHORTT: I am sure no word has ever fallen from me to suggest that he,

  369
  or any other opponent of the Bill—when I say "opponent" I mean those hon. Members moving Amendments—is actuated by any such motive or suggestion. I equally agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill is, among other things, for the protection of innocent young girls from offences on the part of evil-minded persons of any age whatever. That is one of its great objects, I agree; but there is something far more than that. One of the greatest curses that we can see in this country to-day is child prostitution. One of the things most difficult to prevent is child prostitution. One of the main objects of this Bill is not only to protect the innocent girl, and the girl who, in some outlying place where she has no protector, may be seduced, but to protect the evil-minded and prematurely-grown girls from themselves. What is the cause of child prostitution? It is that the children are brought up in evil surroundings; they get evil minds from their surroundings; they are prematurely matured—if I may use the expression—and drift into prostitution. How is that to be prevented? You certainly cannot do anything under this Bill if you make the fact that a girl has drifted, through her surroundings and her evil influences, into prostitution, an excuse for any crime, either for an indecent assault or for sexual connection with her when under 16. It is only by making sexual connection with a young girl so dangerous that you can get away from her her clientele; it is only by getting away from the child prostitute her clientele that you can stop child prostitution.
  I hope, therefore, that the House will appreciate that we are considering something more than the mere protection of the pure young girl. We are trying to save the bad girls from themselves; we are trying to make something better of them and to prevent young girls from drifting into prostitution. My hon. and learned Friend said that when a girl drifts into prostitution you have no help and remedy in the law. To a great extent, and to a far greater extent than I care to see, that is true, but it is not entirely true. There is a provision under the Children Act, 1908, by which the parents of a girl who gets into immoral and evil habits, or becomes a prostitute, can be bound over to see that she behaves herself properly and refrains from her
  370
  evil ways. Chief constables tell us from many parts of the country that the use of that prevention, which can force the parents to look after their children better, has been, at any rate, of some substantial advantage. I do not pretend for a moment it is all we ought to have, but at the same time it is something, and I hope the House will not weaken this Bill so seriously as would the passing of the Amendment.
  As I have said—and I may be allowed to finish by repeating what I have said already—you can only stop child prostitution by stopping the girl's clientele. You can only stop the clientele by making it so dangerous to go with a child that any man who is addicted to that sort of thing will take care that he confines himself to mature women. That is the only way in which you can save the child, and I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
  Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: I am a little fogged as to the Home Secretary's argument generally. Will he say if I follow him aright? He says that, in order to cure a particular evil, you should punish the victim of it. Supposing the Home Secretary wished to put a stop to profiteering in, shall we say, the grocery trade. He would not go for the grocer who profiteers, but would punish the customer who enters the grocer's shop, because he says that by punishing the man who goes to the grocer's he will drive him away from the profiteering grocer and send him elsewhere. That is the perfectly logical outcome of what the Home Secretary said. I would suggest to the Home Secretary that if he really wishes to put a stop to child prostitutes, the proper way is to get hold of these children and show them the evil of their ways, and put them in a proper mode of life. What inevitably happens is to encourage them in the very vice from which he professes to be trying to cure the child. I consider that of all the arguments against the Clause moved by my hon. and learned Friend, this is about the very poorest that can possibly be made, and I am perfectly convinced that the common sense of the House will not accept it.
  Mr. AMMON: I want to suggest that the causes of child prostitution are very much deeper than anything that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and that,

  371
  if you want to deal with the real causes, you have to deal with poverty and overcrowding. I want to give an awful instance that came to my notice a few weeks ago. Going through a South London constituency, I saw two little children, whose age in each case could not have been above six years, were attempting sexual intercourse one with another on the doorstep of a house where they lived. One can imagine the conditions under which those children were brought up, the overcrowding in those places, where they see and hear things, which even in their very tender years are making marked and terrible effects on their lives. These children are undoubtedly damned in the world, so far as their moral and spiritual conditions are concerned, and I feel that in this House some voice must be raised to make it quite clear that some of us are under no apprehension that all this is not caused by mere vicious tendencies innate in the people, but are imposed upon them, and are part of the social system under which we are living, and for which, in a very large measure, some responsibility must be shouldered by this Government, who have not done very much to relieve the terrible overcrowding conditions which, in a very great measure, contribute towards this evil.
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: When this Bill, or a Bill like this, was before the House last year, I served on the Committee, and took some part in the discussion on Report. No one wishes to discuss Bills of this kind if they can avoid it, but if it happen that you have been in any criminal courts as an advocate, and served as a magistrate for a good many years, you have to face these facts, and I think it is perhaps more cowardly to sit silent than to put briefly to the House how one or two matters strike one. I appreciate the object of my hon. and learned Friend. It is, of course, as important to protect young boys as to protect young girls, and when he comes to his next Amendment I shall support that, as I did last year in Committee. But on this Clause, I hope the House will take the view which is substantially in agreement with the argument of the Home Secretary. If this Clause were passed, it would mean that intercourse between a man of any
  372
  age and that most forlorn and pathetic figure in the life of our country, the child prostitute, would he practically encouraged. I agree that there is a great deal of difference between an act of immorality, it may be, between a lad and a girl hitherto pure. But if it were proved in Court that a girl of the age of 15 or so was already addicted to immoral practices, every judge and every tribunal before whom such a charge came would take fully into account that fact as bearing on the question of punishment. and of how to deal with the case. No one wishes for any lad to be punished in the same way if these he the facts of the case, and as if it were the destruction of the innocence of the child. But I believe the powers of the Court are sufficient to differentiate when the matter be proved. At the same time, I am convinced that it is for the public good that this Clause should not be passed, to give the indication that this occurrence as to the child prostitute should not be punished at all, and therefore the child prostitute would have every temptation to pursue her ghastly calling. I am convinced that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are right, and correspond to such experience as I have had in criminal Courts.
  Captain LOSEBY: One fact in regard to the Clause has been overlooked. It appears to be indisputable that the effect of this Clause would not be to make it any less a crime to have common knowledge with any woman, prostitute or otherwise, under the age of 15. I take it that the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge is to take a terrible weapon out of the hands of the blackmailer? Apart from the crime, we all know that prostitution allows a perfect harvest to the blackmailer. It puts it into the hands of those concerned to say: "You have not only been guilty of immorality, but guilty of a crime from which there is no escape." You are putting a weapon absolutely unnecessarily into their hands. Is it seriously suggested that a man will deliberately commit this crime—because it is a crime—knowing when he is so doing the defence which he will put forward when he is brought before the Court and charged with the offence?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I ask the Home Secretary for the sake of his own Bill to accept this new Clause. Prostitution is

  373
  "prostitution of the body for money." That is the definition of it, and the Home Secretary's Bill, as it stands, will add enormously to the money that will be received for this business, because it will add to the ordinary wages of sin the enormous wages of blackmail. For one girl of tender years out on the streets, put there by some sinful woman or some still more sinful man—because it is they who run that wretched creature the girl prostitute—there will be a dozen now, for it will be infinitely more profitable. If you do not put this Clause in one can see the huge profession of blackmailers of London and the big cities licking their chops over the innocence of the Home Secretary. I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir R. Adkins). He can have had no experience of the ramifications of the blackmailers. Without this Clause this Bill will be a perfect trap for these people. How is he going to provide for them—in view of the economic causes mentioned by one hon. Member?
  Mr. INSKIP: Although I have a great respect for my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment and his supporters, I do not understand his point about blackmail, which is levied in these cases through fear of exposure. Often it is the mere fact of the man appearing in the public court that enables the girl or the woman to levy blackmail If this Amendment were carried it would mean that in the case of a prostitute it would be as if this Act had never been enacted at all, because the defence would still be available to the man who would be charged that he did not know that the prostitute was under the age of 16, but he will have to be placed in the dock and charged in precisely the same way under this Amendment. Therefore, this new Clause will not reduce the chances of blackmail by one iota, because the girl will say, "You are going to be charged, pay me blackmail as the price of me not giving evidence against you. It is quite true that you will have the defence under the law as it used to be, but you will not have the protection of the new law, because I shall say that I am a prostitute, and you will be in the dock, and, therefore, I can levy blackmail upon you. That shows that this Amendment will
  374
  not be effective for the purpose for which it is intended. It seems to me, therefore, that as it will not be effective for the purpose, it has the great defect that it draws a line between the prostitute, who is so often the victim of other persons, and it makes her an outcast from society, and we do not want to do that. What we want to do is to make more difficult for those who would drag her down even if she is already, going down hill, and we want to make it more impossible for that to be done. For these reasons I think the House will be well advised to reject this new Clause.
  Mr. J. JONES: I shall not be charged by any Member of this House, I hope, with being a puritan. I am an ordinary working man, who happens to have a family of two boys and two girls, and I am just as anxious about the welfare of my boys as I am with regard to that of the girls. They are alike—equally bad and equally good, like their father—but I recognise that the risks of the girls are greater than the risks of the boys, and because the girls' risks are greater, I am going to defend the girls against the boys. The possibilities lying in front of them are of a greater character. If I thought that it would mean security for the people of the country, physically and morally, I would support the Amendment, but I do not believe that any of the Amendments will secure the objects of those who are bringing them forward. Equality is all very well, but there cannot be any equality between the working-class girl and the gentleman who has more money than he knows what to do with. People who have money to spend and the opportunity, can always bribe girls of my class, unfortunately, with their greater wealth.
  Mr. MACCQUISTEN: No; you are insulting them.
  Mr. JONES: I am not insulting them. It is an economic fact. The streets of our great towns are full of girls who, because of the conditions under which they have been compelled to live, have been forced by economic circumstances to surrender themselves to other people's opportunities. [Interruption.] I know you do not like it, but it is a fact, and I see an hon. Member opposite who used to admit it, and to say the same things from Socialist platforms, which

  375
  he then adorned. He used to say there were thousands and thousands of my class who were, by bribery, compelled to surrender to people in a better economic position than we are in, not because we like it, but because starvation is our master. Some of you people are not so clean as you ought to be.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member address himself to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cambridge University?
  Mr. JONES: I am not quite a lawyer, but I understand that the Amendment is to secure equal protection for the members of my own class. If I am wrong, I am glad I am not gifted in the same way as some hon. Members who have spoken, but I understand the Amendment is that boys should be protected as well as girls.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking to the wrong Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I want to say one word with respect to the Amendment. I do not hope to convert the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones); his views are so absolutely divergent from my own. But I must answer one statement he made. I have worked among working people for thirty or forty years, and to suggest that every woman of the lower class can be seduced for a few pounds is an absolute libel.
  Mr. JONES: On a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is not any point of Order, but if the hon. Member desires to make a personal explanation, he may do so.
  Mr. JONES: I wish to say that if anyone in this House has an idea that I suggested that my class can be bought—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to make a personal explanation, I think the House might hear him without interruption.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Member entitled to deny what he said?
  Mr. JONES: I say that, as far as the majority of my class are concerned, they are more virtuous than the members of
  376
  your class. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did not say that!"] I am always saying that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I will not withdraw anything.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Even of those of my own class I do not believe that that is true, but those who agree with the hon. Member will vote against my Clause, and I cannot help it. I want to address myself to those who really take a serious interest in these questions and face the difficulties. I want to answer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), who, I think, has misunderstood my point. If my Clause be carried, it will still be an offence to have connection with a girl of 15, whether she is a prostitute or not. The only effect of this Bill, as regards the girl of 15, is to take away the defence of reasonable cause, which I am sure is not what my hon. and learned Friend is referring to, and, therefore, I crave his assistance on this Clause. It will not in any way affect the fact that it will still be a criminal offence to have connection with a girl under 16. But by Clause 1 of this Bill you are raising the age of consent to an indecent assault—not to having connection—from 13 to 16; and, as I have pointed out, an indecent assault may be merely hugging, or, in certain circumstances, kissing the girl—very improper things to do, which I am not defending for a moment. Anything which protects the seduction of a girl for the first time I will support in any way that may be possible, but I am sorry to say that prostitutes often know very well what the law is, and if a girl who has been made a prostitute gets a young man of 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, or even 30, to cuddle her, or permits some act of familiarity with her, then, without my Clause, that is made an offence for the first time by this Bill, and I submit that it is simply a handle for blackmail. It is easy for a girl of 15 to persuade some young fellow to commit acts of familiarity of that kind, if she is going about the streets in the way that I have described.
  The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol, if I may say so, forgot one very important point, namely, that, unless this Clause be passed, the evidence which he suggests would be absolutely irrelevant to the charge made against the man, and it would not be possible to put it before

  377
  the jury, though it might come in on the question of punishment. I am not, however, dealing with punishment, but with conviction. I have worked for a good many years now in working men's clubs in London. I know the temptations and troubles to which young men are subjected, and a charge of this kind will often lose a boy his job; while those in a higher class of life, and therefore, possibly, though not necessarily, more subject to blackmail, are also subject to the same troubles. If the law is now going to be altered now for the first time, and a prostitute of 15 persuades anyone to cuddle her, this Bill will for the first time make that an offence. My Clause will prevent that, and such a prostitute will know that the magistrate or chief constable to whom she may go to make the complaint will tell her that it is 'no use. We have warned you. You have been convicted once or twice. That girl is therefore out of the protection of the Amendment. I thought this was one of the non-controversial Amendments. I know my London pretty well, and some Members of the Labour party do. They know their own towns. No sort of harm to the object of the Bill can possibly be done by putting in this Clause. It will simply except these girls. No one knows better than I do the causes that lead to prostitution. Unless you put this Clause in you will be doing a great injustice and will be doing great harm to the Bill. One cannot effectively legislate ahead of public opinion, and if you get a few convictions under this Amendment which go against the whole of public opinion and cause resentment, it will do more harm to the Bill than any that we can do by moving Amendments.
  Mr. SEXTON: At the beginning of the debate on this Amendment I was somewhat in doubt as to which way I should vote. The argument appeared to me to be strong that girls in the position described would take advantage of it. But I think, on more mature consideration, the House will agree with me when I say that a man who deliberately set himself up to make a prostitute would very soon find out what kind of girl she was, and if he pursues his conduct any further, in my opinion he deserves all he gets. The main object of the Bill is to protect young girls. The causes are not confined to slums, though they begin there. The causes spring from the mock modesty of the parents in not
  378
  allowing children to know who they are, what they are and why they are. The father knows very well that the very innocence of the girl when she is sent forth into the world is her gravest danger. If any man is blackmailed or attempted to be blackmailed by a professional prostitute and can prove before any magistrate in the land that that is her profession I do not think the judgment of any common sense magistrate would go against the man at all. I am speaking as a magistrate myself, and if such a case came before me I should exercise what I thought my duty in dismissing the case entirely. I try to protect the boy, but the girl appeals to me more. We have heard, as the poet says, that the girl must have her golden hair hanging down her back. We have heard about Joseph and Potiphar's wife. A tribe has arisen, to-day that knoweth not Joseph. All men are not Josephs and all women are not Potiphar's wives to-day. All the arguments against the Bill are illusionary and of no substance.
  Mr. MILLS: I am willing to admit that many hon. Members who have passed to the mature side of life are only too willing to accept an Amendment such as this as one of the ordinary laws of life. But I refuse to sit here and allow it to go out that we have to accept it as part of the ordinary canons of life that we are to regard the normal living of a girl such as this to be regarded as of the age of M. I refuse to accept the interpretation placed by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) on his knowlege of working men's club life, or any other working men's social life which would not revolt in honour at the idea of such a girl being put in such a category. If hon. Members who accept that view of the case would go home and read Sir J. M. Barrie's recent speech on youth they might look into the future and not accept for all time what they have been pleased to accept for the last generation believe we are marching on to a new phase in the development of the adolescent. Far better would it be to give the adolescent something to look forward to in the matter of training for the future rather than to pass legislation dealing with the effect and not the cause. You are driving these young girls and young boys out of the schools to go to work when many of you are leaving home to go to school. I resent the idea that

  379
  because of these things we are to accept the finality of a Measure such as this. It is not fair to the younger generation, and it is not true of the great mass of the people, and so long as we place a deterrent in the way of crime I am certain we shall move upwards.
  Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I listened to the Debate on the former occasion, and being ignorant of the law, I could not find any Amendment, which I thought would suit the case. In the Amendment now before the House I believe we have found an Amendment which the Home Secretary should accept. For the man who first seduces a girl I think there is no punishment which this House could pass which could be severe enough; but when a girl has been seduced and has learned vice, and she in her turn seduces a young man, surely it is not the young man but the girl who should be punished. In such a case there should be some Amendment which would protect the boy as well as the girl. The present Amendment meets the feeling of a great many hon. Members who, although they want to see this Bill pass, feel extremely uneasy about a certain portion of it, and would like to see this Amendment accepted.
  Mr. SHORTT: May I correct what I think is a misstatement by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). It is idle to suggest that, if this Amendment be not passed, this Bill will make it a criminal offence for a man to kiss a girl under 16. The thing is too childish. It is ridiculous to suggest that it would be made a criminal offence to kiss a girl at a Christmas party.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: That is not fair.
  Mr. SHORTT: We are trying to protect girl prostitutes against themselves, and it is sought to carry an Amendment to our proposal in this direction by telling the House that it is an indecent assault to kiss a girl.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If the right hon. Gentleman thought that he heard me say that, he must have misunderstood me. Indecent assault is not a question of carnal knowledge in any way. It is a vague term. It may mean cuddling or hugging a girl, and in very exceptional circumstances, as for instance in a railway
  380
  carriage, kissing might amount to indecent assault.
  Mr. SHORTT: I disagree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend that kissing can be an indecent assault. I am told that numbers of members of this House have come to the conclusion that a man can be prosecuted for kissing a girl. I would ask members of the House have they ever heard of such a thing? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is true that the age of consent to an indecent assault is raised, but the point is that if you pass this Amendment, you make a distinction between the girl prostitute and the moral girl, and I say that of the two the girl prostitute is the one who unfortunately requires protection the more. This Amendment is taking from the girl prostitute the protection which we ask for her.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Many hon. Members are under a misapprehension. The hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) said that if a case of this kind were brought before the magistrates they would in all probability dismiss it.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I did not say that. I said that where an offence under this Clause was proved the character and behaviour of the girl in question was an element which the court would consider.
  Sir F. HALL: My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that if t he magistrates had a case of this nature before them they would dismiss it. I submit that there is not that power. If a case comes within the four corners of the law the magistrate is bound to convict notwithstanding any sympathetic feeling that he may have. The Home Secretary might consider this matter a little more closely. The Amendment will not do any harm to the Bill, but will strengthen it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I appeal to the Government to allow a free vote and to take the Whips off the forthcoming division? The necessity for that is shown by the fact that we have had two distinguished lawyers, the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) differing on the point at issue. We are in a difficult position. We are in doubt whether we shall not be sanctioning a criminal offence against a young man for kissing or cuddling a prostitute.
  Question put: "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 177.

  Division No. 238.]

  AYES.

  [11.38 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gould, James C.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

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

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gretton, Colonel John

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

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

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

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Ramtden, G. T.

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Heretord)

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

  Houfton, John Piowrlght

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayimer

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

  Whitla, Sir William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Cope, Major William

  Kidd, James

  Windsor, Viscount

  Dewhurst, Liout.-Commander Harry

  Lorden, John William

  Wise, Frederick

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Younger, Sir George

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Manville, Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Mr. Rawifnson and Captain Viscount Curzon.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Evans, Ernest

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M,

  Lunn, William

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Finney, Samuel

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maclean, Rt. Hn, Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Amnion. Charles George

  Foot, Isaac

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Forrest, Walter

  Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Banton, George

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Gillis, William

  Mills, John Edmund

  Barnston. Major Harry

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Morrison, Hugh

  Barrand, A. R.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton]

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Grant, James Augustus

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

  Murray, John (Leeds', West)

  Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

  Gregory, Holman

  Myers, Thomas

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Berwick, Major G. 0.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Neal, Arthur

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

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

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

  Norrls, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Breese, Major Charies E.

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Parker, James

  Brldgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve

  Halls, Walter

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Briggs, Harold

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pease, Rt. Han. Herbert Pike

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Bromfieid, William

  Hayday, Arthur

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bruton, Sir James

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Perring, William George

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A,

  Hinds, John

  Pollock, Rt. Hon, Sir Ernest Murray

  Cape, Thomas

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Casey, T. W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rattan. Peter Wilson

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

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

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprin)

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

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

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Insklp, Thomas Walker H.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

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

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sexton, James

  Dawson, Sir Ph. Sir

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Doyle, N. Grattrn

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Lawson, John James

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

  Lioyd-Greame, sir P.

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

  Entwistie, Major C. F.

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

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Smith, w. R. (Wellingborough)

  Iryon, Major George Clement

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colons.

  Wallace, J.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Winterton, Earl

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Intringham, Margaret

  Sutton, John Edward

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Swan, J. E.

  Waring. Major Walter

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Taylor, J.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

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

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  M'Curdy.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhlil)

  CLAUSE 1.—(Consent of young person to be no defence.)
  It shall be no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a child or young person under the age of sixteen to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
  "but the party so consenting shall be guilty of a misdemeanour if he or she is of the age of fifteen years."
  This Amendment is undoubted of a controversial kind. If I may tell the House its history, quite apart from its merits, I think the time will be well-spent. The Bill was before the House last year. On the Committee stage upstairs I moved this Amendment, which was carried, I forget by what majority. When it came to be discussed on the Report stage in this House it was opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman). A considerable discussion occurred, but on a division the Amendment was carried by 167 to 37. The Whips were not on, and it was not open voting. The Amendment was sent up to the House of Lords, and was accepted by them I moved it again this year in the Committee upstairs, the Government opposed it, and 15 voted for it and 15 against. The Chairman, as is, of course, right in those cases, gave his casting vote against the Amendment, and it was therefore lost by 16 to 15. In the circumstances, I think I may say that the House of Commons has expressed a fairly strong opinion in favour of the Amendment.
  The Amendment is that in the case of indecent assaults—that is, Clause 1—it should be an offence for the girl or the boy, as the case may be—in the majority of cases it is a girl—if she consents to these assaults if she is over 15. It would leave the Bill unchanged as regards girls of 13 and 14, but if girls of 15 take part in these acts it should be a misdemeanour within the meaning of the Bill. That was discussed very fully last year,
  384
  and I am not going to take long this even-mg for that reason. On an open vote, 167 against 37 voted in favour of it, and another place accepted it. I do submit, with all respect to the Home Secretary, that it is somewhat cynical for the Government to refuse an Amendment placed in the Bill last year. Committees upstairs often spend a great deal of time and a considerable amount of trouble—certainly this Committee did on this Bill—over these measures. We sat up late last year, and discussed this particular Amendment which was carried on an open vote, as I have stated. I think that was a fairly strong expression of opinion by the House which should hear weight with the Government.
  I know the Government say they do not put it in because they think the amendment a bad one, and we are told the Public Prosecutor objected to it, which is quite possible. When I put it forward last year I admitted, and I admit now at once, that it might in certain cases lead to your not getting convictions which you might get under the Bill if passed in its present form, but it is not necessary in all, cases for the girl to give evidence. In a large number of cases the parties do not give evidence at all. I would give this instance to the House. In the Divorce Court it is comparatively rarely that one of the parties admit the commission of adultery or give evidence on the point, except in the case of a general denial. It is the people who have seen the guilty parties in certain situations that give the requisite evidence. It is the same with many cases under the age of sixteen.
  In the vast majority of cases it is the evidence, not of either of the parties to the alleged offence, but of people who have seen the parties in a particular position. For instance, in the case of an indecent assault as upon a child, it is a policeman or a person who happens to be walking by who sees it. It would be

  385
  highly dangerous to convict a man—or a girl either, for that matter—of an indecent assault unless there were strong corroborative evidence of the statement she made. Therefore, I do not think that point carries us very much further. I agree at once that in a certain number of cases the evidence of the implicated parties is necessary.
  Our object here is not necessarily to get convictions for this offence, it is to prevent immorality amongst young people under 16. The House rejected my last Amendment, and of course, I bow at once to its decision and say no more about it. The result, however, is that you are going to send this Bill out in such a form that, so far as children of the age of 15, who are living the life of prostitutes and may be seducing men or boys are concerned, there is no statute which in any way makes that an offence on the part of such a girl. The Home Secretary perfectly fairly admitted, on a previous Amendment, that it was true to that extent that there was nothing whatever to touch a young girl of fifteen, though he referred to the well-known provisions of the Children Act., 1908. I remember very well the discussions that took place upon that Bill, and the fights we had over almost every Clause. The House licked the Bill into shape before it passed it. There were just as many absurdities in that Bill at the beginning as there are in the present measure, but the Government then put in a large number of Amendments, which were very 'useful. I hope they will do the same with this Bill, though up to the present, they have accepted none.
  You have got this position, that under the age of 16 it is no sort of offence for this sort of girl to go on leading the life she is leading. An hon. Member said a short time ago that a great deal of nonsense is talked about equality of the sexes. I quite agree with that remark, but there is something in it. After all, there is some sort of equality. If you have a girl who, unfortunately, is versed in vice and is making her living by vicious ways; if she goes about the streets as girls do to-day—magistrates, chief constables and others have spoken to me about it—it is no sort of offence for such a girl to go about and ply her trade, unless she solicits somebody in the same way as a woman of more mature years. What this Amendment,
  386
  which was carried last year by this House, seeks to do is to say that if a girl under 16 consents to an indecency of this nature she shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. Although I quite agree that it is a controversial matter, I hope the House will grant me this Amendment to the Bill. I will not make a bargain, but if it does that, I think I shall catch my last tram home—is not that the right expression? Now that the County Council has allowed trams to be run all night, perhaps I must say the last 'bus home. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. It would be a crime if we did not do something to make it an offence for these girls of 15 to commit acts of indecency.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to Second the Amendment.
  I do so from a point of view somewhat different from that of my hon. and learned Friend. He has been a sincere and an acute critic of this Bill in many particulars, and Las indicated that the objections to the policy it embodies have great weight with him. I, on the other hand, was last year, and am this year, a cordial supporter of the Bill, and, apart from this particular Amendment, which I am now seconding, I desire that the Bill should pass in the form in which it is now. I do not even support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) which, I understand, has certain favouring winds sending it forward, because I think the time is come for the complete abolition of what is considered a reasonable cause of controversy with regard to girls under 16. The policy of this Bill I believe to be in substance sound, and the provisions of the Bill right, but I think the Bill will not be weakened in any way, and will be strengthened, and will command wider support if this particular Amendment be put in. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the fact, which, I am sure, the House will be glad to keep in mind, that this Amendment has already been sanctioned and passed last year by this House and in another place, and the lawyers, who are so numerous in another place, while they fell upon various provisions of the Bill last year, and introdueed alterations which prevented it becoming law, did not alter this Amendment, which was then embodied in the Bill.

  387
  12 m.
  The Amendment seeks to provide that in the case of a girl of 15, if she consents to an act of indecency with a man, she should be liable to be prosecuted. Is not that right? A girl of 15 might very well, and properly, be free from prosecution for consenting to carnal knowledge, but she is old enough to know that she is doing wrong in taking part in actual indecency, and is it not in tile interests of girlhood, and public morality generally, that an offence of indecency between two persons, both of whom are 15, should alike be an offence in each case? This does not apply to girls between 13 and 15, whereas, quite properly as I think, where these things occur the man is punished if the girl be between 13 and 15. But in the case of a girl of 15, is it not reasonable that both parties should be punished? Years ago, in this country, and in many countries, there was a great flaw both in public morality and in public law in provisions and suggestions that what was wrong in a woman was not wrong in a man. Fortunately, we have got past that stage, but it is very dangerous to go too far in the other direction, and say that what is wrong in a man is not wrong in a woman. Where, therefore, you are dealing with these matters of indecency, and not the graver offence, is it not right and proper to say that a girl of 15 should be liable to be punished, or, at any rate, to be prosecuted, for doing what she must know to be wrong, just as the man is very properly liable to be punished for doing the same thing in the same way? I must again venture to use in support of this Amendment the argument which I used against the last Amendment, that is to remind ourselves of the necessary discretion exercised by all courts of law before which these offences are triable, and their having regard to the circumstances of the case. In cases of indecency it is very rarely that either of those concerned provide the evidence that is given by the police and third parties, and is a question for the court. If it was shown to the court or tribunal that the lad was much more guilty than the girl then they would judge accordingly. I would remind the House that in any criminal charge, theft and the like, where two prisoners are concerned it is the duty of the Court to find out
  388
  whether one of the two is not really more responsible than the other. Any Court worthy of the name, and any judge, would take very great care to see that there was no excessive punishment, and which one of the two who were doing anything indecent was really the less guilty, so that there should not follow undue harshness or undue treatment. The Bill, I am convinced, as a whole is a very good Bill, which I want to see passed without any other alteration. It is a Bill adapted for the protection of girlhood, but we should frankly recognise that it is not right that girls approaching maturity should not be punished if they do what they know to be wrong. It is the interests of girlhood, and tends to a fair incidence of the law.
  Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment was before the House last year Further, it was before the Committee upstairs. It is perfectly true that the voting was equal and that involved the Chairman's casting vote against it. When you are considering the practical results I do not consider it a defeated Amendment at all, or that it has been substantially defeated in Committee. The reason I mention that is that I do not feel myself bound in any way by the decision of the Committee in respect of this. It is quite evident that there is a considerable body of opinion in the House which feels that they would like to have some sort of safeguard of this kind put into the Bill. I do not say I have been converted by their arguments. I, personally, still think that the Amendment is not a good one. At the same time, I am quite satisfied it cannot do any real substantial injury to the Bill as a whole. I should have opposed it were it not for the fact that it is quite evident there is a large body of opinion who would like to see it put in, and who feel that it is some safeguard for the danger that they anticipate—I think wrongly anticipate, but which they sincerely anticipate—in the provisions of this Measure. In order to meet that feeling I trust the House will accept the advice I give on behalf of the Government and accept the Amendment.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: I much regret the Home Secretary has taken the course he has, and if the House will bear with me for a few minutes I will explain my reasons. My experience in serving on many grand juries leads me to the conclusion that this Amendment if accepted

  389
  will have a serious effect on the usefulness of the Measure. I do not think we need bother about prosecutions of prostitutes. My experience at Assize after Assize is that in nearly all cases in which a respectable girl has been assaulted it. is her mother or some relation who elicits the fact that the offence has been committed. It is not necessary to go into details, but what invariably happens is this, a girl comes home. Her mother notices she is rather upset and questions her with the result that she admits that some one has attempted to assault her.
  Mr. HERBERT: Is the hon. Member not discussing another Amendment? Is he in Order?
  Sir R. NEWMAN: if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I think I can show him my remarks are in Order. As I have explained the girl admits to her mother that some one has committed an assault. upon her. The parents go to the police; the man accused probably confesses to the offence. It is not always boys who do these things: it may be a man of 30 or 40. Proceedings are instituted and the man is punished. But if this Amendment is agreed to, what will be the result? The girl will say nothing, for she will be warned that if she does she will have to take her place in the dock beside the man.
  Sir R. ADKINS: If a girl not under age complains that a man has assaulted her she is entitled to make complaint in the ordinary way. This Amendment only applies to cases where the girl is a consenting party.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: I have been subjected to a good many interruptions. I will try again to make my point clear. The girl has told her parents. She has probably admitted that she consented. I am not going to defend her. Quite respectable girls have consented under temptation from older men. But the mere fact she has told the truth and admitted that she did consent will have the result that no action will be taken as far as the man is concerned because of the fear the girl herself would be put into the dock. As far as this Amendment is concerned it really reduces the age of consent down to 14. Let me take the case one step further. Suppose the girl is brought before a judge and jury, what is the charge against her? That she has committed adultery!
  390
  [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Pardon me for one moment. Surely I am right in saying that if a man commits an assault upon a girl with her consent it is not an assault in fact: it is an immoral offence?
  Sir G. HAMILTON: May I interrupt?
  Sir R. NEWMAN: Let me repeat my point. A girl of 15 years of age consents to a man having connection with her.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not distinguishing between Clause 1 and Clause 2. This is an Amendment to Clause 1.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: As I understand the object of the Amendment is that if there has been an indecent assault—or by whatever legal term you may describe it —if there is connection between a girl of 15 and a man of 25 under the present law, and without this Amendment, it can be charged as an offence against the girl whether she consent or not. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend wants to alter that and to say that if the girl is a consenting party she shall be punished as well as the man. Is not that so?
  Sir R. ADKINS: I would be the last person to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would like to point out that if man has sexual intercourse with a- girl under 15, he commits an offence whether the girl consents or not. This is not a. question of her consenting to sexual intercourse; it is a question of certain action being taken by the two parties which may be found to be indecent, but need not necessarily go to the length of sexual intercourse.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. What he has said, however, does not alter my case that a girl would be liable to prosecution, and that being so in nine cases out of ten no action will be taken against the man because if he punished she also may be punished. That is plain English. If the Amendment does not mean that what is the use of it. What is the hon. Member's idea in proposing an Amendment which states clearly that he wants punishment to be meted out to girls in these cases? This is by no means the right time to create a new class of offence for young people. We want to keep them out of

  391
  the dock; not to put them into it. After all said and done I maintain that parents will be the first to say: "Don't take action against the man because we do not want our daughter punished. "We want to see protection for more or less innocent girls, and the Clause as it stands will give that.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I only want to say two words on this matter, which I hope may have some weight with a good many Members of the House, and perhaps even with the hon. Baronet the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman). If I can first of all get this idea into his head—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—I do not think the hon. Baronet will consider that I am rude in saying that; he and I are very good friends. My object when I speak is to try and get the ideas which are in my head into the heads of other hon. Members. What I want to get into my hon. Friend's head is the difference between the two offences dealt with in Clause 1 and Clause 2 of this Bill. The offence of indecent assault, dealt with in Clause 1, is not adultery. The hon. Baronet used the word "adultery," but the indecent assault dealt with in Clause 1 is not sexual intercourse, and this Amendment, therefore, has nothing to do with adultery or sexual intercourse. It deals with the lesser offence of indecent assault, which does not amount to anything like sexual connection. It deals with exactly that type of misbehaviour which is the very way in which young girls are turned into prostitutes. If in such a case you can punish or put some restraining influence upon the girl by prosecuting her and binding her over, you can, by dealing with the lesser offence, stop those indecent practices which lead in the end to illicit intercourse and to the girl becoming a prostitute. This Amendment does nothing whatever to relieve any male person who is accused under this Measure, but it gives the opportunity of taking proceedings against those who are undoubtedly guilty, in a way which may be the greatest blessing to them in saving them from a life of shame in years to come.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I am very sorry the Home Secretary should have seen his way to yield on this Amendment. This Bill is, as it has been frequently
  392
  stated to be, a Bill for the protection of young girls, and in Committee the Home Secretary told us that the Public Prosecutor was strongly opposed to this Amendment, because of the difficulty in getting a conviction. I emphasize that point, because, if this Amendment were carried, there would be the very greatest difficulty in getting a young girl to give evidence in connection with an offence against her. A great deal has been said to-night about Clause 1, on the ground that it merely deals with indecent assault, but I want to put the other side of the question. Very often a more serious offence is charged, and also, in a counter-indictment, there is a charge of indecent assault. Too often the prosecution is unable to obtain a conviction on the more serious charge, although a very serious offence has been committed, and then the Court commits on the charge of indecent assault. If this Amendment is carried there will be in practice an immense difficulty in getting a conviction at all under this Clause. I am sorry, therefore, that the Home Secretary should have given way, and I hope the House will firmly oppose the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) and the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon), and I hope the House will consider well before it accepts this Amendment. It seems to me, and I think it must seem to the Horse if they consider what it really involves, to be the destruction of two-thirds of Clause 1 as it stands. Theoretically, there is a very strong case for the Amendment, but the House will see that it has the effect of raising the age of consent, not to 16, but to 15: and the object of Clause 1 is to raise the age of consent to 16. The object is to prevent men from being able to take advantage of the vicious inclinations and levity of young girls of 13, 14 and 15. The effect of the Amendment is to raise the age of consent to 15 only, and to leave Clause 1, so far as it affects girls of 15, a dead letter. That is not what the House wished when it gave a Second Reading to this Bill, and it is not, I am convinced, what public opinion wishes at the present time. There is a strong feeling among all who know anything of rescue work and social welfare in great cities as well as in country districts, that girls of 15 need protection

  393
  just as much as girls of 13 and 14. The evil against which Clause 1 gives protection is not in the least comparable with, as one hon. Member put it, buying groceries from a grocer who is profiteering. I submit with some confidence that if this Amendment is passed there can be no conviction or hardly any convictions, of men who have committed an in decent assault on girls of 15, because, in 99 cases out of 100 the man will set up the defence that the girl consented. How can that be disproved? The best way is to call the girl herself; and if she be called she will have to give evidence and be cross-examined, and will be in the very difficult and delicate position of opening the door to a prosecution against herself for an offence under this Clause. That is one objection to the Amendment as it will operate. Another is that, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, not only will a conviction be difficult, but it will he difficult to bring a prosecution at all. In nine cases out of ten it is on the initiative of the parents that a prosecution is instituted against, a man who has committed an indecent assault on a girl of 15; and what parents are going to take the initiative in proceedings of this sort if they know that their own child is going to he liable to be proceeded against? It follows, therefore, that if the Amendment be carried, it will make the operation of Clause 1 a dead letter so far as girls of 15 are concerned. If the House wishes that Clause 1 shall be operative and effective against offences on girls of 15, it follows that the Amendment ought to be rejected, and I hope that, although the Government have weakened and wavered on this question, the majority of the House will stand firm and resist the Amendment to the last.
  Mr. ACLAND: I should like to make one suggestion. The Home Secretary in saying that he did not object to this Amendment, did not in any way deal with the substance of the Amendment. He practically said that it would help to get the Bill through if he accepted the Amendment, because a good many Members of the House were clearly in favour of it, and he only just told us that it was a bad Amendment. I think it would help us if he would tell us whether he agrees with the arguments of
  394
  the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst), which have affected me and others a good deal, or whether he does not.
  Mr. SHORTT: My view of this Amendment is that I do not think it would have very much effect. In nine cases out of ten, if there be really consent, but there is no possible evidence to prove the case, nothing more will be heard of it. It is when there is really no consent and the mother notices the disturbed state of the child that these charges are brought. It is rare, but, of course, it does happen, that a case is brought where the girl may have to admit consent. There are many cases, no doubt, where cross-examination would lead the jury—a jury it must be, because a case of indecent assault cannot be tried by the magistrate, it has to go either to Quarter Sessions or the Assizes—to say that in spite of the girl's denial there was consent. Clearly no prosecution would be able to follow on that. The girl is under 16, she is a young child, and nobody is going to prosecute her or send her to prison or punish her for that. They will probably tell the parents to take her home and punish her. My opinion is that I do not think the Amendment will stop many prosecutions, if any. I do not think it will have the slightest effect in punishing the girl. I do not think it will have any substantial effect upon the jury, but if I am wrong, and if the opinion of hon. Members opposite is correct, I am desirous that they should have the safeguard which they think necessary. I do not think that it is necessary.
  If this Amendment be passed a girl goes into the witness-box and charges a man with indecent assault. She is the principal witness. She is then cross-examined, but the learned judge or the learned recorder or counsel will be bound to represent to her that she need not answer any question dealing with consent, because she might thereby incriminate herself. She would not be bound to answer, and she could not be forced to answer a question as to whether or not she consented. Therefore she cannot be bound in any trial to give herself away, or to make any confession.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The man would give evidence.
  Mr. SHORTT: I am speaking of the girl's admission. The evidence may be such that the jury would say they believe there had been consent, but I do not think in practice unless she had definitely consented, that anybody would prosecute her. However, if it is a necessary safeguard I should be quite willing that it should go into the Bill. I do not think that it is necessary.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should have thought that this question is one that might be left to be decided without the Government Whips.
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes. No Whips.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The intention of Clause 1 is to raise the age of consent of indecent assault to 16. Those of us who have had any recollection of criminal law know how steadily public opinion has gone up from one age to another. It used to be 13; indeed, it used to be lower than that, and it was a complete defence for a man to make to a child of 10 that she had consented. Public opinion went up from that to 13, and it has gone up from that to 16, and is backed by the vast majority of official opinion. The effect of this Amendment is going to be this in practice as if you put the age of 15 instead of 16. As the matter is to be left to the House, I confess I hope the House will reject this Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): May I just say a few words on this question, because I attach a certain importance to the Amendment which has been moved. I appreciate the purpose for which the Amendment has been moved. I think you have to look much more narrowly than the speeches of some hon. Members who have spoken, at the Clause to which this Amendment is proposed. Do not let us diverge into various other Clauses of the Bill or Sections of existing Acts of Parliament. Let us look closely at what this Clause itself provides. It is this: that in case of an act of indecency no person who is charged with making such an indecent act upon a person under the age of 16 is to be entitled to say that that young person under the age of 16 consented to the act of indecency. For my own part, I share the view of a number of lawyers as to whether or not that could not be made the ground of improper charges. But in dealing with
  396
  these cases of indecency—and only acts of indecency—do not let us forget that we are saying that there can he no defence by way of consent Some hon. Members have pointed out in the course of the Debate, on a previous Amendment, that the words "act of indecency" covers a very wide range of acts. While we have every desire to protect young people from these, we must not forget that in. removing any possible defence by consent to an act of indecency, we are laying open a large number of persons to attacks, cruel attacks, and sometimes very difficult attacks to repel. Upon that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) moves an Amendment, and he proposes to put at the end of this Clause the words
  "but the party so consenting shall be guilty of a misdemeanour if he or she is of the age. of 15 years."
  Let us consider this. At the age of 15 does a girl know what an act of indecency is or does she not? Is there any girl of 15 who does not know what an act of indecency is? Does not a girl know that she ought not to allow some man to put his hand up to her clothes and so on. It is an act intended for the purpose of indecency, and by that means in some cases there is the gratification of an incipient sexual appetite. That is what indecency is, and every girl in every rank of life knows perfectly well at the age of 15 what a man ought not to do to her. We are perfectly right in saying that girls in every rank of life have that inherent power to protect themselves. They ought to protect themselves, and we-may rightly call upon them to protect themselves. There is to be no defence to a boy or a. young man who has committed this act of indecency, although he may have been attracted—I will almost say invited—by the fact that this girl, able to protect herself, consented to the act. That opens the door very widely to charges and offences by these persons. Inasmuch as the person of 15 and upwards knows quite well what. Indecency is, and realises that when a man approaches her and takes her in a manner which is indecent such as I have suggested, her sense of shame ought to repel her. She ought to be able, of her own motion, to protect herself. We are asking her to take some part in assisting the Legislature

  397
  in protecting herself from what she at the time consented to, and at the very time knew what she was doing was wrong.
  Lord R. CECIL: I must say just one word in answer to what has fallen from the Attorney-General, because I really think the House will agree with me that his speech is in favour of not raising the age beyond 15. This is the conclusion to which I must come from the argument he has addressed to the House. The whole case for the age is that a child of that age is not able to protect herself, and ought not to be put in the position of having to protect herself. If that breaks down then the case for the age breaks down. It seems to me on the whole that the Attorney-General's argument is wrong, because it proceeds as if this is a safeguard to the man. That was the argument that he put forward. I do not think this is sound. If he had said there are girls, unfortunately, who really incite the boy, I should have had sympathy with him. We have all seen cases in the courts. I remember hearing a learned judge say that they wished they had power to punish the girls in such cases as well. In the words of the Attorney-General, you must call upon her to assist in her own protection. That is wrong, and not in accordance with the whole point of this Bill. If you do this, it is really equivalent, or almost equivalent, to cutting down the age to 15. In practice you will not find any prosecution if the risk is such that if the girl cannot persuade a jury that the man's allegation that she consented, because there will always be that allegation made—if she cannot prove that the man's allegation that she consented is wrong she will be open to a criminal prosecution, and the result will mean that this Clause of the Bill would be practically inoperative as between the ages of 15 and 16.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: I am most anxious that we should go to a division, but I simply cannot understand some of the speeches that I have listened to on this Amendment. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) does not seem to understand the effect of Clause 1 of this Bill. Clause 1 raises for the first time the age limit from 13 to 16. What is the object of Clause 1? It is extraordinary that no speaker, including the Home Secretary and the learned Attorney-General, has referred to it. It deals
  398
  with boys as much as with girls, but somehow or other the House has got carried away by the idea that this Bill is really going to protect young girls, which I do hot believe it is going to do. It is going to do more harm to young girls than any other legislation. What is the real effect of this Amendment? The age under Clause 1 is raised from 13 to 16, and indecent assault on any person, male or female, under the age of 16 is made a criminal offence. What do we mean by indecent assault? I do appeal to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) who spoke last. Surely the Noble Lord must agree with me that indecent assault can only be when there is no consent. I may put to him this proposition. Two children, one a boy and the other a girl, behave indecently with one another. Who is to blame?
  Lord R. CECIL: Both.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: I agree, but if the boy happens to be just 16 and the girl a day under 16 the boy is going to be the criminal and the girl will not be held to blame. What we aim at is to prevent indecent behaviour, not indecent assault. If the girl or boy be 15, they know just as much as older people that they are behaving indecently, if they have been properly brought up and taught. What this Amendment says is that if it is really an assault and done without consent, it is a criminal offence, and if it is done with consent it is still a criminal offence, but whether the young person is a boy or a girl, if they consent and behave equally indecently, and are 15 years of age, they, too, should be criminally liable for a misdemeanour. That is all this Amendment asks; without it if the boy or girl consents—or to put a better word to the learned Attorney-General—if the boy or girl is the inciting party, and the girl in many cases is the inciting party, and plays with a young man till she drives him almost mad, she being 15 and he 16, the boy is to be a criminal and she gets off scot free. Indecent behaviour is wrong. Let us punish it, but if the girl is the inciting party and leads the boy on, or if a young boy of 15 leads a girl of 16 on, then I say that boy or that girl if they are the inciting parties should also be punished for their own good. After all, the real object of this Bill is to try to prevent children from being immoral

  399
  and to try to make them moral by law. I do not believe you can do it, but that is the object. That being so, do let us have this most sensible Amendment, recommended by the Government, which only says that the older person should be criminally liable, but provided the child is between the age of 15 and 16, and consents, encourages or incites, it should also be punished for indecent behaviour.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I regret that the Home Secretary is showing signs of weakening on this point, because if he does, it really destroys the value of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is in an unqualified manner to raise the age to 16. In 99 cases out of a 100 the man will say that the girl consented, and the parents will not raise the question in court. The whole intention of the Bill is to give effective protection for children under 16, both boys and girls, and I urge the Home Secretary to hold to his previous resolution.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Some of the speeches that we have had on this particular Clause are most peculiar. One Member sitting opposite me talked about adultery and criminal assault as if things were done by violence. I am definitely shocked to hear so much enthusiasm from the other side. God help the people of a girl of 15 or a boy of 15 who do not know the difference between right and wrong, and the Lord help the boy or girl and shame to the parents if he or she has not been instructed as to what is right or what is wrong. A perfectly shocking position is going to be created by this Bill, for a boy may be ruined by some forward young female. I came across an instance the other day. A girl had taken a flat for wrongful purposes and a man had been induced to go there. A few days after the girl's mother called and accused him of having tampered with her daughter who was under. 16. He said, "I did not know," and then a thought struck him that at her tender age the daughter could not have got the flat and he said "you took the flat and guaranteed the rent," and she had to admit it and went away defeated. These cases will not be dealt with. If she is not a consenting party, even the present law protects her from criminal assault, whether she is 16 or 60.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to know whether on one point the statement made was quite accurate. The Home Secretary refers to the case coming before the Assizes.
  HON. MEMBERS: Quarter Sessions.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAIITLAND: Of course it is Quarter Sessions. An hon. Member who spoke laid stress on the hardship which might be inflicted on a young fellow of sixteen who had committed an indecent assault with a girl of 15.
  HON. MEMBERS: Indecent behaviour.
  Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: Indecent behaviour. If the young fellow wishes, he can elect to be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and come under the Probation of Offenders Act. It would be optional for the Court not to convict him under Section 1 of the Act.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I think the hon. Member is wrong. I think if the defendant is to be tried summarily, the charge must be reduced to one of common assault; otherwise the charge has to come to Quarter Sessions.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I made legal inquiries before this Clause came on, and with all due deference, that was what I was informed was the position. It can be brought under the Probation of Offenders Act, and the course which the magistrate can take is either to dismiss the case or, without proceeding to a conviction, order the defendant to come up for judgment if called upon.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: Did I understand the Attorney-General to say that if the person prosecuted was under 16 it would come under the Probation of Offenders Act.?
  Mr. SHORTT: I think if the person prosecuted is under the age of 16 that could be done.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: If they are both under 16, what are you going to do under Clause 1?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The case upon which was laid stress was a juvenile delinquent in connection with another. The other case is the extraordinarily anomalous state of the law to which we shall be reduced if this Amendment be passed. The girl in this case who consents

  401
  to an act of indecent assault will have committed an offence. The girl who consents to the much more serious act under Clause 2 will not be an offender under the law at all. What therefore the effect of passing this Amendment will be is that this House will render legal the punishment of a girl of 15 who has committed a lesser offence and not render liable to punishment the girl who has connection with a person and has been a party to a much more serious act. I wish to impress upon hon. Members that the effect of this Amendment will be that the age will practically be reduced to 14 instead of 15. It is quite true that if a girl of the age of 15, if she has consented, will see that proceedings will not be taken under this Bill—nor will her parents take proceedings. But it may be that she 'has committed some innocent act of pleasantry and that after that the other party has gone on to an act of indecent behaviour. It may be that she has done nothing. But it is quite clear what defence the offender will always take in any proceedings in the case of a girl of 15 or over.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The first Committee I sat on after becoming a. Member of this House was a Committee dealing with this Bill. It was not a very pleasant thing for a woman to do, and it was not a very pleasant thing to take part in the discussion. The first time it came up in this House it was deliberately wrecked by some people who are to-night putting down clauses to wreck it now. It is said that the object of this Bill is to punish immorality. The object of this Bill is to punish men who take advantage of girls under 16.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: If the hon. Member will read Clause I—
  Viscountess ASTOR: I have listened patiently quite a long time to what you and your lot have said. I can be as insulting as you if I want, but I want to get something which every society in England which deals with girls is desperately anxious should be passed. It is all very well for Members who think they know about these things—[HON. MEMBERS "As much as you."]—You will not know as much about it as us if you live 1,000 years.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We really must not have these constant interruptions.
  1.0.a.m.
  Viscountess ASTOR: It is not very pleasant for a woman to be here to night. It is a most uncomfortable de bate for any woman, but we are quite willing to listen to anything said if we can do anything to protect the girls under 16. I think some hon. Members and the Attorney-General do not really understand women very well. I would like to know what is a misdemeanour. There are lots of girls who do not know half as much as men think they know. I think some hon. Members forget that you do not know what is a girl's mind. You take a few unfortunate girls. We are trying to protect just ordinary girls. There are thousands of girls in this country who do not really know, and it is possible that men, even sometimes at 16, will know far more than a girl of 17. If this Amendment be carried, it will wreck the Bill. I have heard of blackmailing. I have five sons myself, and I would not be likely to help a Bill that in any way was going to expose my sons to blackmail. It is not a question of blackmail. It is a question of the prostitution of girls under 16. It is something so horrible that if you go into it you feel you would take a few risks with your sons rather than have the sense of girls being prostitutes. The Bill has been wrecked once before, and it will be wrecked again to-night, and the wreckers do not honestly in their hearts want the Bill to go through.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: That is disgraceful!
  Mr. MILLS: It is disgraceful because it is true.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I know exactly what I am talking about, and we all know that this is really a wrecking Amendment. I hope Members will think well before they go into the Lobby.
  Mr. BIRCHALL: There is one question I would like to ask. If this Amendment be accepted, would it be a misdemeanour for a girl of 15 to consent to an indecent assault but not a misdemeanour for the same girl of 15 to consent to have sexual relations?
  Mr. SHORTT Mr. SHORTT indicated assent.
  Mr. BIRCHALL: If that be true, it. is obviously an absurdity. An indecent assault is an indictable offence. To commit the full offence of sexual relationship is not a misdemeanour at all. I cannot imagine that the Mover of the Amendment really intends to put the House in a position of passing a measure which makes it an indictable offence to consent to indecent assault and not to sexual relationship. It will be argued that it is better to commit the full offence of sexual relationship and not be liable to prosecution. The Home Secretary accepted that Amendment before he heard a single argument on the other side. He only heard the proposal of the Seconder and he immediately got up and said on behalf of the Government that he accepted the Amendment. I trust it is still not too late for the Government to insist on their attitude in regard to the Bill and to refuse to accept this very serious Amendment.
  Captain LOSEBY: This Amendment is absolutely vital, and surely my hon. Friend who spoke last was right in asking the legal adviser of the Crown this
  very vital point. There must be very considerable doubt as to whether this does not strike at the root of Clause 2 and so nullify, not only t his Bill but the Act of 1885. There are some of us who are opposed to this Bill because it widens what we consider to be a very proper defence, but we cannot be a party to an Amendment which would not only affect this particular Bill but would nullify the Act of 1885. I would ask my right hon. Friend if there is not very considerable legal doubt. You have created the very extraordinary offence of an assault by consent under Clause 1. Surely where the girl consents also to criminal intercourse that comes under the same head of indecent assault. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] There is a danger of the House voting under a misapprehension, and I would ask them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! Divide!"]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 115.

  Division No. 239.]

  AYES.

  [1.10 a.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

  pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Parker, James

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  At key, A. R.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Houfton, John Piowright

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devlzes)

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

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

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Stanley. Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Tryon. Major George Clement

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

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Vacpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Macquisten, F. A.

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

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Manville, Edward

  Windsor, Viscount

  Eyres-M onsen, Com. Bolton M.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Worsfold. T. Cato

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gould, James C.

  Neal. Arthur

  Mr. Joseph Green and Captain

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

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

  Viscount Curzon

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  NOES.

  Acland, Ht. Hon. Francis D,

  Briggs, Harold

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Brittain, sir Harry

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)

  Astor. Viscountess

  Bromfield, William

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bruton, Sir James

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Banton, George

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Barrand, A. R,

  Cape, Thomas

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelltyt

  Barton, sir William (Oldham)

  Casey, T. W.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Birchall, J. Dearman

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Foot, Isaac

  Bramtdon, Sir Thomas

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Forrest, Walter

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Gillis, William

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Loseby, Captain C, E.

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Gregory, Holman

  Lunn, William

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Grenlell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  M'Curdy, Rt. Hon, Charles A.

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Mallalleu, Frederick William

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Sutton, John Edward

  Hartsnorn, Vernon

  Mills, John Edmund

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

  Hayday, Arthur

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

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

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Morrison, Hugh

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hinds, John

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Wallace, J.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)

  Williams, Aneurin (Ourham, Consett)

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

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding)

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Winterton, Earl

  Insklp, Thomas Walker H.

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Wise, Frederick

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

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

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lawson, John James

  Rodger, A. K.

  Sir Robert Newman and Mrs.

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

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Wintringham.

  Lorden, John William

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'The' ["The limit of time"], stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of ss. 5 and 6 of 48 &, 49 Viet. c. 69 an to defence of reasonable belief.)
  Reasonable cause to believe that a girl was of or above the age of sixteen years shall not he a defence to a charge under Sections five or six of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act). The limb; of time mentioned in the second proviso to Section five of the principal Act, as amended by Section twenty-seven of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act. 1904, shall be nine months after the commission of the offence.
  Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
  I am moving this Amendment because it has all along been my strongest objection to this particular Bill. I wish again to put to the Home Secretary the question which I put to the Government on the occasion of the Second Reading. What evidence have the Government that this Clause is needed? What sources have they consulted and upon what opinion have they based this? Have they been driven by the 60 societies who appended their names to a circular that was sent to all Members of Parliament, consisting very largely of what we know as rescue workers and the like: or have they gone to the persons whose business it is to deal with these particular cases, who see both sides of the point, have to study both sides of the question and who should be in a position to know more properly what should be done in such matters as these? We have had no sort of communication from the Home Secretary that he has taken the opinion of the High Court
  406
  Judges in this matter. We have no word from him that he has consulted any large number of barristers with a large criminal practice, especially, may I say, those who find themselves often in a position of defending poor persons in such circumstances as these. We have heard nothing of the kind. I have searched in vain for any such opinion that this Clause is necessary; on the contrary, 1 find by reference to statements made by learned Law Lords that their opinion is strongly against this Clause. They hold that it is unsound in principle and to use the words of one learned Law Lord
  "This is the kind of law which, if you make it, would break in your hands."
  If it, be the intention of the Government to pass a law' which will break in the hands of those who administer it, then they have kept us up at an unreasonably late hour at night for very little purpose.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I will not repeat what I said on previous occasions with regard to this, but I wish to put on record that, if I had been met with any sort. of encouragement that the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper and on this Clause would have been accepted, I would, despite my dislike to this Clause, have withdrawn my opposition to it. Let me at this stage ask the House to reflect upon the arguments which have been brought against the abolition of this defence during the various stages of this Bill. We were first of all told that the great reason for abolishing this defence of

  407
  reasonable belief was that it was generally a dishonest defence. That argument, surely, was one which I think events have proved to be easily answered, the answer being, of course, that if it was a dishonest defence it should not succeed, and the question of whether it could or did succeed or not was not a matter to deal with in legislation of this kind, but was a matter which lay in the responsibility of the Courts. But now, that argument having apparently failed to have any effect, we have other objections raised. We are now told by the Home Secretary, among others, that the object of this Clause is to protect the young prostitute from herself. I want to examine that argument just for a moment. Of course it is an obvious answer to that argument as far as it goes to say that it is not right to punish comparatively innocent persons as compared with the more wicked persons. But there is another argument which should appeal to those who have supported this Clause hitherto and those who are so anxious to protect the young prostitute against herself. I want just to examine the point. The idea is that you are to protect the young prostitute against herself by prosecuting those with whom she carries on her trade. Is there a single Member of this House, with any experience whatever of matters of this kind, who believes that in cases of sexual intercourse with these young prostitutes there is one case in a hundred which ever comes before the courts? I have no doubt that I am right and I do not think anybody will contradict me. Of all the offences which are committed, under 5 per cent. are ever known and only 1 per cent. is ever the subject of a prosecution. Are you going to destroy the prostitute's market if you only interfere with 1 per cent. of this market I How can you protect them against themselves by methods of this kind? If these be the only two arguments which can be brought against the most elementary belief which surely supports our opposition to this Clause, the Englishman's ordinary sense of justice, surely those who have supported this Bill so strongly will see that we on this side have some good reason for objecting to this particular Clause. I do not want now to take up the time of the House with what under the circumstances must probably
  408
  be an unsuccessful motion, but before I sit down, as one who has confined his attempts entirely to opposition to Clause 2, I desire to protest in the strongest way possible against the campaign which has been carried on by certain newspapers in this country, and I regret to say has been indulged in by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), of describing all those who have criticised this Bill or moved Amendments to it as wreckers of the Bill. The hon. Member was not on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, and apparently she does not know what took place there, but I do suggest that if hon. Members take a real and serious interest in a Bill of this kind, in the interests of their case and in the interests of the Bill, they would do better in the future to meet those who support the rest of the Bill with some reasonable degree of consideration rather than at once abuse them because they do not happen to agree with every single word as it is first written, in a Bill of which at least one might say that it was the product of enthusiasm. None do more harm to a Bill of this kind than the enthusiastic supporters of it who nevertheless manage to ruin it and make it a worse Bill than it would be by an absolute refusal to treat as being as decently moral as himself or herself those who endeavour to criticise the Bill.
  Mr. SHORTT: I hope that my hon. Friend does not include me in the category of those whom he has blamed.
  Mr. HERBERT: No, certainly not.
  Mr. SHORTT: I must assure him that I certainly do not deserve it. I hope the House will not think me lacking in the sense of appreciation of this Amendment if I take a very short time indeed to ask the House to reject it. The question has already been debated on the Amendment moved by the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), and I think we really do know the pros and cons. In our view, and I think in the view of the majority of those who support the Bill, this Clause is essential. Experience has shown that the defence is not beneficial in the public interest. The defence is one calculated to defeat the ends which legislation of this description has in view, and those of us who support the Bill as an improvement to the present existing legislation look upon it as absolutely

  409
  essential to protect that portion of the community which requires protection. For these reasons I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I must make one remark. The defence you are abolishing is that a person should be allowed to say he had reasonable cause to believe the girl was above 16 at the time the offence was committed. We have been told that it might do a tremendous amount of harm if that Clause were allowed to go, but does it show a tremendous confidence in the democracy and knowledge of the jurymen who have to try the case? It is a question only for the jury. Do we really mean what we are saying here that we are absolutely unable to trust a mixed jury to try a simple case where a man has reasonable ground to believe that the girl was 16. I do think it shows very little sense of trust, either in your judges or your juries.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
  "Provided that in the case of a man of twenty-three years of age or under the presence of reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over the age of sixteen years shall be a valid defence on the first occasion on which he is charged with an offence under this Section."
  I am encouraged in moving this Amendment by the fact that in Committee it was accepted by the promoters of the Bill and by the Government. I was given a definite pledge by the representative of the Government that on the Report stage they would support this Amendment. I understand one or two promoters of this Bill still differ as to whether they should allow this Amendment to go through. I should like to read to the House an article which I had given me after the Second Reading of the Bill took place in this House. It is, shortly, the argument which I have tried to put before the House on many occasions.
  "It is not held (by the opponents) just to award criminal punishment to a man who is deceived by another as to the nature of his action, and commits an offence in consequence without knowing it to be such. In this case the offence is constituted by the fact that the girl is under age. There
  410
  is probably sonic feeling that it is in any case an immoral action, and that if in an immoral action a man unwittingly commits a legal offence, then he deserves what he may get. This would seem to be a very irregular and confused kind of justice. Rightly or wrongly, the law makes a certain age limit the touchstone of crime. Then it goes on to say—or wilt go on to say if Clause 2 be accepted—that although a man is not merely ignorant that the girl is under age, but has reasonable cause to believe the contrary, though, that is to say, he has reasonable cause to believe that his act is no legal offence at all, yet he shall be liable to criminal punishment. Would it not he possible to attain the practical point, i.e., to prevent facile evasions, by substituting something more definite for the term 'reasonable cause.'"
  That was the leading article in a paper of some little note in Lancashire of some little influence among those who profess to uphold always the moral cause and would describe me and my friends as "one of that lot" because we dare to stand up in this House in regard to matters connected with the most disagreeable Bill that I have known during the ten years I have been in this House, and express the opinion that we are legislating not like grown up men but like fools. This article was written by the "Manchester Guardian." Those who read it as if it were the Bible every morning, will give some heed to what the "Manchester Guardian" says if they will not listen to us. This Amendment has been definitely accepted by the promoters of the Bill and the Government. But I do not know what the Government mean when they accept Amendments. They accepted the last Amendment and refused to put on the Whips. Some of us who have supported this Government through thick and thin will not forget this sort of thing. I do say in moving this Amendment that their definite pledge was given in Grand Committee by the representative of the Government that they would support this Amendment if it were put on the paper in the words I have given. Do they mean they are going to support it or are they going to run away from tine definite pledge given in Grand Committee?
  Mr. J. F. GREEN: I beg to second the Amendment. It is necessary to protest against the language used regarding some of us, both outside and inside the House, although we are as keen upon promoting the interests of public morality as the supporters of this Bill. I can give all credit to the supporters of this Bill, from whom I differ, but I do ask them to give

  411
  us equal credit. I protest against the language of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) who talked about us as "that lot." I was working in the interests of public morality before the hon. Member for Plymouth was born. Those who do not believe in this kind of legislation are not immoral.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I never said you were immoral. You may be, but I never said so.
  Mr. SHORTT: I understand that this Amendment had been accepted by two bodies of Members who were very much interested in the Bill. In Committee upstairs the representative of the Government accepted this Amendment, or rather promised to accept it when it was put on the Floor of the House. So far as I know, that agreement still exists, and therefore I am quite prepared to carry out the pledge given by the Government and to accept and support this Amendment.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I hope I may be allowed to say two sentences. If this has been agreed to by certain sections of the House and accepted by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has not!"] I only said "if." I would merely say, as one of those who supported Clause 2 in its original form, that I very much doubt whether this Amendment is likely to work well. It is difficult and dangerous to draw a purely artificial line like 23 between those who can claim this particular kind of defence and those who cannot. [HON. MEMBERS: "That applies to 16!"] Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between trying to get a date which is obviously a date at or about- the time when people cease to be children and become grown up and a purely artificial date like 22. I believe that the time has come to get rid of this peculiar defence. I am sorry that it should be still allowed. I think the Bill as introduced was a better Bill than it will be with this Amendment. I wish the Clause had been passed in its original form, and I am afraid there would be practical difficulty in working this.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not know who has agreed to this Amendment. We have had absolutely no explanation. We are merely told that some arrangement was
  412
  made upstairs by certain people. Neither the hon. Member who moved nor the hon. Member who seconded produced one argument in favour of the Amendment. Here we have a Bill founded on the principle that ignorance is not to be a defence. Then we are asked to make an exception of a perfectly arbitrary kind in favour of a man of 23 for the first time. I cannot conceive on what ground we could do that, and I trust the House will reject it.
  Mr. INSKIP: The arrangement to which the Home Secretary referred is one that I did not make. I think the hon. Member who did make it is now in the House, but I was aware of the proposal that some sort of arrangement should be made. It was an arrangement that those who were critics of the Bill should take no steps to resist the Bill or move Amendments. I say nothing as to whether that agreement has been kept or not, but I may be allowed to say on behalf of one or two who made the arrangement that they desire to observe the arrangement in the spirit and the letter. I am reluctant to consent to it, but I believe that if the Amendment is put into the Bill it will only be a short time before we have an amending Bill that will put the matter right.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I, too, regret what has happened to-night in regard to this matter. I know nothing about these arrangements, but if arrangements were made they ought to be carried out in the spirit in which they were made. Those who are proposing this Amendment have fought this Bill as vigorously and as bitterly as ever they fought it.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: May I interrupt?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: No. I am not to he interrupted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he hears anything said from this side, wants to get up and contradict it.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: I took it to be a personal reflection.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I say that this Bill has been fought as keenly and as sincerely as ever, and here we are at the end of the proceedings asked to accept an Amendment which was arrived at upstairs. The Amendment seems futile and foolish, and I shall vote against it.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I do not altogether approve of this Amendment. I think it only fair to myself to say that I was present when that bargain was made, and I expressly exempted myself from being a party to it, and reserved my absolute freedom. But as I do not altogether see eye to eye with my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the Amendment, perhaps I may explain what happened. It was an arrangement between certain Members who were concerned and who fought for all the points they wanted as strongly as they could. It was felt that this Bill would not have a chance of getting through Committee, and the result of that was that the Members of the Government in charge of the Bill, in order to get the Bill through, made, so far as they were able to do so, an arrangement which, I believe, has been perfectly well carried out, so far, by those who were parties to it, of whom, as I have said, I was not one.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I was one of the guilty parties who made the arrangement, so far as there was one. The arrangement was made between some of us who were keen and anxious supporters of the Bill with the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) who was one of those—I think I am not misrepresenting him—who really dislike the Bill as a whole and particularly take exception to the absence of any protection in the case of young men who might be charged under Clause 2. It was not the Government who made any engagement of any sort at all. It was really that the Government were willing to say that if all parties were agreed on this kind of Amendment they would not stand in the way. I only wish to say in this matter that the Government were not parties to the agreement in that way and were not committed. The position stands in this way. So far as some of us were concerned we wished to try to obtain the passage of this Bill in the easiest way possible. It was quite understood that we could not actually upstairs in Committee commit all the supporters of this Bill on the Floor of the House here on Report. Quite obviously we could not do it. It is equally true that the Member for Altrincham and his friends could not bind some of those who oppose this Bill. The agreement was this: that, as far as we concerned, we would be willing to consent to an Amendment of this kind,
  414
  little as we like it, if, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Altrincham and his Friends were willing to agree to Clause 1 passing in the form in which it stood on amendment, and also to there being no additional Clauses imported into the Bill. I am perfectly ready to admit at once that the hon. Member for Altrincham could, if he had wished, have spoken in favour of the Clauses. I am going to put the case perfectly fairly. It was no question of the Government. It was a question of those private Members who are supporters of the Bill and those private Members who are critics of the Bill, and so far as it was an agreement between private Members in support of this Bill it was torn up. So far as I am personally concerned, I would stand still by that agreement.
  Major C. LOWTHER: The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said this was the first he had heard of any agreement. I seem to recollect that he was present in the House during the Second Reading when the Home Secretary gave a distinct pledge that something would be done. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government would support the Clause without any other kind of reservation and whether hon. Members who oppose this Clause could put in new Amendments. He said Yes. It was an absolute undertaking on the part of the Government.
  Mr. HAYDAY: This Amendment ought not to be accepted by the House because it is, perhaps, one of the most serious of all the attempts that have been made to defeat the purpose the Bill has in view if you are going to permit full licence to the young manhood up to the age of 23 to commit an offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; just once!"] Just once can be no condonation of the offence. It is just that once that may give them the right that they had reasonable cause to believe, as though no man of 23 years of age has any power of discrimination equal to a man of 24, 25, 26 or 30. It is asking me to believe something and it is asking the public outside and the country to believe something that I am certain they will refuse to harbour in their minds for a moment. If the purpose of the Bill is as I believe it to protect the girlhood of the country against these debased persons, you will have every man up to the age of 25 offering that excuse and putting it

  415
  as a means of defence. You will thereby give encouragement and licence to these people up to that age. I should ask the House that there has been no agreement that could bind me to support any such Amendment, and I hope the House will resent any such introduction finding its way on to the Statute Book in this connection.
  2.0 A.M.
  Sir WILLIAM BARTON: I am not in any sense a promoter of this Bill, but I happened to be a Member of this Committee and I want to know a little bit more about this alleged agreement. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and from what I could gather it was an agreement between certain persons and the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton). Is the House to be committed and give up its privileges in order to buy off one vote? I have considerable respect for the rhetorical powers of the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham, but that is too high a price to pay. It is clear that this arrangement was only with one man and that the arrangement has not been kept, either in the letter or in the spirit. In these circumstances I want to ask the Government what is their position now in the matter? Are they going to leave this to an open vote or stand by the Committee? I think we are entitled to expect that in the circumstances which have now transpired they are bound to stand by their Bill.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: The agreement was quite a simple one, not alone between me and the hon. Baronet the Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), but between several of my Friends who sat in
  Committee. So far as I am concerned I have kept the agreement, because I remember it was quite clear. On Clause 1 the assurance was given by the Home Secretary that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, applied fully to Clause 1. It was understood that if that was not so, I could take any action on the Amendment that I chose. The Home Secretary accepted that. Then we were informed by the learned Attorney-General that the Probation of Offenders Act did not apply. My hon. Friend and I spoke and voted on that Amendment, but otherwise we stuck to the agreement which is in "Hansard." In the words of the Under-Secretary to the Home Office:
  "that is to say, if the hon. Member for Louth will withdraw the Clause and the hon. and gallant Member for Altrinham will move a Clause so that the age is reduced to 23 the Government will support that Amendment on the Report stage."
  After all, a great deal of the time of this House has been saved on the Report stage. The reason I did not speak on the Amendment is that I spoke on the Second Reading and in Committee, and I thought everybody knew the arguments.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I am not concerned in the agreement that has been made on the question, but whether this Amendment is a reasonable one. In my opinion a man of 23 is far more qualified to judge the age of a girl than a man of 40, and I consider that the Amendment is bad in substance. It is bad because it gives liberty to people who are better qualified to judge the age of a girl than older people; consequently, if the thing is taken to a Division, agreement or not, I will vote against the Amendment.
  Question put, "That, those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 65.

  Division 240.]

  AYES.

  [2.6 a.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

  Hailwood, Augustine

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

  Doyle, N. Grattan

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

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Evans, Ernest

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Forrest, Walter

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

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Hopkins, John W. W.

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

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Houfton, John Plowright

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

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Bridgcman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Briggs, Harold

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Bruton, Sir James

  Gould, James C.

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Parker, James

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Manville, Edward

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Winterton, Earl

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Wise, Frederick

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Morrison, Hugh

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Neal, Arthur

  Sutherland, Sir William

  M'Curdy.

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

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Banton, George

  Hinds, John

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barrand, A. R.

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Rodger, A. K.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, J. J. [West Ham, Slivertown)

  Sutton, John Edward

  Casey, T. W.

  Lawson, John James

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

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

  Lunn, William

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

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Mills, John Edmund

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gillis, William

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

  Mr. Hayday and Mr. Foot.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of penalties under Section 13 of principal Act.)
  Any person who is convicted of an offence against Section thirteen of the principal Act (which relates to summary proceedings against brothel keepers, etc.) shall be liable on summary conviction—

  (a) to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months; and

  (b) on a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months;

  or, in any such case, to both fine and imprisonment; and, in addition to any such punishment, may be required by the Court to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour for any period not exceeding twelve months, and, in default of entering into such recognisance, such person may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded in respect of his said offence.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out the words "and, in addition to any such punishment, may be required by the Court to enter intro a recognisance, with or without sureties, to be of good
  418
  behaviour for any period not exceeding twelve months, and, in default of entering into such recognisance, such person may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded in respect of his said offence."
  I think these words are put in to strengthen Clause 3, which relates to the conviction of people keeping brothels. These words were added to the Clause to give more effective control to the Courts. But the reason why I move to leave out these words is to strengthen the Bill. A most experienced police magistrate has called attention to the fact that the insertion of these words, instead of adding to the powers of the magistrate, limits them in the case of houses of ill-fame. The magistrates have power in such eases to bind over to enter into recognizances without any limit at all. In the words which I propose should be left out the period is limited to 12 months. This is a cutting down of the powers exercisable against those persons over whom we wish to have the most powerful control possible. These words are unfortunate. I believe the Court has power to require

  419
  persons to enter into recognizances under the Common Law and under the old Statute Law, if these words are not put into the Bill. These words, which were intended to be of assistance and to increase the penalties, have the effect of decreasing and restricting the powers which can be exercised by the magistrate.
  Amendment agreed to.

  OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of definition of natural-born British subject.)
  Section one of the principal Act (which contains the definition of a natural-born British subject) shall be amended as follows:
  (1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b) of Subsection (1):
  "(b) Any person born out of His Majesty's dominions whose father was, at the time of that person's birth, a British subject, and who fulfils any of the following conditions, that is to say, if either—
  "(v) his birth was registered at a British Consulate within twelve months after its occurrence, or, in the case of a person born on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifteen, who would have been a British subject if born before that date, within twelve months after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-two; and"
  Sir J. BAIRD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, b, v), to leave out the words "twelve months" ["within twelve months after its occurrence"], and to insert, instead thereof, the words
  "one year or in special circumstances, with the consent of the Secretary of State, two years."
  420
  This Amendment is put down to give effect to to a promise I made to the Committee. The House will recollect that the Bill provides that a British subject who has a child born abroad may secure British nationality by registration of that child at the Consulate. The child, on attaining the age of 21 years, confirms that intention by making a declaration at the Consulate. It is provided that there should be an extension of time for the making of this subsequent declaration on the attainment of the age of 21, and it was pointed out that it would only be fair that some extension should be granted to the parent for making the original notification. That is what the words I move would provide.
  Amendment agreed to.

  TELEGRAPH [MONEY] BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Sir D. NEWTON: I would venture, even at this late hour, to crave the indulgence of the House to say a word or two on this important Measure. We are asked to sanction the expenditure of £15,000,000, which is a very considerable sum, and I want to urge upon the House the desirability, nay more, the necessity, for a change of policy in regard to the telephone administrative system now in operation in respect of telephones installed in rural areas. At the present time the position is very unsatisfactory, although there is no part of the country where telephones are more required. They are so expensive that the countryside is practically unable to get them. We have not heard any complete explanation as to how this £15,000,000 is to be spent. £5,740,000 is to be spent on new exchanges, £750,000 is to go in sites and buildings, and £2,500,000 in the extension of the trunk system. That leaves about £5,000,000 to be dealt with in some other way. I wish to urge that a considerable portion of that sum should be definitely earmarked towards the development of the rural telephone system. One direction in which it is very desirable that

  421
  alterations should be made is in regard these rural dwellers should be encouraged to speeding up the change-over of the telegraph offices in rural districts and making them into telephone exchanges. I respectfully suggest that in all cases where the expenditure involved does not exceed £1,000, or about that figure, the change should be made forthwith.
  Another direction in which help is required is in connection with telephones for railway stations. The National Farmers' Union, the National Agricultural Council, and other representative bodies that carry weight in agricultural circles, have repeatedly passed resolutions asking that telephones should be laid to stations, particularly those stations at which soft fruits and other perishable produce are consigned. Although I am aware that it is not within the power of the Postmaster-General to insist that a railway station should establish a telephone, and that there are railway directors who are obstructionists to some extent, yet I think that, as far as the Post Office is concerned, facilities should be provided enabling railway stations to connect up as easily as possible, and that there should be no impediment as far as they are concerned. The principal suggestion I wish to make is that the policy in regard to the telephones in rural areas should he reviewed, and that we should have at an early date a clear-cut policy set before the country which should be more generous than the present one. Under present conditions we see, from the Report of the Select Committee on the Telephone Service, that large areas of the country are without telephones altogether. The Committee say that the guarantees asked by the Post Office are prohibitive. In other words, the Post Office cannot do the work itself at a reasonable rate, and at the same time the public are forbidden to do the work on their own account. The time has come when the embargo should be removed. So far as any extension lines are concerned, individuals should be allowed to run their own extensions and should get service on to those extension lines, the Department only accepting responsibility so far as the connection is concerned. I would further urge that rural lines—always costly, as pioneer work must be—would be much better erected either by small local committees or by individuals or small groups of individuals, and that
  422
  these rural dwellers should be encouraged to work these lines, if need be, even by financial assistance. They could get material, such as telephone poles, much more cheaply than the Post Office.
  When we realise that the United States of America has one telephone for every eight inhabitants, and that there is only one for every 47 in this country, and that in America there are nearly two million rural lines, it does indicate the need for a policy of encouraging local enterprise and of letting local enterprise do the pioneer work which is far more likely to lead to successful results than our policy of monopoly, which allows no scope for private enterprise. I respectfully ask that the Department should lay down at an early date clear conditions under which they will permit these people—these local subscribers—to work their own telephones and that a Committee should be set up for that purpose, and that in that way we should get the telephones now so urgently needed.
  Mr. ROYCE: I wish to support the words that have fallen from my hon. Friend, and again to impress on the Postmaster-General the, necessity of improving the rural telephones. I wish to thank the Postmaster-General for what he has already done during the period of his office, and my object in speaking is to support him in that work. I would like to bring to his notice the great difficulties the railway companies are offering to the installation of telephones at the railway stations. The telephone at the railway station is almost the key of the rural system. Farmers and others who have business there cannot conduct that business except by personal attendance, and they often make daily visits, which may take three, four, or five days, to ascertain particulars of the loading or unloading of wagons. These difficulties have been brought before the railway companies. This is a reply which has been sent to the secretary of one of the farmers' organisations who put the case before the company, by the general manager of the Great Eastern Railway Company. It will prove to the House the impenetrability of the railways to these representations. The letter says:
  "In further reply to your letter"—
  the letter was dated 7th July, and this letter is dated 21st July—
  "I am desired by Sir Henry to say that the question you raise was under consideration

  423
  a short time ago, when it was felt that, so far as the company was concerned, there was no justification for the expense. In view of our recent communication the matter has again been looked into, but the circumstances do not appear to warrant any alteration in the decision come to. In the circumstances a meeting with your committee as suggested would only be committing the members to a fruitless journey, but should subsequent events justify a re-opening of the subject you may be quite sure my company will be pleased to favourably consider the matter."
  When a reply to representations extending over years is so unsatisfactory, if nothing further is done by the railway companies we shall, certainly so long as I am in the House, do our very best to block Railway Bills. I thank the House for their patience in listening to me, and it is only because I feel I have urged this matter so frequently and so insistently that I ventured at this late hour to add my protest to that of my hon. Friend.
  Major STEEL: I should just like to say one word in support of the rural areas. I do hope that the Postmaster-General will give a proportion of this very large sum which is to be expended on the telephones to installing telephones in the rural areas, where they are badly in need at the present time.
  Mr. HURD: Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that he will take this question of telephones in the rural areas into further consideration? If he will, then I think we shall feel that we have not waited all this time in vain. I would especially ask him to consider whether it is not possible to bring some pressure on obscurantist railway companies. They are blocking the road in a way that is a detriment to their own interests. Can we not bring influence to bear upon the railway companies to reconsider their attitude in regard to rural stations.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): Even at this hour of the morning the House will allow me to make one or two personal observations in respect to the matter. I do not agree that what is wanted is a change of policy. The hon. Member who said this does not seem to be acquainted with what has been done during the past 12 months, and he does not assist the case which, I believe, he has at heart by ignoring the very remarkable development that has taken
  424
  place. There has been greater development in the past 12 months than during all the preceding period since the telephone was introduced in this country. I have given assurances repeatedly in this House that it is my desire to see the telephones extended as rapidly as possible to rural districts, but I am not going to leave out of account the financial aspect. I have here a return of the revenue secured from a large number of rural telephone exchanges, and the total yearly revenue from these exchanges varies from between £1 and £8.
  In this matter of development I must have some regard to its financial effect on the system as a whole. Having regard to the development which has taken place in the last 12 months—and I am intent that that development should go on at a more rapid rate—I do not think that what we need is a change of policy. In regard to the railway companies, we have given instructions to all our representatives throughout the country to press companies to see that telephones are installed in all their stations and I would appeal to any railway directors who are Members of this House to use their influence in this direction with their companies. I have no power to take railway directors by the neck and say that they must do this.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) suggested that something more might be done to assist rural communities who are willing to instal the telephone. I am prepared to consider such schemes sympathetically, but we must see that the efficient working of the national system is not interfered with by these schemes. I hope with these three assurances the House will give us the Third Reading.

  AIR EXPENDITURE, 1920–21.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON in the Chair.]
  "Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1921, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule

  425
  hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Air Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:

  £

  s.

  a.

  Total Surpluses

  2,357,297

  6

  3

  Total Deficits

  64,335

  13

  3

  Net Surplus

  £2,292,961

  13

  0

  SCHEDULE.

  Air Services, 1920–21.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Number of Vote.

  Votes.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay. etc., of the Air Force

  …

  116,839

  0

  11

  —

  2

  Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, Animals, and Transport.

  236,706

  10

  9

  —

  3

  Technical and Warlike Stores

  …

  1,434,883

  9

  0

  —

  4

  Works, Buildings, and Lands

  …

  388,670

  17

  2

  —

  5

  Air Ministry

  …

  15,883

  8

  11

  —

  6

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  —

  17,677

  19

  7

  7

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

  …

  989

  3

  9

  —

  8

  Civil Aviation

  …

  148,850

  5

  7

  —

  9

  Experimental and Research Services

  …

  14,472

  10

  2

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

  …

  —

  46,657

  13

  8

  Total

  …

  2,357,297

  6

  3

  64,335

  13

  3

  Net Surplus

  …

  £2,292,961 13 0

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Wednesday).

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS, 1882 TO 1919.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Urban Electric Supply Company, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Alderley and Wilmslow Electric Supply, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity
  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services."
  Resolved,
  "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain Guest.]
  (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Isle of Wight Electric Light and Power Company, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which Edmundsons' Electricity Corporation, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending the Lymington Electric Lighting Order, 1899, which was presented on the 12th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity

  427
  (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. in respect of part of the urban district of Caerphilly, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Caerleon, the parishes of Christchurch and Nash, in the rural district of Magor, and the parish of Saint Woollos and parts of the parishes of Bettws, Duffryn, and Malpas, in the rural district of Saint Mellons, all in the county of Monmouth, and for the amendment of the Newport (Mon.) Electric Lighting Order, 1891, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the parish of Cookham, in the rural district of Cookham, in the county of Berks, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Atherstone, the parish of Caldecote, in the rural district of Nuneaton, and the parishes of Amington and Stonydelph, Bolehall and Glascote, Shuttington, and Wilnecote and Castle Liberty, in the rural district of Tamworth, all in the county of Warwick; and the parishes of Higham-on-the-Hill and Stoke Golding, in the rural district of Hinckley, and the parishes of Fenny Drayton and Witherley, in the rural district of Market Bosworth, all in the county of Leicester, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved."—[Mr. Neal.]

  GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made hr the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Atherton Urban District Council, which was presented In the 20th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act,
  428
  1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Eye, which was presented on the 12th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Kidsgrove Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 18th July and published, he approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Truro Gas Company, which was presented on the 18th July and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Company, which was presented on the 7th July and published, be approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

  PLURALITIES ACT, 1838 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1922.
  Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Pluralities Act, 1838 (Amendment) Measure, 1922, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  This Measure is to relieve the Privy Council of an Act of obsolete formalities enacted in the first year of Queen Victoria. The Privy Council, Bishops and Archbishops wish the formalities to be disposed of.
  Resolved,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Pluralities Act, 1838 (Amendment) Measure, 1922, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  The remaining Orders uere read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  Adjourned at a Quarter before Three o'Clock a.m.

  GERMAN MARK.
  GERMAN MARK.
BRITISH ARMY.
  DRAGOON GUARDS.
  DRAGOON GUARDS.
  PROMOTION.
  PROMOTION.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. SHARKEY).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. SHARKEY).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (J. M'CUTCHEON AND R. M'BETH.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (J. M'CUTCHEON AND R. M'BETH.
  DEPENDANTS' NEED PENSIONS.
  DEPENDANTS' NEED PENSIONS.
  DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER (INCOME).
  DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER (INCOME).
  NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
  STATE SERVICES (PAY).
  STATE SERVICES (PAY).
  LAND TAX (RELIEFS).
  LAND TAX (RELIEFS).
  PERPETUAL STATE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  PERPETUAL STATE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  GAS MANTLES.
  GAS MANTLES.
  VACUUM FLASKS.
  VACUUM FLASKS.
  TOYS.
  TOYS.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (CATALOGUE).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (CATALOGUE).
HOUSING.
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  UNITED STATES (OFFICIALS' VISIT).
  UNITED STATES (OFFICIALS' VISIT).
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES.
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES.
IRELAND.
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS (ADVANCES).
  COMPENSATION CLAIMS (ADVANCES).
  MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.
  MALICIOUS INJURIES COMMISSION.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (DISPOSAL).
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.
  OFFICE OF WORKS (NIGHT WATCHMEN).
  OFFICE OF WORKS (NIGHT WATCHMEN).
  TOTTENHAM EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE (ALLOWANCES).
  TOTTENHAM EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE (ALLOWANCES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORK).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORK).
  ROAD FUND (AGRICULTURAL AREAS).
  ROAD FUND (AGRICULTURAL AREAS).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  POST OFFICE (PRINTED MATTER).
  POST OFFICE (PRINTED MATTER).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WAR SERVICE CANTEENS (DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEATH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  ADJOURNMENT ARRANGEMENTS.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I should like, with your permission, to make a statement about business, outlining in a general way the proposals that will be placed before the House between now and the adjournment. There are several Bills now in the House

  765
  of Commons which have to be passed before the session ends—namely, the Appropriation Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill—the last-named Bill I believe to be uncontroversial—and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which will probably conclude its passage through the House of Commons to-day or tomorrow, having become, I believe, much less controversial during its passage through that House. There are also three Bills relating to the Postal Services—namely, the Telegraph (Money) Bill, the Post Office (Parcels) Bill, and the Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill—and the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill and the War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill.
  In addition to these measures there are Bills of importance which have already passed through this House, which are now before the House of Commons, and on which it is possible, and, indeed, probable, that Amendments to the Lords Bill may reach us. These are the Allotments Bill, the Electricity (Supply) Bill, the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill, the Allotments (Scotland) Bill, two or three other measures (which, if amended, will probably only be amended in purely technical directions) such as the Naval Discipline Bill, the Solicitors Bill, the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill, and other Bills of that character.
  If, as I hope, it is possible to get through this programme without any undue delay, it should be feasible to adjourn the House on Friday of next week, and in that case the adjournment will be moved until Tuesday, November 14, with power, of course, to call the House together at an earlier date in case of necessity. I shall ask the House to allow the Government, or unofficial Peers who are concerned with Bills, to take power to proceed with more than one stage of a Bill in a day. Your Lordships can rest assured that such a course can only be followed where general consent of the House is granted. I propose to put that Motion on the Paper for Monday next, suspending the Standing Orders both in relation to the proceedings on Government Bills and the taking of more than one stage of a Bill on a given day.
  I am afraid that at the present moment it is impossible to say when the Commons
  766
  Amendments to Lords Bills are likely to reach us. I hope, however, that the Electricity (Supply) Bill and the Allotments Bill which originated in this House may pass through the House of Commons to-day, in which case. I would suggest that the Amendments, if any, should be taken to-morrow or, at the latest, on Thursday. To-morrow, there are already two important Notices on the Paper, one relating to the cattle embargo, the other to the Report stage of the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill. I am anxious to get that Bill through to-morrow as it raises important issues and should reach the other House for consideration as soon as possible. On Thursday the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, will raise the subject of the Air Force, and, if possible, I hope that we may get the Second Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill on that day and deal likewise with any other Commons Amendments to Lords Bills which may by then have reached us.
  If necessary your Lordships will no doubt desire to meet on Friday, but I hope that that course may not prove necessary. One further statement about business I should like to make, and that is to inform your Lordships, in reference to the Motion relating to House of Lords Reform, that the various Amendments of which Notice has been given are now printed on a separate Paper. The only Amendment remaining on the Order Paper proper is that which stands in the name of Lord Salisbury, and that, of course, is more in the nature of an instruction to the Committee than an Amendment to the Resolutions themselves.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I was under the impression that it was necessary that the Bill recognising the Irish Constitution should pass by December 6. If the House reassembles only on November 14, does the Government think it will be possible within such a short time to pass a measure of such importance; or am I wrong in supposing that the measure must be passed by that date? My impression is that the Provisional Government only exists until December 6, and that then, unless something has taken its place, it will cease to exist.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The date has been settled after careful consideration of all the circumstances to which Lord Oranmore and Browne refers.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LOKD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I have met with such kindness and sympathy on the part of noble Lords with the two Bills which I have introduced in this House for the purpose of diminishing the suffering of dumb animals that I have been encouraged to bring forward another Bill for your Lordships' consideration. This is a very small and simple Bill, which is intended to mitigate the enormous amount of suffering endured by horses which are exported for so-called butchery purposes, though they are, in fact, imported by other countries not only for butchery purposes but also for the purpose of being used for work for which they are not at all capable. I am sure the bare facts will commend this Bill to the House. There may be one or two points in the Bill on which your Lordships may require some information—information which I shall be only too glad to give, and which I believe is thoroughly trustworthy.
This traffic in live horses in Belgium and Holland for butchery purposes has been going on for many years, and has been the cause of great scandal, and, on the part of the community, of the greatest dislike. We English have certainly acquired a very high name as being the most humane people in the treatment of animals, and especially of horses, but I am inclined to think that a great deal of that care with which animals are treated is owing to the work of many societies in England which devote themselves entirely to bringing to light, and punishing where possible, according to law, people who ill-treat dumb animals.
This question of the exportation of horses was first dealt with, I believe, in 1910, when the Diseases of Animals Act was passed to prohibit the export of unfit horses and to appoint veterinary surgeons to examine such horses before shipping, on payment of a certain fee to the Ministry of Agriculture. Subsequent reports from eye-witnesses who specially visited the ports of embarkation and disembarkation, including reports from the secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, resulted in the passage of the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, which made the first Act still stronger by adding certain words to the relevant
768
section. The 1910 Act prohibited the exportation of horses unless, immediately before shipment, the animals were examined by a veterinary inspector and
"certified in writing by him—"
that is, the inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture—
"to be capable of being conveyed to such port and disembarked without cruelty."
The 1914 Act added the words—
"and to be capable of being worked without suffering."
On the outbreak of hostilities this traffic was forbidden and was entirely stopped, and therefore the whole of the suffering caused to these horses ceased.
As a result of public agitation and the continued allegation that horses after the war were still being shipped, though totally unfit, in spite of the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, the Minister of Agriculture instructed one of his own inspectors to pay surprise visits. Before that time we had been told that these Government inspections were absolutely fair, absolutely thorough, and properly carried out, and that, therefore, it would be impossible for these poor horses, these suffering animals, to be shipped abroad. The result of those visits was published by the Ministry in a White Paper in March, 1921. Of this Report the Minister himself—who, I must say, has taken a great interest in this matter—stated in Parliament that it filled him with horror. In consequence, half-time inspectors were done away with and whole-time inspectors appointed at the special port from which the shipment of horses was authorised. That is an acknowledgment on the part of the authorities that the inspections which they believed to be thorough and good were absolutely at fault.
We are not satisfied—when I say "we" I mean the society of which I have the honour to be President, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—that this cruelty has been ended. We believe that these horses are shipped not only to meet a cruel end in the countries to which they are shipped, but, when kept alive, an; put to work for which they are totally unfit. We believe also that the only way of putting an end to these inevitable cruelties is to ensure that these horses which are intended for butchery shall be slaughtered on this side and the carcasses exported.

769
We are fortunate in having been able to retain the services of a lady, Miss Cole, who is not by any means young and has devoted her whole life to the alleviation of the sufferings of these unfortunate animals. This lady, being dissatisfied with the reports from the officials, actually travelled in the boat with these poor animals. She saw them embarked, she saw them landed, and, where possible, followed them to their destinations. Shortly stated, her evidence, which we look upon as conclusive and very trustworthy, is such as should determine all Englishmen to try to put a stop to this trade, which certainly does not reflect credit on our humanity.
Against the suggestion that these horses shall be slaughtered on this side and their carcasses exported, there are two objections made. The first is that the dealer does not get such a good price as he would for a live animal. The live animal fetches a far bigger price than the carcass because the Belgians, who take the majority of these horses, prefer the meat of more recently killed animals, and the byproducts are a valuable asset. The Belgian law provides that the carcass shall have the lung and part of the trachea attached. The shipment, of carcasses in that state is naturally cumbersome, and it is said that any attempt to meet the increased demands for this meat is handicapped by the necessity of complying with this law. We have endeavoured to overcome this by getting the Minister of Agriculture to try to come to some arrangement with the Belgian Government as to the appointment of Belgian inspectors resident in this country, but I fear that no headway at all has been made in that direction.
Now, in order to deprive the dealers of profit on the live horse and so force the trade to take the dead meat—the whole of the societies, so far as I can make out, are at one on this question and we want to put a stop to this cruelty—we have come to the conclusion that the only way to do it is to ask for a much heavier tax on the export of all horses and mules. At the present time the Government tax for examination is 5s., and we ask that it shall be raised to £20, believing that that would stop the traffic in unfit animals, and that any person exporting animals fit for breeding or of a certain value would not hesitate to pay the £20. That would do no injury to the ordinary trade in
770
horses for remounts and working purposes, the fear of doing which appears to weigh a great deal with the Government. With regard to the fee now payable—namely 5s. per horse—it is interesting to note that in 1920 these fees brought to the Treasury a total sum of £14,600, while the cost of the examinations amounted only to £4,006, giving a clear profit of over £10,000. But I would ask noble Lords to consider whether this profit of £10,000 is fairly and honourably gained by this great country at the expense of the horrible sufferings entailed upon these unfortunate animals. I recognise that the larger fee would tend to reduce the number of horses shipped, but when it comes to the question of profit the profit gained would be greater.
The importance of Clause 1 of this Bill is that at the present time the horses, when rejected—there are not many rejected now—can be doctored up for a fresh examination. Those who are accustomed to, and know something of, horse-dealing know that it is a frequent practice in that profession (and that a great deal of suffering is entailed thereby) to try to make an apparently sound animal of an unsound one. Now if a horse is rejected it can be doctored up for a future examination, or it might be travelled to another port in the hope that at that port the examination might be less strict, and the horse might get through. By this Bill we ask that a horse, if rejected, should be compulsorily killed under the order and supervision of the inspector without the leave of the owners being obtained.
In 1921, 4,389 horses were rejected, but only two were slaughtered, because in the opinion of the veterinary inspector those two were found to be in such a condition that it was cruel to keep them alive. The argument for not ordering the slaughter of all rejected horses is that they may suffer from a temporary unfitness only. Against that it should be remembered that nobody knows more of the condition of horses than the dealer does, and that he would not go to the expense of travelling them to a port or offering them for examination in ignorance of their state. The objection here is that they may be sent back to work in this country, as was proved to be the case, at one of the Northern ports, and then sent up again and pass the examination. If the dealers knew they were to be slaughtered when they were rejected they would not run the risk of anything like that happening. Therefore, we believe that this clause

771
would prevent an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering. It would prevent the necessity of keeping unfit horses.
Clause 4 is of particular importance because under the Act of 1914 horses can be shipped from England to the Channel Islands without examination, and then be re-shipped from the Channel Islands without examination. Therefore, to avoid the Ministry's inspection of unfit horses, the animals are shipped to the Channel Isles or to Ireland, and transhipped to other places. Under Clause 4 all horses shipped from any port would have, to pass an examination.
Here I should like to remark that there are many people who say that if we conduct the trade with all due humanity on this side of the Channel we really cannot help what takes place on the other side, and the way to effect that is to secure adequate legislation to enforce the slaughter of old horses in this country under British jurisdiction. Surely, it cannot be to the credit of England that we should allow these animals to go to countries where the treatment they meet with is so terrible, where they are worked though unfit for work, where they are put to a most cruel death by bleeding instead of by the humane killer, and where they are walked distances which they are quite unfit to walk. I do not want to quote any more than I. can help from the report of Miss Cole. She has reported very fully on the subject, and has come to the conclusion, as anybody would do who saw the sufferings of these horses, that it is time this traffic was altogether put a stop to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: What is the date of her report?
LORD LAMBOURNE: It begins on March 30 of this year. She has been travelling about with the animals on the boats, and therefore what she has reported is what she has actually seen. I will take the latest instance which occurred on July 10. She reports:—
"On Monday, July 10, a horse was landed at Antwerp, from the 'Alt' (Goole), with a swelling on one hind leg. The port veterinary inspector ordered his slaughter at Antwerp. On inquiry I learned that the swelling was due to elephantiasis.
"At the quarantine stables I saw him sold for 1,040 francs (change that day 59 or 60 francs to the £1). He was a cart-horse, about fifteen years old, and in fair condition.
"Late in the afternoon I found him in a slaughterhouse stable, with no straw, empty racks,
772
and dry water trough. When I went in he put his nose up to the empty rack to show that he was hungry. By appeal to the chief veterinary inspector I got water for him; and I thought a man was sent for hay. But at 6 p.m., the hour for closing the abattoir, none had come, and I had to leave. The next day I went again, to make sure that he was fed, or dead. I saw his quarters hanging up,"
That is the only case I want to quote at the present time, but on various other occasions she has seen horses starting out, and led from the ports to their various destinations suffering, lame, miserable and probably hungry.
I suppose I shall be met with the reply that we cannot help what goes on in Belgium, but I contend that we can help it by refusing, except under certain conditions, to export horses which would be submitted to so cruel a fate. Miss Cole says—
"Economic conditions abroad, and strict inspection at home, have reduced the number, and improved the condition of horses exported for butchery, but these exceptions are temporary. Economic conditions will change, the inspection will slacken, then the butchery traffic will revive to its former dimensions and infamy. At home the system of inspection, under the present Act, is a direct cause of suffering to horses. Cruel trickery is used to deceive inspectors into passing unfit horses. Those rejected at the ports are taken away by the dealers; some to be treated and offered at the same, or another port; some to be sold again for work. Also, the worst horses are kept at work, and those just lit to pass inspection are exported."
I ask your Lordships kindly to assist me in passing this Bill, which will at all events make certain that the horses that are exported will not be dragged to work for which they are totally unfit. I think they should be slaughtered on this side, and their carcasses exported.
Until now I cannot see that the Government have done anything to improve matters. They have been content to let these horses go abroad to be worked, or put to death in the most inhuman manner. Miss Cole herself saw a horse being bled to death in a most cruel way instead of the humane killer being used. She has also seen a horse injured and eventually killed with the pole axe. I believe your Lordships will consider that I have not exceeded my right in bringing this question before you, and I implore your assistance to relieve, these animals of their sufferings. We pride ourselves on the way in which we treat our horses. Surely, it should not be said that when a horse is unfit for work, or when it is past hard work, it is

773
to be exported and left to the mercy of others who do not treat their horses, asses or mules with the same; kindness that we do. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Lambourne.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EAKL OF ANOASTEK): My Lords, my remarks will not be lengthy. A question like this must receive a very great amount of sympathy from your Lordships, for all of us, I believe, are lovers of horses. I do not think the Memorandum attached to the noble Lord's Bill exactly explains what the effect of the Bill will be. The speech which the noble Lord has just delivered dealt with two separate subjects. In the Memorandum it is stated that the object of the Bill is to restrict the exportation of aged, worn-out, and partly worn-out horses from this country, and in order to do that he puts on an exorbitant fee of £20 to be paid to the veterinary surgeon to allow any horse to be exported. The only exception he, makes is of a horse which happens to be in the stud book, or under five years of age. It must be known to all that there are hundreds of thousands of horses in this country which are not all worn-out, and which are more than five years of age.
It seems to me that the title of the Bill ought to be "The Prohibition of Export of Horses." If that is the intention of the noble Lord, I think he ought, in fairness, to state it. I confess that when he began his speech I found it a little difficult to know whether I ought to deal with the question of the export of horses for sale, or with the export of horses at all. I shall be able to show, by a few figures with which I will trouble your Lordships at the end of my remarks, that practically, the Bill is a Bill for the prohibition of the export of horses from this country. I do not know whether your Lordships will think that is a good thing or not. It is a trade amounting to £3,000,000 a year, and considering that agriculturists have had to put up with a good deal in the past, and may have to put up with something more in the future as regards cattle, it is rather hard to give the horse-breeding industry, which is not in a very satisfactory position, another blow by a Bill which prohibits the export of working horses from this country. A
774
number of racehorse stallions and valuable horses, will, of course, still be exported, but the great bulk of the export trade of horses from this country will be absolutely knocked on the head by this Bill.
A great deal is being done, and has been done, to stop the trade to which the noble Lord has referred. In the early part of 1921, when most of these harrowing cases were brought forward, there was an unfortunate grave dereliction of duty on the part of two inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture. Those two officials were dismissed, and since then I do not think there has been any grave charge, especially as the Regulations have been considerably tightened. There are only seven ports in this country from which horses can be exported. At every one of those ports, with one exception, Newhaven I think, there is a whole-time inspector. He is a fully-paid official of the State. Previously, there was only a half-time inspector who, naturally, was much more inclined to err and did not give the same attention as the fully-paid official gives. Every horse has to be inspected by an official of the Ministry and he does not give a certificate unless the veterinary surgeon passes the horse as fit to travel and fit to work as well.
The noble Lord proposes that any horse which arrives for export which the veterinary surgeon says is not fit to travel and work is instantly to be, killed without any compensation to the owner. At the present moment, if a horse is unfit to work or travel it is immediately killed by the humane killer. If, on the other hand, the inspector believes the animal is only suffering from temporary injury it is sent to a veterinary's place in the neighbourhood, where it is treated, and then comes up again for examination. There is not much cruelty in that. If a horse which is unfit to travel is sent to another part the owner is instantly subject to a prosecution under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act; and it is a strong order to say, in a Bill, that if a man sells a valuable horse worth £500 or £5,000 which meets with an accident in its box and is not fit to be put on ship, it should be slaughtered on the spot without a single penny compensation to the owner. Yet that is what (he Bill says. Not only is the strictest inspection carried out by whole-time officials of the Ministry, but the ships are also inspected and it is seen that there are proper

775
food and water on board for these animals. In fact, everything is done to see that there is no cruelty in this export trade.
The chief point in the Bill is the payment to the veterinary surgeon of £20 if you wish to export a horse. That would absolutely put a stop to a perfectly legitimate trade. It would be a grave blow to horse-breeding in this country. Many suggestions have been made to the Ministry. It was suggested that there should be the payment of a £20 tax. The noble Lord could not bring in a Bill imposing a tax of £20 on the exporter; that would be a breach of privilege. No one can levy a tax on the people of this country without the assent of Parliament, and it must be done by the Government. Now it is sought to get rid of that difficulty by saying that a man should pay the veterinary surgeon £20 if he wishes to send the horse abroad.
Let me give some figures showing how the trade would be affected. In 1921, the number of horses between the value of £5 and £10 exported was only seven; between the value of £10 and £20 only 313, and the great bulk of the export was of horses between £20 and £100 in value; ninety per cent, of the horses exported came; between those figures. A tax of £20 on about 45,000 horses which were examined would mean that the export of these horses would be absolutely finished. I do not know whether your Lordships are prepared to take so big a step. The Ministry has taken
every step possible by examination to see that no cruelty occurs, and if the noble Lord thinks that horses going abroad are likely to receive bad treatment he should come forward and propose that no horse should be exported. I admit that we do not know whether the horse is to be humanely treated, or killed, after it gets abroad, but if he wishes to prevent the export of horses from this country he had better say so and bring in a Bill to that effect.
The noble Lord talked about the number and variety of societies interested in this question. There are a large number of societies, and the aim and object of every one of them is to try to rake up every case where a horse is lame or unfit, for the simple reason that they must live by agitation. If one society can find a case and become active, it receives subscriptions; then the other society has to take action. I hope your Lordships will consider that this matter is receiving the most careful attention of the Ministry. I do not believe there is any cruelty in this export trade at present. When a horse has gone abroad, I admit that we do not know what happens to it, or how it will be treated, but I do not think that on that ground alone you should stop a large and important industry.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hardinge, V.

Hindlip, L.

Long, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Bedford, D.

Knaresborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Lambourne, L. [Teller.]

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Leigh, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Anslow, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Barrymore, L.

Merthyr, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Braye, L.

Phillimore, L.

Brownlow, L.

Redesdale, L.

Chalmers, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Buxton, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Clarendon, E.

Charnwood, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L

Somerleyton, L.

Hardwieke, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lindsey, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ernle, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Midleton, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Sudley L. (E. Arran.)

Portsmouth, E.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Sydenham, L.

Powis, E.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stamford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Chilston, V.

Donington, L.

Rutland, D.

Sutherland, D.

De Vesci, V.

Hastings, L.

Hood, V.

Inchcape, L.

Strange, L. (Atholl, D.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Novar, V.

Islington, L.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Worcester, L. Bp.

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Methuen, L.

Bathurst, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Mostyn, L.

Bradford, E.

Avebury, L.

Newton, L.

Cromer, E.

Blyth, L.

Parmoor, L.

Devon, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lovelace, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Shandon, L.

Lucan, E.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L.

Morton, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Scarbrough, K.

Colebrooke, L.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, this is a Bill to make contributory the non-contributory scheme set up by the Act of 1918. That Act, as your Lordships are probably aware, superseded the Act of 1898. It set up a new system of superannuation by which the teachers got their pensions on terms almost the same as applied in the Civil Service of this country. Let me give your Lordships an example. A teacher on retirement at the age of 60, or on disablement at an earlier age, received a pension equal to one-eightieth of his salary for each year of his service, and in addition to that he received a capital payment of one-thirtieth of his salary for each year of service. Provision was also made in respect of those who died in the teaching service. There is a fairly large distinction between the teachers and civil servants in this respect. Civil servants, in qualifying for pensions, are obliged to show that they have been in continuous service from the age of entry up to the age of sixty or sixty-five, whereas a teacher can go in and out of the teaching profession, and has to show, in order to qualify for the pension, service of thirty
778
years in the aggregate, and in some cases the period required is less.
When the Act of 1918 was passed the average salary of teachers engaged in the elementary schools was £104. I am afraid that we have not got the figures of the average salaries of the teachers engaged in the secondary schools. Since 1918, as your Lordships are aware, the Burnham Committee has sat and reported, and its conclusions have been accepted, generally speaking, by the bulk of local education authorities. When the Burnham scales have their full effect the average salary of the teachers in the elementary school will amount to £261 per annum. To-day, it is about £250. Shortly after the Burnham Committee had sat and deliberated the Government was face to face with this position. There was an urgent need for reducing expenditure to the lowest possible limit, and when the remuneration of most classes of employed people was falling very rapidly, the position, so far as teachers were concerned, was that their salaries had been multiplied two and a-half times during four years, and this increase carried, as a necessary consequence, that the value of their pension rights was also substantially increased; in other words, the more salary they earned whilst serving, and therefore the greater their ability to provide for old age, the greater their pension.
It seemed that the case had been made out for calling upon the teachers to make some sort of contribution towards the compensation which they were ultimately to receive, and the case was strengthened still further by the position which teachers occupied in regard to salaries as compared with other classes of the community. When this Bill was introduced in the House

779
of Commons it was argued that it was a breach of a pledge which had been given by the Government, or by Parliament. The argument was that the Burnham scale was settled by agreement, and that that settlement carried with it an implied, if not an express, undertaking that the scheme would not be altered. As your Lordships are aware, a Select Committee was appointed to look into this whole question, and the result was that this Committee reported that there was neither an express nor an implied pledge. The way, therefore, was clear for the Bill.
Now, I will very briefly turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 provides, with certain exceptions, for a uniform contribution of 5 per cent, on the salary towards the cost of providing benefits, and also for the collection of contributions. There is a special consideration for those who do not enjoy the full benefits of the Burnham scale. By the Bill relief is given to those who, after paying contributions, will not have received a sum equal to four-fifths of what they would have been entitled to under the Burnham scale. We start with the assumption that a teacher receiving 80 per cent. of the Burnham scale is able to make some contribution, and if there is any teacher who has not received any increase and is not protected by this provision, it is not because he cannot afford to contribute but because, in comparison with others, he was well paid in 1918. As a matter of fact, there are some teachers who are still being paid on the provisional minimum scale and who are better off than they were in 1918.
Clause 2 deals with exemptions from contribution and the repayment of contributions. The general principle of that clause is that anyone who can show that owing to the shortness of his service he cannot acquire an allowance at the age of sixty-five, is entitled to exemption from contributions, and if he fails to get the benefit such contributions as he may have paid are returned to him. There is also a special provision whereby women engaged in the teaching profession who intend to marry, and desire to leave the teaching profession, can also get their contributions returned.
Clause 3 deals with the position of those entitled to benefits under the Act of 1898, or of a local pension scheme, when the Act of 1918 was passed. These persons surrendered those benefits in consideration of getting benefits under the Act of 1918, and
780
it is important, in view of the fact that it is now proposed to make that Act contributory, that these people should not suffer. Therefore, if they find that they are in a worse position than they would have been before the Act of 1918 was passed, they are entitled to compensation, and so far as this clause of the Bill is concerned the Government have to act upon the report of the Government Actuary, which report, if so desired by the teacher, can be communicated to him.
Clause 4 establishes two principles. The first is that the salary upon which contributions are paid shall be the salary upon which the pensions are awarded. The second is that both for the purpose of contribution and award of pensions the Board of Education may disregard salaries which appear to them to be excessive. By "excessive" is meant salaries in excess of the Burnham scale as modified by the Board of Education. There is one exception to the first principle, and that is that where a teacher is on sick leave he pays his contribution on his reduced pay, whereas his pension is calculated on his full pay. The Bill is purely a temporary measure which will come to an end on May 31, 1924. In the meantime, that is to say, between now and the date which I have just mentioned, a Committee is to be set up to look into the whole, question, with a view of devising some permanent scheme. The present Bill is designed to bridge over the interval until the Committee is able to report and its conclusions can be considered. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this is a Money Bill, which reaches the House every year, and arranges for the adjustment of taxation between this country and the Isle of Man. I think most of your Lordships must be familiar with its method. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a — (The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Post Office desire to acquire, for purposes connected with the telephone, a tube which was constructed many years ago by the Pneumatic Dispatch Company. To repair this tube, and to alter it to make it suitable for Post Office requirements would cost very much less than the alternative scheme of making ducts under the street. After a full discussion the Government have agreed to buy the tube outright for £7,500, but it has been necessary to introduce this Bill because the company have no power to sell the tube, and it is doubtful whether the Postmaster-General could exercise his powers under the Telegraph Acts with reference to this tube without statutory sanction. It is also desirable that the Postmaster-General's title should be made clear by vesting in him the tube by Statute. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lard Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMEND MENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MAINTENANCE OF ROADS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government what, if any, action they propose to take on the Motion agreed to in this House, on May 18, to the effect that the effect on the roads of heavy motor traffic was deserving of Parliamentary inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not trouble you with a repetition of the arguments I have used on three previous occasions as to the justice to the rural ratepayer of doing something to reduce the heavy wear and tear upon the roads, particularly district roads as distinct from main roads, by heavy mechanical transport, and also of doing something to restore the authority and power of the county councils over the routes which may be taken by these mechanical vehicles. I
782
suggested on a previous occasion that it was contrary to the whole spirit of local government that the county councils should have no authority over the routes which this mechanical transport chooses to follow. I am very much afraid that the answer of my noble friend will be that the Government do not propose to allow this to be considered by a Parliamentary Committee, but I hope very much that, in that case, he will be able to give us this much comfort, that he can say that the questions of the use of the roads by heavy transport and the control of the routes, will be taken into favourable consideration.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords. I can very readily give my noble friend the assurance that the problems to which he refers are constantly the subject of scrutiny and inquiry and correspondence with the relevant authorities. These great municipalities, and the County Councils,' Association, the Rural District Councils' Association and all similar bodies are not only entitled to place, but are welcomed in placing, their views upon these matters before my Department. I do not think that the county councils as a whole consider that their freedom has been unduly impaired, or that their authority over routes has been needlessly curtailed by anything done by the Ministry of Transport.
I implored your Lordships the last time this subject was raised not to appoint a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, at any rate at the present juncture. Since that time the technical Departmental Committee has been sitting. It has had several sittings, and has begun to examine very closely the extremely difficult and complicated problem referred to it as to the existing system of taxation. Your Lordships will remember that this Committee is directed to review in the light of experience gained during the last eighteen months the whole of that very difficult problem. In order that all possible views on that subject might be ascertained the County Councils' Association was communicated, with, and it has given a reply which I ask permission to read to the House. It is a reply which was not unexpected, and perhaps not unflattering to the Ministry of Transport.
The highways committee of the association passed this resolution on July 12—

783
"That the committee, while re-affirming the financial principles underlying the local Government Act, 1888, with regard to main roads, namely, the payment of at least one-half of the cost thereof from non-local sources, do not consider it to be any part of the duty of the county highway authorities, or of the association on their behalf, to advise the central Government as to the manner in which their share of main road expenditure should be raised. The committee are, therefore, not prepared to recommend the executive council to suggest to the Departmental Committee on the Taxation of Road Vehicles any alternative for the present system of taxation."
That simply means that the County Councils' Association—and I have not a doubt the Rural District Councils' Association will share that opinion—hold that it is the duty of Parliament to find the money, and not the duty of the local authority to advise Parliament how to act.
That represents what I take to be the influential view on the part of local government as a whole. It deals with many of the questions already discussed in this House on previous occasions, and as this technical Committee is pursuing its inquiry into a subject the technical ramifications of which are quite unlimited, I think it would be a mistake on the part of your Lordships to press for a further concurrent inquiry. It would overlap the work of the existing Committee in many respects, and I think the House would be well advised to await the Report of this Departmental Committee before deciding to undertake any further inquiry into this most difficult subject.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Viscount PEEL, That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to consider the following Resolutions:

1. That this House shall be composed, in addition to Peers of the Blood Royal, Lords Spiritual, and Law Lords, of—

(a) Members elected, either directly or indirectly, from the outside.

(b) Hereditary Peers elected by their order.

(c) Members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case to be determined by Statute.

784

2. That, with the exception of Peers of the Blood Royal and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted and reduced House of Lords shall hold his seat for a term of years to be fixed by Statute, but shall be eligible for re-election.

3. That the reconstituted House of Lords shall consist approximately of 350 members.

4. That while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject Money Bills, the decision as to whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, or is partly a Money Bill and partly not a Money Bill, shall be referred to a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, the decision of which shall be final. That this Joint Standing Committee shall be appointed at the beginning of each new Parliament, and shall be composed of seven members of each House of Parliament, in addition to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be ex officio Chairman of the Committee.

5. That the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911. by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords during the course of a single Parliament, shall not apply to any Bill which alters or amends the constitution of the House of Lords as set out in these Resolutions, or which in any way changes the powers of the House of Lords as laid down in the Parliament Act and modified by these Resolutions.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, though a recent addition to this House, may I be permitted to take part in this debate? I may remind your Lordships that as a member of the Bryce Conference I became acquainted with the difficulties of a question which, after all, concerns interests wider even than the interests of this House. I do not hope to be able to counteract by anything I can say either the effect of the rather frigid reception which was given to these Resolutions by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, or the, effect of the rather jocose optimism of my noble friend, Lord Newton, with regard to the present state of things. The speeches of those noble Lords were somewhat discouraging to the authors of these Resolutions.

785
As a member of the Party which produced the Parliament Act and as a member of that Party who was not committed to the proposals of the Bryce Conference, Lord Buxton might, of course, be expected to find fault with anything which came from a Coalition in general and from the present Coalition in particular. But even in his speech I noticed significant passages about "this House as it is" and about "the effectiveness for the purpose of legislation and the transaction of business of your Lordships' present House"—phrases which have all the more significance if you take them in connection with the obvious preference that he expressed for bicameral or double chamber government. Then Lord Newton confessed that on a previous occasion he had tried to rear a brood of proposals of his own; that he had tried his luck before in this particular compartment of the political poultry yard. I wonder what he would have said if his proposals had been treated with the same ruthlessness as he extended to the very unfledged progeny of this later parturition that is before us to-day?
It seems to me that this is not the time, nor is this exactly a theme, for complacency, either sanguine or satirical. Those schemes for Second Chamber reform are, easiest to produce and are most immune from criticism which deal most with generalities and trace the vaguest possible outlines. Fault-finding and criticism fall the heaviest on those schemes which fearlessly probe the difficulties and explore all corners of the field. Lord Bryce's Conference faced all the consequences of dealing to the fullest extent with all the difficulties of their task. These Resolutions leave to others the most difficult part of the task. It looks very much like seeking to gain the credit of reform without incurring any of the responsibility.
I intend to vote for the Motion to go into Committee on these Resolutions, and, in doing so, I wish to notify all and sundry that I do not conceive myself to be committing myself to much in so doing. I find so little to take hold of until, at least, we get into Committee. There are one or two things, however, that I do wish to take hold of and to take note of—the fact that this is the proposal of the present Ministry of which the present Prime Minister is the chief; that two or three admissions or concessions appear in it— namely, that some hereditary element at
786
least is worth preserving; and that the Parliament Act is no longer like the Ark of the Covenant but is susceptible of amendment in two most important, if indeed I might not say fundamental, directions.
The noble Viscount who introduced the Resolutions tried to bring before us the terrors of possible violations of that most sacred thing which is called the Parliament Act. He said that if you venture, to repeal it you will have something like a revolution. Those are not his words, but I think that is practically the substance of what he said. It does not need much experience to know that you might amend the Parliament Act out of all effective operation and still be able to say that you had not repealed it. On the other hand, you might substitute for tin; Parliament Act something even more drastic and, for that very purpose, find that you had to repeal it.
The thing that I feel in doubt about is as to what is going to happen when we get into Committee on these Resolutions. Are Amendments going to be moved to fill in the details? Your Lordships must remember that the Resolutions provide nothing as to the proportions in which the three categories forming the new Second Chamber are to exist. It would be quite possible under these proposals to create such a preponderant hereditary element; that you would find at the end of it all that nothing was changed. On the other hand, you might give so much preponderance to the elective clement that the hereditary element would really disappear. There is nothing beyond what I have said about giving new powers to this or a reformed new House; still less is there anything in these Resolutions about the adjustment of differences between the two Houses.
What I want to know is this. Supposing, when we get into Committee, the Government move no Amendments to fill in details and give no indication of how they think those details should be filled in, what obligation attaches to any other Peers to move any Amendments to fill in those details? If unofficial Amendments are moved and carried, whose scheme will it be when it goes down to another place for approval or criticism? Will it go down to another place so amended that it is practically the work of somebody other than those who proposed the Resolutions? Will it go down in circumstances

787
in which it will be impossible to compare the scheme so completed, or to compare any particular detail filled in by this House with what may be taken as the standard which one always has in the case of Government measures—namely, the filled-in proposal of the Government themselves who, be it remembered, are entitled to describe themselves as the spokesmen of the majority of the House of Commons?
I think that if this Motion were negatived in this House it would present to the public an undeserved impression of intractable opposition to all, even to moderate, reform. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that you have no occasion to be shy about admitting the need for reform, or at least about entering upon the discussion of it. You have no confession of delinquency to make. There are no humiliations before you to be feared. You are not going to be led between any kind of political Caudine Forks, or into any defile of dissolution or disgrace. You must remember that this House did not create its own hereditary constitution. It has never had the power to alter it. The hereditary element was originally very far from being the preponderant element in it. In 1265, when Parliament may be said to have been first set upon its legs in two estates, I believe there were only 48 hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House, and that they were vastly outnumbered by the distinguished ecclesiastics and professional politicians of that day. I abstain from saying "distinguished ecclesiastics and other professional politicians," but I believe that would not be far from the truth, when you remember that the monopolists of all the learning there was, being mortals, probably exercised their learning in the following of the political profession.
You can also bear in mind that in the last two centuries, for any change in the constitution of your Lordships' House— so far from being the work of the House itself, or even done with the consent of the House itself—it is the House of Commons that must bear the blame, if blame there be, for the enormous extension of the hereditary principle which has followed from the days of Queen Anne, when there were only about two hundred hereditary Peers, to the present day when there are more than seven hundred. This has been all done on the advice of Ministers who drew their authority from the support they enjoyed from majorities in the House of Commons.
788
I said that the House had never had the power to change its own constitution, nor to arrest changes effected from outside. It has often, on the other hand, expressed its own readiness to have its constitution altered. If your Lordships reject on the present occasion all Second Chamber reform, it will be the first time in your Lordships' history that you have done so. I ask you not to expose yourselves to misrepresentation by refusing to discuss these Resolutions, in minute detail if necessary It has been said by some speakers that the time is not opportune, that there is no urgency, that there is no wave of popular feeling outside in favour of these Resolutions or of any scheme at all. I take this state of calm, this absence of excitement itself, as a thing creating a kind of opportuneness in doing what we are asked to do. I ask your Lordships not to wait to build or rebuild your House until the storm has broken.
I should like to know when it will be opportune, or could be opportune? Will it be an opportune time when we get from Coalition to Party Government? Will the present Coalition last for ever? What sort of Government is likely to replace it, and, if not likely, what sort of Government is possible as replacing the present Coalition? Can anyone say that one may not some day get a Ministry anxious to establish a Single Chamber form of Government? I am under no illusions. I know perfectly well, as Lord Newton said, that you are not going to stop revolutionary action by paper constitutions or by ideal Second Chambers. We all remember that even Houses of Commons have been made to take to flight in certain circumstances. If revolutions come the decision will not go in favour of those who have the best arguments, or the greatest amount of political virtue; the event will be decided by the number of machine guns or aeroplanes or poison gas or stink bombs on each side. I am under no illusions as to that.
I want to remind your Lordships that in this case, as long as the Parliament Act is unamended on the Statute Book, the subverters, the upheavers, the House of Lords abolition men, the Single Chamber men, will have the law on their side, and your resistance, the resistance of those who do not like Single Chamber Government, if it is to be made effective, will have to be revolutionary, or it will be nothing and it will not prevail.

789
I referred a short time ago to the Parliament. Act, and to the extent of the amendment which is proposed in it by these Resolutions. Mr. Asquith's Parliament Act operated only upon the powers of this House. He very wisely thought it prudent to leave the constitution of this House severely alone. Some disrespectful persons at the time said, I remember, that what he had promised was a reformed Second Chamber with real powers, and what he had left us was an unreformed Chamber with sham powers. It is now, I think, generally admitted that the Parliament Act, went a great deal too far in cutting down the powers of what ought to be an effective Second Chamber, or at least that it was only justified in going so far as it did by the fact that it left intact the hereditary composition of this House.
I do not think that anyone would contend that a real Chamber, a real Senate, should be trusted with so little power as those shadowy powers left to this House under the Parliament Act. Even in the case of Money Bills themselves it is very arguable that not only in respect of the certifying of Money Bills, and depriving your Lordships of the power to veto them, the privileges of the Commons have probably gone Farther than is compatible either with the public interest' or even with liberty itself. They go so far in the direction of the application and expenditure of money that they absolutely encroach in many ways upon the province of pure legislation. It is to be remembered that the original mischief at which the privileges of the House of Commons were aimed was the mischief experienced or apprehended of the claim by the Crown or by the House of Lords to tax people without their consent. That mischief has been effectively guarded against during the centuries by the ample securing to the House of Commons of what is called the "initiative" with regard to financial proposals, and to go further, in the case of unjust taxation, or taxation imposed by a majority in the House of Commons which has lost touch with the people, may amount to an act of grave injustice, and in that case a veto from an effective Second Chamber not only becomes a security for popular liberty, but is a means of ascertaining the true trend of the popular will. There are other powers which might be restored to a reformed Second Chamber if you could get a satisfactory composition.
790
There is a great objection nowadays to power being given to a second House to compel a dissolution of Parliament, but that objection has generally been founded entirely upon the hereditary constitution of this House. It would probably be not nearly so objectionable if it were a power exercised by a reformed House. After all, it is only those who object to a Referendum who object to the direct ascertainment of the popular wishes. These organic questions ought to be surely the subject of concurrence between the two branches of the Legislature and ought not to be decided by the elected House alone. Take, for instance, the redistribution of seats, for just dealings with which, in the year 1884, this House contended, and successfully contended. It would be a monstrous thing if a majority in the House of Commons, a Party majority, were able so to manipulate seats in redistribution as to secure greater permanence of power to their own Party. Take, for instance, the question of members' salaries; take the question of Government grants and subsidies (which, after all, are the expenditure of public money and come within the terms of the Parliament Act), subsidies of all sorts to Departments, or undertakings, which might be made the subject of interference of the most unjust kind with the natural and healthy flow of the popular life.
I wish to combat what I consider to be the very insidious and unfair campaign which has been going on for some time in the Press and elsewhere; a campaign which puts it forward that there is a desire in any quarter to restore the unfettered veto of the House, of Lords. I have met no responsible politician who has ever said or written anything of the kind. You must examine this phrase to understand its full significance. Unfettered veto means unfettered by conditions of any kind, and veto means a final, not a suspensory, veto. A veto must mean a veto such as this House had before the Parliament Act. And the House of Lords must mean the House of Lords with its hereditary constitution unamended and as it stands to-day. In a previous stage of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, did not go so far as to say that. He said he wanted a repeal of the Parliament Act, but he qualified it by making it clear that he only proposed a repeal of the Parliament Act in favour of a Chamber reformed in some way so that it should meet the popular desire.

791
If you have a Second Chamber, and that seems to be agreed, surely it should have real powers. It is very difficult indeed to find any answer to the question, why, if your Second Chamber is not to have real powers, you should have a Second Chamber at all. You require a Second Chamber more than ever you did before the events of recent years. Single Chamber Government was known and said, even in the time of Oliver Cromwell, to have its defects. You have other things now to take into account. You have the menace of the movement to upset the authority and discredit the influence of all Parliaments; and you have a movement to replace majority rule by what is called an "energetic minority," which we know may be, and in some cases has been, a minority which proceeds by exterminating and massacring all who disagree with its political opinions.
The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, expressed fears of the possible results of entrusting this House, and, indeed, any new House which may be created, with real powers which might come into conflict with those of the popularly elected House. I submit that the noble Earl's fears are based really upon the assumption that all Parliamentary majorities in another place, whatever they do or propose, are so beloved by the people right through every month and year of their career, even to the moment when the people are just on the point of changing them into a minority, that you ought to treat their wishes and proposals as absolutely infallible. I do not know whether any House of Commons majority has ever kept its popularity after the first or second year of its active existence. During Conservative Ministries, almost from the first-session, you have Liberal politicians contending from the housetops that the House of Commons is misrepresenting the constituencies and during Liberal Ministries' tenure of office their popularity has usually been put to the test by the action of this House, very often to the great disillusionment of ardent believers in an infallible House of Commons. I have on previous occasions referred to the fact that this House, certainly in the thirty years ending 1909, had on every critical occasion when it had an opportunity, divined the popular will better than the popular House, and even in 1909 this House, though it did not hit off the exact trend of the popular mind, yet on the, real merits of the case has been fully justified by the consequences.
792
How is it that this superior faculty of divination has been vouchsafed to this House, in spite of the disqualifying constitution of the hereditary principle? I do not know but that the hereditary principle is at least some kind of security for good behaviour. The man who sits in this House, and wants his son to sit here after him, is pretty sure to keep his eye on popular opinion and so to order his proceedings that this House shall still be there when the time comes for his son to succeed him. It has been said that the great fault of the present constitution is the presence, or shall I say the dangerous absence, of gentlemen who are called "backwoodsmen." The noble Viscount in introducing these Resolutions forgot that there were possibly two or more kinds of backwoodsmen. He fixed his eye upon only one class, and he used what I submit are rather hasty words to intimate that we did not want here—these are his words— "those who for the greater portion of their lives are engaged on other business." I do not know whether he meant a resident country gentleman busily engaged in local work, respected in his locality and prevented from attending this House so frequently as he did largely by the taxation which has been imposed by the Government of which the noble Viscount is a member.
There is another kind of backwoodsman which might have been referred to—those noble Lords who, when they have achieved their red robes and all the other attributes and dignities of a position in this House, are content never to visit its walls again. The noble Viscount's words about "those who for the greater portion of their lives are engaged in other business" might well be countered if we were to say that we do not want anybody in this House, or in a reformed Second Chamber, who is not wanted anywhere else, much less do we want a House which consists—I will use an American word—of mugwumps. I do not know how the word came to be constructed, but everybody knows what it means. There are the "perfectibility" men of the days of the Philosophical Radicals, the "Viewy" men of the later days; I do not like to whisper the word prigs or pedants. Moreover, I do not think it would be a good thing for the country if this House consisted entirely of men who live only in London.
As to backwoodsmen, your Lordships may remember a passage in Mr. Disraeli's speech at the Crystal Palace in 1872. I

793
have not the exact words by me, but you will remember that he contended that there were certain noble Lords who enjoyed such an influence in their localities that their position might be compared, in its representative character, almost to that of a member who sits for a constituency in another place. His words were found quite shocking by those who pinned their faith to the maxims of the political cookery books of those days, and, no doubt, it was a terrible shock to some political feelings, but I submit that his words had in them a good deal of common sense, because he hit upon the fact that a representative character is not conferred by popular election alone.
Perhaps I have shown myself more friendly to these Resolutions than some of my younger noble friends sitting near me may approve. I have great sympathy with the younger members in your Lordships' House, especially those who have never had a chance of sitting in the House of Commons, owing to the operation of the hereditary principle. That in itself is an interesting fact, because it shows that, contrary to the ignorant representations of persons outside, the operation of the hereditary principle is not necessarily to set up an assembly of a decrepit or a senile nature, but in some eases the contrary. I must say that I admire the desire of some of the younger members of your Lordships' House to have an opportunity of proving in days to come that even an hereditary House can act with public spirit, and commend its decisions and its actions to the people at large. It is a most creditable desire on their part, and one with which I have great sympathy.
I do believe in a decrease in the numbers of this House, because thereby you will get rid of the reproach, if it be a reproach, of the preponderance of the hereditary principle, which, as I have shown your Lordships, was no part of the original design or structure of this Assembly. I should welcome the arrival of sonic elective element into this House from outside. And here I may say that I subscribed to the conclusions of the Bryce Conference, and expressed a preference for choice by the local groups of members of the House of Commons, but that would not necessarily exclude my supporting a proposal to have them chosen by local authorities, so long as you get the local knowledge I prefer the groups of Parliamentarians, because,
794
after all, the Parliamentarians are there for the purpose of dealing with Imperial questions, and have a knowledge of those questions which can hardly be expected of members of local authorities.
I should welcome the nominated element, because the nominated element will at least tend to secure places in the new Senate for men of special experience and signal public service, and, amongst other things, you must remember that it would solve very easily the difficulty of finding places in a Second Chamber for members of an advanced Radical Ministry, or even of a Labour Ministry. I do desire more powers than these sham powers that are all that the Parliament Act has left to this House. I do desire some means of adjusting differences between the two Houses which shall, in the last resort, leave the decision to the people themselves, and I do believe that a Second Chamber could be set up which would be trusted by the nation with powers that no hereditary Chamber would ever get from either theorists or practical politicians. I think that the time is opportune for a change on moderate lines, and in desirable directions, having as its aim the popular acquiescence and contentment which, most surely of all things, gives stability to our institutions.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I do not think I should have ventured to take part in this debate at all had it not been for two facts. The first is that, as I have ventured to say to your Lordships on other occasions, I naturally enough regard this, among other questions, far more from the point of view of the House of Commons and the attitude adopted by members of that House than from the point of view of your Lordships, who have sat here, yourselves or your predecessors, through succeeding generations. The other fact that leads me to ask your Lordships' leave to say a few words is that I think I find myself almost alone in the particular opinion that I hold with regard to this question.
My noble friend who has just spoken, and who, if he will forgive me for saying so, has given us much food for thought in the interesting speech which he delivered and which I think some of us will read again with advantage, because it has covered the ground very fully—my noble friend says that this is a calm period, and that it is

795
therefore wise to take the opportunity, and to legislate. He urges your Lordships to take prompt action, and to deal in a broad spirit with this question of the reform of the House of Lords. If we are quite sure, not only in your Lordships' House, but in another place and in the country, what is the reform that they want, what is the object that they have in view, then I entirely agree with my noble friend that you could not have for this particular reform a quieter time than you have now.
But are we agreed? I have listened, I think I may say, with great care, and, I hope, not an entire absence of intelligence, to this debate, which has proceeded now for two days, and I have found the widest divergence of views among the speakers who have addressed your Lordships. I believe that is a representation of the opinion generally held in the country in regard to this question. All are agreed upon two or three of the proposals which my noble friend laid down. I, like my noble friend, have met nobody who, by speech or writing, advocates unfettered power for the House of Lords; that is to say, the complete restoration of the original powers. Everybody acknowledges that there must be some limitation. I believe that everybody—and I do not exclude the authors of the measure itself—holds to-day that the Parliament Act went much too far, that it has not only injured your Lordships' House by an undue limitation of power, as my noble friend explained just now, but that it has done great harm to the Parliamentary institutions of this country, because it has made it possible for men to believe that a Government, whatever its reasons might be—I do not want to raise any controversial question, and I give them credit for the best reasons—is prepared to treat with indignity and insult a part of the Parliamentary Constitution, a Chamber which has attaching to it all the dignity and credit which belongs to your Lordships' House. That is not a good thing for Parliamentary institutions, whether they be hereditary or representative.
I believe, therefore, that there is a very widespread agreement that the Parliament Act ought to be materially altered. But surely, it is a fact that nobody would suggest the reform of your Lordships' House, if it were not for some other reasons besides that alteration of the Parliament Act. I dislike the Parliament Act intensely.
796
I think it is a thoroughly bad Act of Parliament, and that it ought never to have been passed. I hold with regard to it precisely the views which I held when it was passed through the House of Commons, when I had more than one opportunity to express them, and did not hesitate to express them, I hope, plainly. I think it is a thoroughly bad Act of Parliament—bad in the interests of the country, quite apart from the interests of your Lordships' House—and that it ought to be drastically altered.
But when I seek for other reasons for the reform of the House I have had greater difficulty in finding them. Surely, there can be only one or two. The first would be if the record of your Lordships' House in the opinion of all thoughtful men were such as to make it urgently necessary that there should be an entire change in its constitution. I only repeat here, now that I have the honour of a seat in this House, views which I have frequently expressed in the other House and, as opportunity occurred, in the country, when I say that I believe the record of this House to be one so wholly admirable as to be almost extraordinary. When it is thought how through the centuries the history of this House runs, when it is remembered how few and far between has anything in the shape of scandals been connected with it, everybody must admit that this House is justified by its work, and has a record of which not only this House but the country at large—and the Empire—may well be proud. I believe at this moment the country and the Empire are proud of its record, and I believe with my noble friend, Lord Newton, that public opinion in regard to this question has entirely altered.
My noble friend who has just sat down says that that is no reason for not going on with your reform. It may be no reason for not proceeding with some measure of reform, but it is a very good reason for not following the lines which seemed inevitable a few years ago. Then there was undoubtedly in this country a very strong feeling, without, as I believe, any just foundation, against this House and against the hereditary principle. I remember discussing this question with a leading member of the Radical Party, a man belonging to the middle class, who was talking to me in a very Radical constituency. He said to me: "Mr. Long, you cannot at all events

797
defend the hereditary principle." I said: "Well, I am quite prepared to defend it. I wholly deny your assertion, and I am prepared to defend it; but what is it you desire to substitute for it?" He said, "I am a moderate man I hope; I am not extreme, but I want to see an elected Chamber, because I believe it would be stronger and more effective."
I said: "Yes, that is quite an intelligible view," and I added: "My friend, there are four Peers who live in your county and whom you know." I mentioned their names. One happened to be a master of hounds—not my noble friend, Lord Willoughby de Broke, but another equally distinguished master of hounds. I said: "You know these four Peers; what do you think of them?" My friend said to me: "I think they are the very best fellows in the world. They are the salt of God's earth, and the best men in this country." "Now," I said, "if we have a popularly-elected Chamber as a Second Chamber, as you desire, do you think any one of those Peers will be elected to it, or will ever offer himself to go through the turmoil and disagreeable consequences of a popular election?" He replied: "No, when I come to think of it, I do not think they will." "Then," I said, "they will not he in the Second Chamber." I will not tell your Lordships exactly what he said in reply, but he finished up by declaring that if there was the smallest risk of that he was for an hereditary Chamber and no popular Chamber at all.
I have troubled your Lordships with that story because I think there is a great deal which grows out of the view that that gentleman expressed. I have already said that I think your Lordships' House holds a firmer position in the country and the Empire than it has ever done, and I believe that that position is due not only to the way in which your Lordships have conducted your business, not only to the speeches and public conduct of distinguished men who have led this House or filled high places in it for many years, but also to the fact that your Lordships' House is well known throughout the whole of the country because many of your Lordships are resident in different parts of the country, take leading parts in our country's work, although taking no part here, and are to the people of this country a guarantee of the character of the work that this House does, and of the security that your
798
Lordships' House will always be to them, as it has always been, a barrier against dangerous and drastic changes.
If you are going to abolish the hereditary system altogether I hope you will take care that you get in its place something that will be, so far as you can judge, as good, because I do not believe that if you increase the powers of the House of Lords, but risk its constitution, you will get the benefit or the improvement that you seek. If, by accident or hasty action, you fill the House with men who take a totally different view of their duties and responsibilities from that which has hitherto prevailed, I venture to think you will not be reforming the House but doing it irreparable injury, and therefore doing irreparable injury to the State.
So far as I can gather, I believe that I hold views which are different from those held by others who have spoken, and for that reason I asked leave for a short time to trespass upon your attention. I think I differ from all those who have spoken in this one respect, that I do not find fault with the Government for the proposals which they have made. On the contrary, I think they have done exactly what a wise Government would do, and I believe their actions have been justified by the speeches which have been delivered in this House. As I said a moment ago, almost every speaker has taken a different line, and if you discuss the question with men outside you will find that their views vary to a most remarkable degree. I think the Government did good service to the House and to the country in placing on the Paper Resolutions which are extremely vague, and which are open to any Amendment that we like to make. I am not familiar with your Lordships' procedure, but as I understand it these Resolutions lay themselves open to any amendment.
My noble friend who has just spoken asked what would be the fate of these Resolutions if they were amended out of recognition, and went down to the other place so changed. I really was rather surprised to hear my noble friend ask that. I do not think it much concerns me, or the House, or the country. What we want, if we are going to change this great Chamber, is that we shall have something in its place which the great majority of us are agreed will be a real improvement. That we are not going to get in a hurry. Some of the noble Lords who have ad-

799
dressed the House have spoken as members of Lord Bryce's Committee, among them the Archbishop of Canterbury. I, in common with many of your Lordships, have studied the report of that Committee with the greatest possible care, but there is a great deal of it with which I entirely disagree, and I find myself in disagreement also with some of the definite proposals made by His Majesty's Government. I have already said that I believe in the hereditary principle, and think that it ought not to be lightly abandoned.
It is now twenty years, I suppose, since I was first called upon, as a member of the Government of that day, to sit on a Committee of the Cabinet charged with trying to draw up proposals for the reform of the Second Chamber, and from that time to this I have held one opinion in connection with these reforms which is unshakable, and which I believe is well-founded. It is that there is no choice between the hereditary principle, altered and amended as I will endeavour to indicate it might easily be, and a popularly elected body. I believe that any attempt to set up two or three or four different classes of Peers, one elected, one nominated—one to be born a Peer, and the other to be created a Peer—will fail here in your Lordships House, for I do not believe it would stand the examination of Committee. And, if I know anything of the other place, I am convinced that, even if it emerges from consideration in your Lordships' House, it will not stand examination in the Lower House for twenty-four hours.
It is no good approaching this question in the belief that you can maintain a varied system under which you will get a good Chamber. I am confident that these various proposals will break down, and that you will be driven thereby to adopt the principle of a popularly elected House. I do not say that that is a bad proposal: I am not condemning it; I am not, for the moment, concerned to say anything for or against it. But I say this, mere platitude though it may be, that if I am right, and if there is no choice between the hereditary plan, by which your Lordships' House is now constituted, and a popularly elected body, you are taking a tremendous step and a step very largely in the dark. At all events, such studies as I have been able to make, either by reading or on the spot, have not convinced me that you can be quite certain of getting a more effective
800
Second Chamber than you have now, even if you go in for direct election.
There is no justification for immediate action of a far-reaching character owing to the record of your Lordships' House. I believe that there is no demand for it at present, so far as public opinion is concerned. Therefore, the only other justification is the existence of the Parliament Act. I have already stated my views about the Parliament Act. I listened to the extremely able speech delivered by my noble friend, Lord Selborne. I did not agree with all that my noble friend said, though I agreed with a great deal. But Lord Selborne put before the House with great force the dangers of not amending the Parliament Act. He threatened us with revolutions, and so on. He talked, and others have talked, of the possible accession to power of the Labour Party and the consequences that may follow from such an accession. It may be that it is because I have sat longer, perhaps, as a colleague with leading members of the Labour Party, and that I have sat opposite to them in the House of Commons for a longer time, I suppose, than anybody else in this House, but my views about them are very different from those of my noble friend.
I disagree entirely with the policy of the Labour Party, so far as I understand it, in regard at all events to domestic matters. I sometimes think that His Majesty's Government, when they are framing legislation, or considering proposed amendments, and so on, are too apt to keep an eye on the Labour Party, and one eye upon their own friends. I do not believe in that; I believe the Labour Party does not want it itself. They are a definite political Party, working for definite political ends. But I deny altogether—and I do it because I think it is a mistake that an impression of this kind should get abroad, and because I think it should be shown that there are two opinions on the subject—I deny that there is any justification for holding the opinion that the Labour Party is more likely than others to go in for a Republic, or for hostility to the Crown, or anything drastic of that kind. I do not believe there is any foundation for it.
But supposing there is foundation for it, and supposing that dangers of this kind demand a reform of the Parliament Act, I base my demand for it on totally different grounds. I base it on the fact that it is

801
a thoroughly bad Act, and ought to be drastically altered. If your Lordships' object is to protect yourselves, and to protect this Empire against far-reaching and dangerous changes in the future, you will not do it by reforming the Parliament Act, or by reforming the Second Chamber. The danger to which we are exposed from a Government of extremists is the danger of financial legislation and financial action. Whatever changes you may make in the Parliament Act you could not—and I do not believe you would—ask for a return of those powers which would enable you to deal with financial questions as a popularly elected Chamber can do—not even if your Chamber were popularly elected, because of this I am as certain as I can be of anything, that, however the Lower House is constituted, it will never consent of its own free will to share with anybody the control of finance.
When we come to the present position under the Parliament Act in regard to financial measures, however, that is a part of the Parliament Act which justifies all the adjectives which I have already applied to it. In icy humble opinion it is a monstrous thing that the eminent man who presides over the Lower House should be able, of his own ipse dixit, to say whether a Bill is one that your Lordships can properly consider or whether it is a Money Bill which is the concern of the Rouse of Commons alone. That is intolerable, and it is one of these features of the Parliament Act which, in my judgment, make it so unfit for the Statute Book, and which justify the demand that it should be altered.
I hope your Lordships will not think I am suggesting that you should not welcome reform, if reform be necessary. I agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that it would be a very great mistake if your Lordships were to adopt a course—I do not think there is the least prospect of it—which would result in throwing out these proposals. I hope they will be reserved for consideration in Committee in the autumn. If that is done, two advantages must follow, to one of which I attach very great importance: that is, that this question of the Reform of the House of Lords will conic concretely and definitely before the eyes of the country, these Resolutions and the speeches that have been made by leading members of your Lordships' House will be considered, undoubtedly, in the country, and when your
802
Lordships return in the autumn I venture to say that you will be in a much better position to deal with them in Committee than is the case at present. Your Lordships also will have an opportunity of considering the matter at your leisure. As my noble friend said, it would be a misfortune if the idea were to get abroad that your Lordships were opposed to all reform. Such an idea could not be circulated with any possible justification, because your Lordships have always shown in the clearest possible manner that you are ready to deal with well-considered reform.
May I say one word about what I should like to see done by this House so far as it can be done without waiting for the legislation which is essential? I believe that the hostility to the hereditary principle is dead and that the position is entirely altered. There is nothing extraordinary in that. Let me remind your Lordships that up to the middle days of my long life in the House of Commons, a comparatively short time ago, one of the most prominent questions was the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. I rejoice to know that, in the interests of the State, that question has disappeared into the far background. We never hear of it now, and there is apparently no public opinion upon it. That is not the only question as to which there has been drastic changes in the attitude of this country. I believe that the hereditary principle to-day stands stronger among the people of this country than ever. If that is really true it seems to me there is a still further reason why we should be careful as to the steps we take.
At the same time, there is a feeling, which is not an unreasonable one, that the Peer who succeeds to his Peerage should not have the right to sit in the House of Lords directly lie comes of age in the same way as he inherits his property or succeeds to his various positions. If your Lordships took a view of that kind it would not be difficult to fix an age at which a Peer should succeed, whether twenty-five, or twenty-seven, or thirty, or whatever it may be. It would have the immediate effect of automatically reducing the number of Peers, and it would prevent that statement being made which is practically the only one that is now made, that not only is the House of Lords hereditary, but that a mere boy sitting here may by his vote exercise a tremendous effect on the future of the country.

803
I am not so much moved by the question of numbers as some of your Lordships are. When I hear the criticism that the House of Lords has grown from some two or three hundred to seven hundred odd, I ask myself whether the critics do not forget that the population has grown from something like 25,000,000 at the time these figures were taken to 45,000,000 now, and that the House of Commons has grown from what it was when I first entered it, some four hundred members, to over seven hundred. The increase in the number of members of the House of Lords is not materially different from that in the House of Commons, and it is not to be wondered at when you realise the extent of the increase in the population. At the same time, if it could be automatically reduced by some simple process it would be an excellent thing; at least, so it seems to me. I cannot help thinking, too, that one of the suggestions or proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, in his speech the other day, is well worthy of consideration—namely, whether it should not be necessary that a Peer, before taking the Oath and his seat, should make it perfectly clear that he meant to take an active part in the work of your Lordships' House. Such a change would, it seems to me, still further strengthen the position which your Lordships' House occupies at the present moment.
I agree that the Parliament Act has got to be amended. I suppose it is impossible to do that without an alteration in the constitution of your Lordships' House. It may seem to be an impertinence for one who has only sat in this House for a few weeks to offer such a suggestion, but I bring this from outside, and perhaps I may say what older members of your Lordships' House would not say—I urge your Lordships and the Government to go very slowly in elaborating this matter, for the reason which I advanced a few moments ago—namely, that there is no half-way House between the hereditary principle and a Chamber wholly composed of elected members. I remember that we had this out in a minor way in 1886,1887 and 1888, when we were called upon to discuss local government reform. Then it was not the hereditary system, but very nearly. The old Court of Quarter Sessions was not composed on the hereditary principle but on something which was very similar, and we had to decide what change should be made. Your Lordships will recollect that all sorts of propositions were made, one of
804
which was that there should be a Chamber composed of three sorts of members—elected, hereditary, and nominated. Those suggestions were all dismissed, because we knew that such proposals could not be carried through Parliament and that, even if carried, they could not last. Therefore, any attempt to set up a Chamber which was partly hereditary, partly elected, and partly nominated was bound to fail.
May I, in conclusion, express my thanks to His Majesty's Government for bringing forward these Resolutions. It is true that they were pledged to make some declaration on the subject. Neither your Lordships nor the country at large would have been satisfied if some proposals had not been made. These Resolutions have given us an opportunity of discussing the question and of making suggestions. Therefore, we thank the Government for what they have done, and I hope that in the autumn we shall approach the examination of these Resolutions with the idea of trying to make them workable. I confess that I view with very great anxiety the project of trying to alter the character of this House from an hereditary to an elective one. If that is to be done I hope we shall insist on such a complete change in the Parliament Act as will justify the sacrifices which your Lordships will be called upon to make.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down has spoken with the eloquence, the clearness and the absolute frankness which we all expect from him and all appreciate. Amongst other points with which he dealt, he gave his opinion unreservedly about the Parliament Act. I could not help wondering whether he would endorse the somewhat mollifying and judicious utterance of the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, upon that point when he indicated that he did not think the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, would go so far as to advocate the absolute veto. Perhaps the noble Viscount on some future day will tell his opinion upon that point. I agree with the noble Viscount that the attitude of the public mind towards the House of Lords during recant years has been far more favourable than at some former periods; indeed, some year or two ago one not infrequently heard some such expression as that the House of Lords was really more representative and more democratic than the other House of Parliament.

805
With regard to the Resolutions as a whole, notwithstanding the somewhat tepid or even cool reception which in the main they have received, I think it must be admitted that they have had the effect of evoking a most interesting discussion, and of eliciting valuable opinions. If in a sense the Resolutions were intended as a sort of kite—I do not use the word in an opprobious sense—they have certainly served the useful purpose of bringing out many suggestions. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, pithily remarked in his very interesting speech, owing to the form in which the Resolutions have been presented the House has had the advantage of discussing not only what is contained in the Resolutions, but matters not within them, in a manner which would not have been possible in a Second Reading debate.
After all, however, in this House we, fortunately, are not so rigidly confined in regard to rules as is the other House of Parliament. Incidentally, I may remark in reference to that, that there is probably no other Assembly in the world Where the proceedings are conducted without the presiding genius having to intervene on a point of order. We are, in a sense, a law unto ourselves, and it is a remarkable thing that during all these years there has practically been no difficulty in regard to points of order. We have, of course, our Standing Orders, and adhere to them, but, if two noble Lords rise simultaneously, and neither is disposed to give way to the other, there is no intervention on the part of the noble occupant of the Woolsack. The difficulty is settled by vote. I remember an occasion when two very notable Peers, Lord Cairns and Lord Granville, both rose at the same time to speak. There were cries from the supporters of each advocating that he should be heard, but as neither would give way a vote had to be taken. I voted in the Division and—which was perhaps not surprising—I found myself in a minority on that occasion.
As I have observed, points have been discussed which are not contained within the Resolutions, and I propose to resort to that privilege, and to allude, very briefly, to one or two features which we might have expected to be adumbrated. One of these was alluded to briefly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, and it was also dealt with somewhat fully by the most rev. Primate. I refer to the suggestion that in any change
806
of the constitution of this House there should be a representation of religious bodies in addition to that of the Established Church. I feel a certain diffidence in alluding to this, because of my great respect, for and deference to the Episcopal Bench, but as the most rev. Primate gave, as it were, his blessing to the idea, laymen need have no scruple in following his lead. The most rev. Primate indicated his personal view as favourable to the suggestion, but he also stated that he thought the difficulties were of a very formidable kind, partly owing to the vast number of denominations which exist.
That, no doubt, is ostensibly a difficulty, but I venture to say it is much more so in appearance than in reality. Although the various denominations are loyal to their own tenets, yet above and beyond that there is a sort of freemasonry which enables them to coalesce upon questions with which they are all concerned in common. That may be illustrated by the mention of one or two names, though I admit it is not prudent to mention names. But there are one or two well-known names which are recognised by the whole body of Non-conformists as outstanding names deserving absolute confidence and esteem. For instance, there are the names of Dr. Clifford, Dr. Jowett, and Dr. Scott Lidgett. They are all well known and recognised as Nonconformist leaders, apart from their connection with any particular Nonconformist body. I thought it an agreeable omen that Dr. Scott Lidgett's portrait appeared recently side by side with the portrait of the most rev. Primate. I will not mention any name in regard to Scotland, but in this connection I will refer to another point made by the most rev. Primate. He observed that in the case of these various bodies the President or Moderator for the time being generally held office for one year only. In view of what I have just stated about the distinctive recognition of notable persons, I do not think there is any real difficulty from the cause referred to by the most rev. Primate. Whether the representation should be by nomination of the Crown or by election by the bodies concerned I do not stop to inquire.
When I spoke of the coalescing of these bodies I meant to refer to one happy feature—the things they agree upon. There is one thing which is conspicuously absent, and that is anything like

807
hostility towards, or jealousy of, the Church of England. I think the noble Viscount alluded to a former period when he was accustomed in the House of Commons to hear allusions which would indicate a movement for Disestablishment. That seems to have vanished. I think that is a good sign. There has been something that is even more than a tendency towards the establishment if not of actual union yet of friendly co-operation. An instance of this was seen not long ago when there was a meeting at Lambeth of representatives of various denominations. A Joint Committee was formed, consisting of an equal number of Anglicans and Nonconformists. They met together to discuss the subject of unity. That could not have happened some time ago.
I am tempted to make one other reference and that is to the literary or journalistic phase. There is a Weil-known newspaper, the British Weekly, which is open, so to speak, to all opinions, and has, I am sure, a large circulation not only amongst Nonconformist circles but in Church of England homes and parsonages. All these things point to a certain facility in carrying out what is looked for and expected. In the Church of Scotland there was a special requirement that in any reform of the House of Lords that Church should be represented.
Let me allude to one other topic—namely, the admission of women to the House. My noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie has an Amendment on the Paper in this direction, and, therefore, I need not dilate upon it at any length now. But after all, this House has had what some people might regard as a narrow escape; I allude, of course, to the case of Lady Rhondda. The first Report of the Committee was reconsidered and overruled, but the ice has been broken and that crack cannot be frozen over permanently. I presume that in any further move for a reformed Chamber something will be heard of this new feature as well.
I agree with the noble Viscount that this debate has had its uses. Whatever may be said as to the form and shape of the Resolutions, it has paved the way for further steps in the future. Opinions have been elicited and it has brought out the difficulties, as well as the facilities, and, notwithstanding what the noble Viscount who has just sat down has said, I believe there is an expectation that something will be done. Lord Stuart of Wortley observed
808
that there is a favourable attitude at present towards this House on the part of the public. Is not that a reason for taking steps now rather than putting off the matter to a time when circumstances might be less favourable for a satisfactory settlement?
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I believe it will be interesting to some of your Lordships if I base what I have to say upon a few points in the constitution of the American Senate, a body which shares the renown of your Lordships' House and is the one outstanding instance in which the principle of election has been applied to the Second Chamber without cause for dissatisfaction. May I first remark, however, that here, and I believe also in Canada, we have a Second Chamber, the main justification of which lies in the very fact that it is not elected? We have a House of Commons who must, and should, and do, constantly have in mind their constituents, and we have here an Assembly, necessarily of slighter powers, composed of men who happen to be a very representative body of Englishmen on the whole, but who need not give any thought whatever to their constituents because they have none; and that is the main reason why your Lordships are attended to in the country as you are.
In America, upon the other hand, the principle of having two elected Chambers has been found acceptable. It is acceptable because it happens to be necessary. Your Lordships know quite well that the House of Representatives in America represents the whole people of the United States, unequally distributed as they are over a large number of States large and small, whereas the Senate represents those separate States, so that each of them, whether large or small, has two senators and no more. Formerly they were elected by the Legislature, but now they are elected by the whole people of the States, but the principle is the same. That was not an ingenious device for the purpose of constituting a Second Chamber, but it has still this abiding good result in so large and vast a country, that it prevents remote and thinly populated regions from being entirely overlooked. That is an advantage, but the real, and almost the sole, reason for this system lies in the fact that it was necessary to conciliate the claims of the people of the United States with the preexisting rights of a number of States, each of which jealously maintained its inde-

809
pendence of all the others. The only possible way of doing that was by the machinery which I have described. It was necessary because without it those States would never have come into the Union. It was the natural and the necessary basis upon which to found the Second Chamber.
But where there is no such natural basis for a system under which there are two elected Chambers it is, I submit, absolutely vain to try artificially to create such a basis, and I believe that other countries where it has been tried have found it so. I will refer in a moment to the powers possessed by the Senate, but let me here make one serious criticism on the Resolutions; Resolutions which the whole course of this debate has led me to welcome and which, in general, will demand most sympathetic consideration in Committee. I can understand all the rest of the Resolutions, but what I cannot understand is the proposal to put into this House an elected element. In order not to labour the point which Viscount Long of Wraxall has dealt with, may I say that I conceive that this proposal is a concession to fallacious ideas and to prejudices which died the moment the Parliament Act was passed? I see in it possibilities of many inconveniences, and I believe that these elected gentlemen would, in this House, be "neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring." That is the one part of the Resolutions which I regard with the greatest caution.
I pass now to the fact that the Senate of the United States possesses great powers which, conceivably, some members of this House might envy. Those powers, like its elected character, are justified by the necessity of the case and not by any desirable results they have produced. The States have their representatives sitting separately, and with full powers. The Senate has almost equal legislative powers with the other Chamber. When I say "almost equal" I mean that it is subject to this restriction, that it cannot initiate Money Bills, but it can, and does, amend Money Bills, and it plays a very lively part in the framing of miraculous tariffs. There is no means by which it could be made to give way to the other Chamber, and there is no tradition whatsoever that it ought ever to give way.
In addition, it has certain altogether peculiar powers of an executive kind. As your Lordships know, the President of the
810
United States is, during his term of office, virtually an irresponsible and irremovable officer, and there must therefore be some check upon him. Since he represents the people of the Union as a whole, the body to check him is necessarily the Senate, which represents the States. That accounts for the fact that it has a veto on all the most important appointments which he makes, and, as the Government of this country has occasionally found out, not altogether agreeably, it has an equal voice with him in the making of Treaties. This whole system, that which political philosophers once thought a perfect system on other grounds, exists simply because it had to be, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, which do not exist in this country.
I should like—I hope not at too great length—to enquire how these great powers actually work. There are, I think, two points to be noticed. The Senate always contains a number of eminent men. It is a great Assembly. There have been times when it has been very highly respected indeed; there have also been other times. I happen to have in my pocket the opinion of an extremely eminent American about the Senate in his day. It is an opinion I really cannot possibly read in any place where there are reporters present, and I would only suggest to your Lordships that you must not suppose, with all respect to our dignified colleagues in America, that the Senate is at all exempt from that reprobation which attaches in America to the word "politician." Nevertheless, it is a great and distinguished body, always containing eminent men. This fact, however, necessarily detracts from the quality, efficiency and estimation of the less popular Assembly. That is an effect for which nothing can compensate. You cannot have two bodies elected without one of them detracting from the quality of the other, though possibly it may be a mutually rendered service.
There is, however, a more important point than that. This whole system in America of checks and of balanced powers, which thwart one another until no one is held responsible for anything, and, at times, it seems as if nothing could ever be carried through except a job, works very well in times of crisis, when a sound public opinion is aroused; but normally it works very badly. None of your Lordships ever heard it said that the United States are better governed than this country, but

811
many Americans do say that this country is not only a better governed country than their own but is also a much more popularly governed country, a much more effective and living democracy, to use a word of which I am not very fond. The notorious political evils with which the great people of America gallantly and indefatigably contend, are largely, though by no means, of course, wholly, due to that Constitution. It is a Constitution devised by statesmen who dreaded popular government for States which were jealous of central government, and for a people which hated all government. The natural consequences followed, and, in this unfortunate system, so discouraging for the hopes of democracy, the great power of the Senate plays a very large part indeed. I hope that your Lordships do not really envy the great powers which your colleagues in the Senate possess.
To my mind, the most striking fact about this whole question of Second Chambers is that now, since the Parliament Act—not, I venture to think, before that Act—this House enjoys a universal respect and confidence enjoyed by no other Second Chamber in all the world, and is probably able to maintain and to safeguard that satisfactory and proud position. The authority of your Lordships' House, which I believe to have been greatly increased by the restriction of its former powers, is a growing authority. It is bound to grow as years go by, and it is almost wholly an authority for good. I believe that it would be the very greatest unwisdom to go further than these Resolutions go. It would be very unwise to renew bitter division in the country in the attempt to restore to any substantial degree powers which pretty well half of your Lordships' countrymen greatly resented when you had them, and which would be more, and not less, resented if any newly devised and differently constituted Second Chamber were to be set up.
You can improve the position of this House in some of the ways that have been indicated in this debate, but if you drag in the elective principle—save, possibly, as to the election of Peers by Peers, which I will not discuss now—you will surely convert this House into one for which nobody cares anything at all; and if you insist upon a very substantial increase of the powers of this House, to set up a bulwark against some supposed coming
812
revolution, I believe you will gain a capacity to provoke, but you will forfeit the growing power to restrain, to enlighten and to guide, public opinion. I apologise if I have spoken at all in the manner of one laying down the law to wiser persons than myself. I have only done so because my speech would be more prolonged if I put it in more deferential phrases. I would only respectfully, but if I may say so very earnestly, ask your Lordships to consider well both the high value and the causes of that unique position which you occupy to-day. It is a unique position among Assemblies of the kind, for your Lordships constitute the only great Assembly in the world, so far as I know, in which, as a rule, votes are determined by debate.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, as one of the comparatively few elected members of your Lordships' House I would like to say a few words. I was not in the House when Lord Willoughby de Broke made his speech, but have read the OFFICIAL REPORT and I agree with nearly every word of it, except the statement that he would have moved the adjournment of the debate for six months but for what friends of his had told him. I should in that case have moved for a Royal Commission, because it would have had exactly the same effect. During the thirty years that I have had the honour of being a member of the House I have many times heard comparisons made between the Parliamentary system of this country and those of other nations. I have heard the subject discussed both by our own people and by foreigners, and always I have heard it stated that, whatever faults it may have, the House of Lords was the very best Second Chamber in the world. And I always understood that that was agreed.
I have not, seen any appeal made for the reform of this House that had any weight behind it. Lord Newton was in favour of a reduction in numbers, and he gave us an account of how, if the present rate of creating Peerages continued, there would soon not be room in this Chamber for them. He also stated that so far as he could observe all the recently created Peers came here, took their seats, and apparently had no disposition or intention of returning to the House again. If that were so the overcrowding would not have been so dangerous. As regards the taxpayer, whether the numbers of this House are large or small it

813
will make very little difference. It is quite different in another Chamber, where every additional member is an additional pull upon the pocket of the taxpayer.
Many of your Lordships may remember that for many years I was a very constant attendant in this House, and took my full share in the debates. For some years I have not been able to attend, through ill-health and other circumstances, and lately I found myself called a backwoods Peer. There are other members of the House who have had seats in the House much longer than I have—men who have held important posts in the Government and great offices of State but who are not now attending the House, because of infirmity and the difficulties of travel. I am sure that all those Peers take a keen interest in what is going on, and that if it was physically possible they would be in their places whenever any important matter came before your Lordships' House, to give you the benefit of their long experience and knowledge. I do not think it would be fair to call such people backwoods Peers, and if anything happened to deprive this House of their services it would not tend to the efficiency of the House. I do not think it has been stated during this debate that there is any real desire for the so-called reform of the House of Lords.
There is a piece of information which I am very anxious to get. In May, 1909, I put a Question in this House as to the practice of collecting Duties and Taxes, and, if they were not paid, of taking proceedings against the people who owed them, as soon as the Budget for the year was published and before even the Finance Act had reached the House. As a result, I understand, of the debate on that day, instructions were given not to take proceedings. Three years afterwards, Mr. Gibson Bowles took proceedings against the Bank of England for having deducted Income Tax from certain dividends. The Bank based their Income Tax on the new Budget, and Mr. Bowles won his case.
What I am very anxious to know, is this; Putting the Parliament Act on one side, is there any Act that empowered the House of Commons to claim that all Finance Acts or Bills should be initiated there, and which said that the House of Lords had no right to deal with them? If there is not such an Act, and I am informed that the practice which now prevails is based only on a Resolution of the
814
House of Commons itself, similar to the one I have just mentioned relating to Duties and Taxes, it shows that your Lordships have had that constitutional right for very many years, and you have never desired to exercise it. It shows certainly that this House has never had any intention of being antagonistic to the House of Commons, and that its only wish has been to carry out the wishes of the people as far as was in its power.
As Viscount Long said, I think there is no choice between an hereditary House of Lords and an elected Second Chamber, but I do hold that if your Second Chamber is to be impartial and to treat matters in a judicial form, as your Lordships have always done, the members of that Second Chamber should be elected for life. Nobody would ever dream of electing our Judges for a term of years and of requiring them afterwards to seek re-election.
LORD STRATHSPEY: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate, but I am still not in sympathy with these proposed reforms. At the same time, I wish that the noble Viscount who introduced these Resolutions had given us rather ampler details. For instance, it is proposed that the reformed House should consist of 350 members, and it would be interesting to know what proportions would be allotted to England, Scotland, and Ireland. There are many other details which might have been given to which we should have listened with interest. I quite agree with what more than one noble Lord has said in the course of this debate about the influence which this House exercises in the country, but I will go further and say that it wields a great influence throughout the whole Empire. One might almost say that in some places the attitude towards it becomes almost reverential.
I am a New Zealander, and I may be pardoned for suggesting that, if there is any reform required, it might be in the direction of giving an opportunity to other parts of the Empire. After the war was over several British generals received Peerages for their eminent services. I have not a word to say against any of them. They did their work nobly, and, if anything, the reward which they received fell below what, they had deserved of their country. But, at the same time, I think some of our generals front the Dominions

815
ought to have been given Peerages and seats in this House. That would have been a courteous and gracious act, and it would have met with appreciation. Whether or not it is too late now I do not know, but I think all the Dominions have well earned the privilege of being represented in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suggest that the debate be resumed on Monday.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned to Monday.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920 (SPECIAL ORDERS).
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, there are five Resolutions on the Paper to confirm Special Orders of the Board of Trade under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. Three of these are unopposed, and those that have been opposed have been amended and satisfactory terms have been arrived at. I beg to move, and to ask that, with your Lordships' permission, they be taken en bloc.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Atherton Urban District Council, which was presented on the 20th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Eye, which was presented on the 12th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Kidsgrove Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 18th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Truro Gas Company, which was presented on the 18th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Company, which was presented on the 10th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, there are a number of Motions standing in my name relating to Special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners. All of them are non-contentious and agreed measures. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Urban Electric Supply Company, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Alderley and Wilmslow Electric Supply, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Isle of Wight Elec-

817
tric Light and Power Company, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which Edmundson's Electricity Corporation, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending the Lymington Electric Lighting Order, 1899, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Caerphilly in the, County of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Caerleon,
818
the parishes of Christchurch and Nash in the rural district of Magor, and the parish of Saint Woollos and parts of the parishes of Bettws, Duffryn, and Malpas in the rural district of Saint Mellons, all in the County of Monmouth, and for the amendment of the Newport (Mon.) Electric Lighting Order, 1891, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the parish of Cookham in the rural district of Cookham in the County of Berks, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Atherstone, the parish of Caldecote in the rural district of Nuneaton and the parishes of Amington and Stonydelph Bolehall and Glascote Shuttington and Wilncote and Castle Liberty in the rural district of Tamworth, all in the County of Warwick, and the parishes of Higham-on-the-Hill and Stoke Golding in the rural district of Hinckley, and the parishes of Fenny Drayton and Witherley in the rural district of Market Bosworth, all in the County of Leicester, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CELLULOID AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILM BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow.
SAINT MARYLEBONE BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
STAFFORDSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
HAMPSHIRE RIVERS FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
TAW AND TORRIDGE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
TOWY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9)) BILL.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (on recommitment) (which stands appointed for this day) put off sine die.