Sitting of 26 July 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that, the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Private Bills,
Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended until the Summer Adjournment.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if Unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if Opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PASSPORTS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for
  430
  Foreign Affairs under what Statute he refuses passports to British subjects, against whom no criminal proceedings are pending, who may desire to leave the realm for foreign countries with which His Majesty is at peace upon their lawful occasions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): No statutory authority exists for the grant or refusal of British passports, which are matters within the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, exercising the Royal prerogative in this regard.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who gave those powers to the Secretary of State? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this practically means that he has power to prohibit British subjects going abroad if he wishes? From where does he derive those powers?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: They are powers inherent in the Royal prerogative.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think we need some further explanation. Is this not giving power to some officials in the hon. Gentleman's office to prohibit people from travelling on their lawful occasions? Is it not out of the question to talk of the Royal prerogative? It is a matter for Parliament, surely.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is misinformed.

  TRANSCAUCASIAN REPUBLIC.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether agreements have been signed with the Transcaucasian Republic regarding postal, telegraph, railway and consular matters; whether these agreements contained any reference to oil; and will he publish the full text of these agreements?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have entered into no such agreements as those mentioned in the first part of the question; the second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. MALONE: Have the Government entered into any agreement at all with those Governments?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Certainly not in regard to any of these commercial arrangements to which the hon. Member refers.

  KING CONSTANTINE (RECOGNITION).
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Kingdom of Greece is still without full official recognition at the Court of St. James?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The decision not to recognise King Constantine was taken in conjunction with our Allies on political grounds. Nothing has since occurred that has disposed the Allies to modify their policy in this regard.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Is it simply a case of our Allies objecting to King Constantine?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must have notice of any further questions.
  Mr. A. HERBERT: Were the representatives of King Constantine at Genoa recognised, and is it not futile to recognise the representatives of a monarch without recognising the monarch himself?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not all important that we should co-operate entirely with our Allies in this question?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards any further questions, perhaps hon. Members will give me notice.

  TANGIER.
  Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a date has yet been fixed for the meeting of the British, Spanish and French plenipotentiaries to discuss the status of Tangier; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of the date of the Conference is under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the French and Spanish Governments.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    AIRCRAFT.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many aeroplanes, seaplanes, and pilots are at present with the China, East Indies and North American squadrons, respectively, or available for immediate service with those squadrons?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): No aircraft are at present with these squadrons. All fleet aircraft will be available for service in any Waters as aircraft. carriers become available.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are steps being taken to supply these squadrons which are designed and placed for operating on wide stretches of sea where aeroplanes are of vital import?
    Mr. AMERY: We are pushing forward aircraft carriers.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are not the cruisers on these foreign stations permitted and able to carry their own aircraft, as in the War?
    Mr. AMERY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please give me notice?
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the types of aeroplane which have to be engaged by a fighting aeroplane at sea; whether any other duties are required of such a. machine and when were the lighting aeroplanes now in use in the Royal Navy constructed?
    Mr. AMERY: The types of aircraft which it is expected righting aeroplanes would have to engage at sea at the present time are as follows—other fighters, bombing, reconnaissance, torpedo and spotting aircraft, seaplanes and flying boats. They would also attack the enemy as and when opportunity offered. The information asked for in the last part of the question not in the possession of the Admiralty.
    Viscount CURZON: Does my hon. Friend think six fighters plus three without pilots are sufficient to discharge these duties of the Navy?
    Mr. AMERY: That is, a matter to be discussed on the Votes.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Amiralty whether there is now at sea or capable of being worked at sea in the Royal Navy or the Navy of any other country in the world, so far as the information at the disposal of the Admiralty is concerned, an aeroplane capable of sinking one of our capital ships by either bomb or torpedo?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the negative.

    SHIPS' BOATS.
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the Government will be willing to hand over a proportion of the ships' boats which are surplus to likely requirements to approved units, such as sea cadets, sea scouts, etc., at a nominal rent, so that instead of creating an unremunerative expense they might be doing a valuable national service?
    Mr. AMERY: Twenty-nine boats have already been lent, free of charge, to various recognised units of the Sea Cadet Corps. Applications for these boats must be dealt with on their merits, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Admiralty will give all assistance within their power to recognised organisations.
    Viscount CURZON: Is it not a. fact that it would require a certain expenditure to put most of these boats into a serviceable conditions? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will not enter into any expense in respect to the supply of these boats?
    Sir A. BENN: If there are boats out of repair, are they going to be kept in that condition or put into repair?
    Mr. AMERY: I do not think we should incur unnecessary expense in the matter.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that many men were invalided from the Royal Navy during the War from accidents or from physical breakdown; if such will receive the full rate of prize money as if they had been able to serve through the 30 months; and if this will apply to pre-War invalids who were called up and again invalided on service?
    Mr. AMERY: The Prize Proclamation provides that the maximum rates of prize money which could have been earned by service shall be allowed, irrespective of the actual time served at sea, in all cases in which, before completion of the qualifying period, officers and men were invalided or certified as medically fit for shore service only as a result of wounds or injuries sustained whilst on qualifying service, and that a similar rate shall he allowed in cases in which officers and men were invalided on account of disease attributable to, the service, provided that at least 10 months' qualifying service had been rendered. Prize money being a grant in respect of sea. service only, this concession cannot be applied to all those invalided, regardless of whether they rendered qualifying service or not.

    WAR MEDALS (CLASPS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that it has been stated that the Government are unable to resume the issue of clasps to the fighting services at present; whether, in view of this decision, there is any objection to officers and men providing clasps at their own expense when they are entitled to them; and will he state what clasps are issued to the Navy?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the matter is now under consideration. The conditions which will govern the award of Naval Clasps are given in Admiralty Weekly Order 2051/1920.
    Viscount CURZON: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very considerable discontent that exists throughout the Royal Navy at the discontinuance, of the issue of clasps; and will he bear this in mind when he is further considering the matter, whether officers can buy these at their own private expense?
    Mr. AMERY: That. is being considered.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the enormous staff of the Admiralty doing if they cannot issue clasps at 30 per cent. more than pre-War?
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: If they wear these clasps, do they wear them at their own risk?

    NEW BATTLESHIPS.
    Sir S. ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to announce the decision of the Government as to the advancement of the date. for the commencement of the two new battleships?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No, Sir. The subject is under consideration, but no decision has yet been taken.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it possible to give one of these ships to Plymouth?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Royal dockyards had a chance of tendering for these two battleships?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer without notice. Questions of that kind should be addressed to the representatives of the Admiralty.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the decision of the Government be announced before the Recess?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope so. I cannot make a definite promise.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ROTHERHAM (WAGES DISPUTE).
    Major KELLEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there has been for now six months a dispute as to the rate of wages to be paid at the Cauklow Pit, Rotherham; that this is a very serious matter for a large number of workers and their families; and can he take any steps to try and bring the parties concerned together and see if some understanding can be come to?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that one of the pits of the Rotherham Main Colliery, known as the Canklow Pit., has been closed since February last as a result of a dispute on the question of piece-workers rates. I have no direct information as to the present position, though I understand from the Press that negotiations are now going on. I am, however, making inquiries, and will communicate the result to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

    EAST PLEAN COLLIERY.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary for Mines whether any special action is being taken in respect of the disaster at East Plean Colliery?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The mine has been visited by the Deputy Chief Inspector and the Divisional Inspector for Scotland, and his staff have been in constant attendance there. Before deciding what action, if any, is necessary, I am awaiting the result of the inquiry in Scotland held by the Sheriff under the Fatal Accidents Act, at which the facts will be thoroughly investigated.

    EXPORTS (UNITED STATES).
    Major KELLEYasked the Secretary for Mines what total tonnage of British coal has been ordered for the United States; what is the average price for this coal at the British port; and what are the coalfields in which the principal orders have been placed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no information on this subject Beyond that. published in the Press. No contracts are being made through the Mines Department.

    COAL PRICES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the rise in price of certain classes of coal following upon the increased demand for supplies from America arising out of the labour troubles there; and whether, having regard to the strong discontent caused by such action, he will have the matter inquired into?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not understand to whom my lion, and gallant Friend attributes discontent, or what he wants me to inquire into. That a sudden increase in the demand for a commodity should lead, temporarily, at any rate, to an increase in its price, seems to me a perfectly natural phenomenon.
    Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in consequence of the strike 100,000 tons of Welsh coal is now being shipped to America; is he also aware that the consequence of the demand from America has been to pot up the price of coal in this country, and is he of opinion there is any necessity for that, and will he kindly have the matter inquired into?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decrease in price at the pit-head was not followed by a decrease in the price charged to the consumer?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that arises out of the question. In regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, I am quite aware that shipments are being made to America, but I do not see anything unnatural in that.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the large amount of uncertainty existing as to the benefits payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts on account of six different Acts having been passed in three years, he will state in explicit terms the benefits which are now payable in the current year and what contributions are required to secure the same; and whether, in estimating existing credits, regard is had to the whole of the contributions made since the claimant first became an insured person?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Leaflets for the information of claimants for uncovenanted benefit are obtainable at Employment Exchanges. A revised leaflet embodying the changes made by the Act passed on 20th July is on the point of issue, and I will send a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend. Arrangements are also made, by means of simply worded posters and otherwise, to bring the conditions for benefit to the notice of applicants. With regard to the last part of the question, the whole of the contributions paid by an insured person (and not already exhausted by benefit) are in general taken into account; and during the fourth special period, 2nd November, 1922, to 1st July, 1923, no account will be taken of benefit drawn between the 7th November, 1920, and the 2nd November, 1922, in determining whether contributions have been exhausted by benefit.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the revised tables be available before the House rises?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have an unrevised copy in my hand. I should think so. I hope the hon. Member will look them through with me.

    WOMEN AND GIRLS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 22,540 women and girls drawing benefit or on the gap in the Greater London area, upon the latest computation, have themselves Contributed their proper quota under the Unemployment insurance scheme; and when he proposes to relieve the scarcity of domestic servants in good houses, where good wages are offered, by making a rule that in future no benefit should be paid to non-contributors unless exceptional circumstances are shown?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not possible to indicate how many of the women and girls now drawing benefit have not contributed at all to the Unemployment Fund. Such number, however, must be very small, having regard to the conditions for the receipt of uncovenanted benefit, namely, that the applicant must show that she is normally in insurable employment and genuinely seeking full time employment. As indicated in the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 5th July, applicants who are suitable for, and refuse, domestic service would not be granted Unemployment Benefit. Other special conditions are imposed on the payment of uncovenanted benefit; payment is limited to cases where the title and necessities are proved beyond doubt. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the leaflet which sets out these conditions in detail.

    EXPLOSIVES, BREAKING-UP (WAGES).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given in the trial arising out of the Tipton explosion, to the effect that workers received only 8d. for three days' work; whether there is no trade board regulating the payment of wages in the handling of explosives; and whether, in view of the extremely low wages which appear to be paid, he will institute an inquiry with the object of establishing a trade board in this industry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Statements have appeared in the Press to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question. The wages of workpeople handling explosives are not governed by a trade board. If the hon. Member is in a position to satisfy me that there is reason to believe that the rate of wages prevailing in the trade in question or in any branch of that trade is unduly low as compared with those in other employments, and that no adequate machinery exists for the effective regulation of wages throughout the trade, I shall be prepared further to consider the suggestion.
    Mr. MALONE: Is it not the duty of the Minister of Health to inquire into these matters?
    Mr. WATERSON: Are not the wages that these people were receiving sufficient justification for the Ministry acting straight away?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The information I have got is from statements in the Press. I have no information beyond that.
    Mr. WATERSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the necessity of making some inquiries into these statements, either to repudiate them or to say that they are correct?
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is it a fact that they had 6½d. a day?

    PRINTING TRADE DISPUTE.
    Major KELLEYasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement on the strike of compositors and whether in future proceedings by an industrial court both parties to a dispute will be asked to declare their willingness to accept the findings of the court?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is important that a full statement should be made, and I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will, of course, send him a copy. On the last part of the question, I desire to say at once that I do not think it necessary to make the arrangements suggested, because unless willingness to abide by the decision of the arbitration court be a prior assumption in all cases, arbitration
    440
    is useless as a method of settling industrial disputes.
    Following is the statement:
    The compositors who are on strike are members of the Typographical Association employed in general printing works and in newspaper publishing works in the Provinces and in Wales and Belfast. Negotiations between the Master Printers' Association and the Newspaper Society, on the one hand, and a number of trade unions, on the other, for a reduction of wages has led to a settlement in the case of a number of unions. In the case of the Typographical Association, however, no agreement was reached. The employers had posted notices of a, reduction and a stoppage of work was imminent, when, on a, suggestion by the Chief Labour Adviser of the Ministry, the parties agreed to refer the differences to the Industrial Court for settlement in the following terms:
    "We agree that the question of a wage reduction in the printing industry as affecting the members of the Typographical Association employed by members of the Federation of Master Printers of the -United Kingdom and the Newspaper Society shall be referred to the Industrial Court for settlement on the following terms of reference:
    Should there be a reduction in the wages of the members of the Typographical Association. If so, what amount and how any such reduction should he divided, and at what dates?"
    At the Industrial Court, and again subsequent to the issue of the award, the Typographical Association stated that they would not and did not regard the proceedings at the Court. as a settlement of the dispute, and that, in any case, they had announced their intention to refer the decision of the Court to a ballot vote of their members, a point they had not. raised in any way prior to their agreement to refer the dispute to the Court for settlement.
    On the first point of their statement, it was only because the employers accepted a reference to the Court as a settlement that they (the employers) consented to withdraw their notices instead of suspending them. The meaning of the reference to the Industrial Court for settlement was explained to the Typographical Association, and the other unions who were present during the discussions have recognised that the decision of the Court was to be regarded as a

    441
    final settlement of the dispute. As the result, however, of an adverse ballot, the Typographical Association have repudiated the decision of the Court.
    Reference to the Industrial Court or the alternative forms of arbitration provided under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, can only be made by the joint consent of the. parties, but if the purpose of the Act is not to he stultified the decision of the Court must be final. I do not think it necessary to make the arrangements suggested in the last part of the question, because unless willingness to abide by the decision of the Arbitration Court is a prior assumption in all cases, arbitration is useless as a method of settling industrial disputes.

  HOUSING.

    OFFICIAL ORGAN OF MINISTRY.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the publication "Housing," the official organ of the Ministry of Health's Housing Department, issued on 10th May, 1920, it was stated that, according to the survey made by local authorities under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1919, their gross needs for houses were 851,885 and their net needs 796,514: and whether any subsequent survey has been made and, if so, with what result?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am aware of these figures. They were given upon a preliminary examination of the survey, and they must be read in the light of the reservations contained in the covering article in the publication referred to. As I have previously stated, I do not think there would be any advantage in calling for a further survey by local authorities at the present time.
    Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he discredits these figures—be has several times said that they are not reliable—if he has had no survey taken since?
    Sir A. MONO: You have to look into the figures, and see on what basis 300,000 houses- were put down as unfit. It is a matter of argument how many houses are fit or unfit. With regard to questions of effective demand, I do not
    442
    want to enter into controversy at the present time, but a great deal can be said on the question of what effective demand means. It depends very much upon the figures put. down by the local authority and the medical officer of health.
    Mr. THOMSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the local authorities know their own business and their needs better than he does?
    Sir A. MOND: It depends on whether the local authority or somebody else is paying for it.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: is this not a question of how much money people have, and what they are prepared to pay for houses, rather than a matter of counting heads? If it is a question of counting heads, we are shorter of motor cars than of houses.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the promise to the House by the Prime Minister on 21st July, 1921, that not a single house less would be built in consequence of the change in the Government's housing policy which he then announced, there has been a reduction in the number of men employed in building houses under assisted schemes from 148,026 in,July, 1921, to 66,651 in June. 1922: and what further steps do the Government. propose to take to fulfil their promise that no fewer houses would be built as the result of their changed policy?
    Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the figures quoted in the first part of the question. As regards the second part I can add nothing at present to the statements on housing policy which I have made to the House on previous occasions.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say anything before the House rises, in view of the increasing shortage that will take place during the next three months?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it requires many fewer men now to build houses than it did when the Government scheme was introduced?
    Sir A. MOND: I know of the reduced number of men required, and that the position is much improved. As regards the question of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West, I cannot give any undertaking.

    MILK (ADULTERATION).
    Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Health the number of prosecutions instituted in England and Wales in respect of the sale of milk for the last complete year for which figures are available, with the number of cases in which added adulteration was the nature of the charge, and the number of cases in which the milk was below the recognised percentage in fat contents, with the corresponding figures for the year 1913?
    Sir A. MOND: I regret that. I have no figures available as to the number of prosecutions instituted in England and Wales in respect of the adulteration of milk. In 1921 the number of samples of milk certified as adulterated or not up to standard was 5,290 out of 61,439 samples taken compared with 5,533 out of 52,304 in 1913. I am unable to give separate figures for the different forms of adulteration.

    PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION AND RATING).
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Minister of Health whether a Committee of the Cabinet has been appointed upon the question of the valuation and rating of public utility undertakings; whether evidence is being taken; and, if so, what means have been adopted to obtain representative evidence on behalf of water, gas, electricity, tramways and light railways, hospitals, sewage disposal works and other public utility undertakings?
    Sir A. MOND: The valuation of public utility undertakings was, of course, included among the questions considered by the Cabinet Committee on Valuation and Rating Reform, but in view of the mass of evidence previously accumulated by the Royal Commission and the Departmental Committee there was no need to obtain further representative evidence on behalf of these undertakings.

    COCAINE
    Dr. M'DONALDasked the Minister of Health if he will now supply the House with the answers received in reply to his inquiries forwarded to the medical and dental profession concerning the necessity or otherwise of the use of cocaine?
    Sir A. MOND: I am satisfied from inquiries that have been made that cocaine is essential to the medical profession, particularly in ophthalmic surgery and laryngology. As regards dental surgery, although dental surgeons are not unanimous, there are many who regard cocaine as essential for certain dental operations.

    ARSENIC.
    Dr. M'DONALDasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the fact that large quantities of arsenic can be obtained from chemists by individuals merely signing a poison hook, he will take steps to discontinue this practice?
    Sir A. MOND: The sale of arsenic is governed by Sections 1 and 2 of the Arsenic Act, 1851, and by Section 17 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868. It would require further legislation, which will be considered, to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the pension officers in several districts are recommending for total discontinuance or for drastic reduction the old age pensions of distressed gentlewomen who are ending their days in homes, and giving to the home their old age pension plus a contribution from some relative or friend: is he aware that the effect of such action means that the aged gentlewomen will have to go to the workhouse and become a charge on the ratepayers; and will he consent to receive a deputation on the subject?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will have inquiry made and communicate with him again.
    Colonel NEWMAN: I have put this question to the Minister of Health, who has all the particulars. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health for the particulars, and save me a little trouble?
    Mr. YOUNG: Let me assure the hon. Member that this does not concern the Ministry of Health.

    UNOCCUPIED PROPERTY (BATING).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the heavy additional burdens which have been thrown on the ratepayer, he has considered whether unoccupied property should be called on to make some contribution to the rates?
    Sir A. MONO: I have given this matter careful consideration, but I do not feel that I can make any proposal for legislation on the subject.

    MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (VOLUNTARY BOARDERS).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health how many voluntary hoarders entered licensed houses and registered hospitals, respectively, in England and Wales during the year 1921; how many left of their own accord in each case without being certified; and whether any protection is afforded by the Lunacy Act for voluntary boarders in registered hospitals against the risk of finding themselves certified without their knowledge of such certification?
    Sir A. MOND: Three hundred and fifteen voluntary boarders entered licensed houses and 330 entered registered hospitals in 1921. During that year 194 voluntary boarders left licensed houses and 227 left registered hospitals of their own accord. Unless a patient is suffering from mental disorder of so acute a character that he is unable to appreciate what is taking place it is practically impossible for him to be certified without his knowledge, as the hon. Member will see by referring to the procedure laid down by Sections 4, 8 and 28 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are being
    446
    certified for lunacy who know nothing about it? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Sir A. MOND: Unless the patient's mental condition is such that he is unable to appreciate what is taking place, it is impossible for him to he certified without his knowledge.

    ASYLUMS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Minister of Health if the Departmental Committee set up to inquire into the charges made by Dr. Montagu Lomax, in his book, "Experiences of an Asylum Doctor," has finished its work of inquiry; and, if so, has it published a -Report of its findings?
    Sir A. MOND: I have received the Report and I hope to issue it before the House rises.

    POOR LAW SCHOOLS (INSPECTION).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether any women inspectors of his Department are employed in visiting private schools in various parts of the country; if so, will he state what are the duties of such inspectors on such school visits; how many of his inspectors are employed on this work; what is the approximate yearly cost; and whether these inspections are made under any arrangements with the Board of Education?
    Sir A. MOND: The only private schools inspected by six women inspectors of my Department are schools which receive children chargeable to the Poor Law authorities. There are 217 schools certified under the Poor Law Certified Schools Act, 1862, for this purpose. They are usually in the nature of small orphanages. The inspection is directed to the administration of the schools and the general well-being of the children. The educational side of the work is inspected by officers of the Board of Education. I regret that it is not possible to give the approximate annual cost of this part of the work of the officers in question.

  IRELAND.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the pension of William Brown, ex-Royal Irish Constabulary, which was due on the let of July, has not yet been paid; and whether he will make further inquiries into the causes of the delay in the payment of pensions?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I regret that on the information given in the question it is not possible to identify this case, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of this man's rank and service, I shall be happy to make inquiries.
    Captain CRAIGasked the. Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that ex-Head Constable George Fails, Royal Irish Constabulary, has not yet received his pension for either June or July, although that for June was payable on the first day of that month; whether he will see that this pension is paid at once, as Head Constable Fails has been put to considerable expense in removing his home from the station to which he was attached while serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether he will take steps to expedite the payment of pensions generally, the delay in paying which is causing considerable hardship amongst ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that ex-Head Constable Fails was paid his pension for June on the 10th June through the Northern Banking Company, Belfast: and that a draft for his July pension was despatched to him on the 5th instant. The second part of the question does not therefore arise; as regards the last part of the question every effort is being made to expedite the payment of these pensions.

    MOTOR CAR (SEIZURE IN SLIGO.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 31st January, 1922, a Ford motor car, belonging to Mr. J. Betts Horrell, late district inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, was taken by armed men from a garage in Sligo at which the car had been
    448
    left by Mr. Horrell for certain repairs; that it was necessary under the Regulations for Mr. Horrell to be possessed of a serviceable motor car; that Mr. Horrell lodged a claim for compensation on 16th March last, and that, in spite of numerous letters asking that the matter might he dealt with, nothing has yet been done beyond a statement being sent him that the question was under consideration; and whether he will take steps to have this claim heard and disposed of by the proper authority at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am advised that, as this was a case of larceny, no claim would lie under the Criminal Injury Acts. The possibility of making an ex gratiâ grant by way of compensation is now under consideration.
    Captain CRAIG: Has not sufficient time elapsed for the Government to have come to a decision on the matter, seeing that the car was stolen in January last?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The law governing this is the same in Ireland as in England. The question of granting public money in special cases in Ireland is a matter for serious consideration, but it is being sympathetically considered.
    Captain CRAIG: Seeing that this motor car was in effect part of this officer's equipment, is he not entitled to compensation just as he would have been had he had any other part of his equipment taken from him in a fight or ambush or anything of that sort?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot accept the facts as stated by my hon. and gallant. Friend. I understand that the officer was disbanded when his car was stolen from the garage.
    Captain CRAIG: It was before the disbandment.

    COMPENSATION.
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to lay upon the Table of the House his communication to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland referring t o the question of compensation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I am not yet in a position to do so.
    Mr. MURRAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that nine days have passed since he told the House that he would lay this Paper and that it would be in the hands of the Provisional Government? How long has it taken to place the Paper in the hands of the Provisional Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that there was some further delay before it was settled, but I hope to be able to lay it. before the House rises.

    FREE STATE (CITIZENSHIP).
    Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether Article 3 of the Draft Constitution of the Irish Free State which creates a foreign subject of any Englishman, or Scotsman, or Welshman who has at the date of the Constitution coming into operation not been domiciled for seven years in the area c f the Irish Free State conflicts with the oath to be taken under Clause 4 of the Articles of Agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland which swears true faith and allegiance in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Article 3 of the Draft Constitution of the Irish Free State does not create a foreign subject of an Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman who has at the date of the Constitution coming into operation not been domiciled for seven years in the area of the Irish Free State, but leaves his nationality as a British subject unaffected. The latter part of the question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. MURRAY: Does it not create foreign subjects of British subjects in the Irish Free State?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Mr. MURRAY: After all the investigations which he has made into the subject during the last few weeks, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Clause 3 of the draft Constitution should be amended, and will he communicate with the Provisional. Government to bring it into line with the Constitution of Canada, on which this Constitution is supposed to be modelled?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Those who have gone into this matter with great attention do not think that there is any impropriety or inconsistency in the arrangement proposed.
    Mr. MURRAY: Does he not think that it conflicts with the main lines of the Constitution, which are said to be based upon the Constitution of Canada, as such provisions are not contained in the Constitution of Canada?

    TRADE SPIRITS.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any agreed definition has been reached by the Powers signatory to the convention of St. Germain as to what constitutes trade spirits for the purposes of that convention; and whether he is aware that in practice to-day varying interpretations are being adopted by the several Powers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative. I would add, however, that the differences in practice in the various countries relate mainly to borderline cases and not to the bulk of the trade.

  PALESTINE.

    MURDER OF MISS LOMAX.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the murderers of Miss Lomax, who was murdered at her residence near the Garden Tomb, Jerusalem, on the 29th May, 1921, were sentenced to death and subsequently liberated; and, if so, will he state the reason for this?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The murderer of Miss Lomax was executed on the 17th December, 1921.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whether he was or was not, he is still alive and well to-day?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That appears to me. to he a very important statement, and I shall be glad to have the evidence on which it is based.

    IMPRISONMENT (JAMES NORTHROP, AT ACRE).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that James Northrop, a British subject and an ex-sergeant major in the Royal Army Service Corps, against whom a charge of fraudulent conversion was made, of which he was subsequently acquitted, was detained in prison for 18 days at Acre; whether Northrop was confined with prisoners of all sorts, including native Bedouin and Russian Jews, in a common cell with as many, at times, as 38 prisoners of whom Northrop was the only white man; whether the manager of one of the biggest British firms in Palestine offered to stand bail for him, which was refused; and whether he is able to make any statement on this incident which will allay the feelings of the British Colony in Palestine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a fact that James Northrop was on remand in Acre Prison from the 18th November, 1921, until the 2nd December of that year. I called for a report upon the incident on the 6th May. The reply received from the officer administering the Government of Palestine did not give all the information required, and in a further despatch, dated the 24th June, to which no reply has yet been received, I called for further details. A telegraphic reminder has now been sent to the High Commissioner, and upon the receipt of his reply I shall be happy to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.

    SOLDIERS' HOMES AND HOSPITALS (MALTA).
    Sir J. RANDLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to give security to those responsible for soldiers' homes, hospitals, seamen's rests, and such buildings as have been erected on lands held from the War Department. in Malta, but who, under the recent arbitration, are liable to be disturbed by the civil authority; and will he see that under the new arrangements there shall be no interference with these institutions such as would be adverse to what are the general interests of British subjects not resident in Malta?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The responsible Government of Malta may be trusted to deal with the authorities in charge of these institutions in an equitable spirit.
    Sir J. RANDLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to anticipate that there will be any deviation from the terms of the lease because the civil. Government have taken it instead of the War Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I should not think so, but I will sec that this question and answer are for warded to the Governor of Malta in order that he may have the matter in mind.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    TURKEY.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister whether the question of a new Turkish Peace Treaty will be discussed by him with M. Poincaré in London next week?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in a position to say anything with regard to the subjects which may be discussed when M. Poincaré visits this country.

    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister where the next International Conference will be held; who will be invited; and what will be the agenda?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only International Conference. if it can be so described, at present in prospect. is the visit which the French President of the Council proposes to pay to London next week. It is hoped that other Allied Governments will be represented. No definite agenda has so far been drawn up.
    Mr. MALONE: Has any reply been received from Italy yet?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: (live me notice, please.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister whether either of the two Committees at present investigating the relations of the three fighting Services has under its terms of reference any power to make recommendations affecting the

    453
    Government's declaration that the unity and integrity of the Air Force is to be maintained?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The decision of the Cabinet was not referred to the Committees. The Committees have only to advise how the decisions of the Cabinet can be best carried out.
    Captain BENN: The question Ts whether there is any doubt about the pledge given by the Government to maintain the integrity and unity of the Air Force.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government decision was not referred to those Committees at all. They were asked to make recommendations on certain aspects of the question, with a view to carrying out the Government decision.

    CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister what staff is at present solely under the control of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and how much of the staff of the Irish Office is under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; what Minister or Ministers will be responsible under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, for representing Northern Ireland in the British Parliament, and under the new Irish Constitution for representing Southern Ireland; and when he expects these arrangements to be complete and the office of Chief Secretary to lapse?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The staff of the Irish Office, the R.I.C. Office, and the R.I.C. Re-settlement Office, are under the control of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, as are also the staff now administering the Ex-Service Men's (Ireland) Grant. In so far, however, as the officials of the first-named office are engaged upon questions arising out of the Treaty and the establishment of the Irish Free State, they also advise my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. I anticipate that when the Irish Free State has been established, any matters arising therein which may require the attention of the Imperial Government or Parliament will be dealt with, as in the case of the other self-governing Dominions, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The nature of the relation
    454
    between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Imperial Government must depend upon the action, if any, taken by the Northern Government under Article 12 of the Treaty. As regards the last part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Captain BENN: What fraction of his former duties is still performed by the Chief Secretary? Would a small fraction justify the continuance of his appointment?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot enter into fractional calculations, but it certainly is, in our opinion, necessary for the present to have a Minister in the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is impossible to charge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies with all the duties now discharged by the Chief Secretary as well as those which he himself performs.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Kettering Board of Guardians relative to disability pension of ex-service men still unfit for work, and the complaint that, owing to the attitude of the Government on this matter, local authorities are compelled to meet liabilities that should be regarded as a national charge; whether he has considered this question in the light of the great burdens local authorities are now suffering under, with a view of relieving them of those liabilities that are essentially national as a result of the War; and will he state the intention of the Government in this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware of the resolution referred to, which appears to be based on a misapprehension of the objects and conditions of the award of disability pension. Under the terms of the Royal Pension Warrants, pension is awarded in accordance with the medical judgment of the extent of disablement sustained by

    455
    the man in his war service, regardless of whether or not the pensioner or claimant is at work and earning. Such factors as earning capacity or the state of the labour market were expressly excluded, with the approval of Parliament, from consideration for pension purposes. All disabled men in receipt of pension are examined periodically, and their pensions are increased or reduced according to the condition of their several disablements. Where a pension is reduced or discontinued, the man has, in all cases, a right of appeal, if he is dissatisfied with the decision, to either another medical board or to one or other of the independent statutory Tribunals of Appeal which have been set up by Parliament. Moreover, medical treatment for those war disabilities which are still amenable to treatment is still being given freely by my Department at a cost of over £10,000,000 a year.

    LONDON NEUROLOGICAL CLINIC.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether any representations have been made to the Ministry with regard to the inadequacy of the provision for speech specialist cases at the London Neurological Clinic, 11, Palace Green, Kensington; and what steps he is taking to make adequate provision in this respect?
    Major TRYON: The recent resignation of one of the. speech specialists employed at this clinic brought about a temporary congestion of the work, but steps have been taken to deal with the situation, which my right hon. Friend has no reason to doubt will prove satisfactory.

    SOVIET PROPAGANDA.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, seeing that the Soviet Commissariat for Foreign Affairs has addressed a communication to its representatives abroad as to the steps to be taken to promote Communistic propaganda and to force upon foreign Governments diplomatic recognition of the Bolshevist Government of Russia, he will state what steps are being taken by the Government to stop this violation of the terms of the trading agreement between Great Britain and Russia; and whether there is any censorship of cor-
    456
    respondence passing between Russia and this country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have no knowledge of the communication mentioned in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir F. HALL: If I send my right hon. Friend a copy of the communication which, apparently, he has not seen, will he look at it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would be obliged if my hon. Friend would send it to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom such information should reach in the ordinary course.

    KENYA (NATIVE LANDS).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information as to the area of lands in native occupation in Kenya Colony alienated to white men since 1914?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The report has not yet come, and I am telegraphing to the Governor of Kenya to inquire as to the reason for the delay.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the number of officials, respectively, in the Secretariat of the Air Ministry, and the technical Departments in receipt of total emoluments exceeding £500 per annum, whose services have been, or are being, dispensed with as a result of recent economies recommended by the Geddes Committee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend uses the term technical in the broad professional sense. On this assumption, the figures representing the reduction since 1st January, 1922, of officials in receipt of total emolument exceeding £500 per annum are as follow:

    In the Service, Professional and Research Departments

    31

    In the Secretariat, including the Finance Department, etc.

    5

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (CLERKSHIP).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that a Mr. Bolas, as a result of a recent examination, was appointed to a permanent position in his Department at a salary of £100 per annum although his salary as a temporary clerk was £310 per annum; and, seeing that his salary in accordance with the Lytton Report should have been £120 per annum, and that this and similar apparent violations of the spirit of the Report are causing uneasiness in the minds of ex-service men in the Civil Service, if he proposes to take any steps to deal with such cases?
    Major TRYON: The initial salary of officers appointed to the permanent establishment of the Ministry, as a result of the examination for posts in the clerical class, is fixed strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the Lytton Committee. In the particular case referred to, the candidate's salary as a temporary official was £250 a year. He was temporarily paid at the rate of £310 a year whilst on trial in a higher post, but his appointment to that post was not confirmed, and at the end of the period of probation he was placed and paid on a lower grade. He is now paid at the rate of £200 a year, including bonus.
    Captain LOSEBY: Does not the initial salary recommendation operate very harshly against ex-service men as it is, and if the Minister exercises his discretion, as I understand he has done in this case, does not their position become altogether impossible?
    Major TRYON: I will consider the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I would point out again, that he is quite wrong in contrasting a £310 salary with a £100 salary, as on the actual facts of the ease the present salary is not £100, but £200.

    CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
    Captain BENNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any action in consequence of the decision of the House to remove the Canadian cattle embargo?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): To carry out the decision of the House legislation will be
    458
    necessary. There is no administrative Order under which Canadian cattle not for slaughter at the ports could be admitted by the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Captain BENN: As the House has decided on a policy, which the right hon. Gentleman described as a betrayal of his trust, to be carried out by him, what action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall do my duty.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not right that, following the decision of the House, this should be done at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I always do my duty.

    WESTMINSTER HALL ROOF.
    Sir M. CONWAYasked the hon. Member for the Pollock Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether an hour has been fixed when Members will be enabled to inspect the roof of Westminster Hall?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): Arrangements have been made for a party to inspect the roof at 12 noon tomorrow, Thursday, and it is suggested that Members who wish to avail themselves of this opportunity should meet at the foot of the steps leading to St. Stephen's Hall.

    MUSEUMS (ADMISSION CHARGES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the possibility of making a small charge on certain days of the week for admission to museums, picture galleries, and other similar places of public interest under Government control, to assist in meeting the expenses of upkeep of those institutions, as is now being done in France?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Trustees of the British Museum have been consulted regarding the desirability of making a charge for entrance to the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, and the Bloomsbury Museum;

    459
    and, if so, what is the opinion of the Trustees on this proposal?
    Mr. YOUNG: The practice of charging a small admission fee at museums and galleries on certain days in the week, on the lines now adopted in France, has obtained for a considerable number of years in various instances, and is now being further extended, in accordance with the recommendation on page 89 of the Third Report of the Geddes Committee. Details of the receipts from this source will be found in the annual Estimates. Protests were received from the Trustees of the British Museum on 16th March and 12th April last against the insertion in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill of a Clause empowering them to make such charges, subject to due exceptions. The Treasury pointed out that it was difficult to differentiate between the British Museum and other museums and galleries, and that experience had shown that the system did not lead to bad results.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will my hon. Friend publish to the House the terms of the protest of April last of the Trustees of the British Museum? Is he aware that the Natural History Museum, South Kensington, is of quite a different character from a picture gallery?
    Mr. YOUNG: The first consideration I will convey to my right hon. Friend. As to the second, I do not see any relevant reasons for differentiating between the institutions.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that a large number of school teachers take their pupils to South Kensington Museum for nature study and things of that sort, and in future will not all that educational work of value be swept away?
    Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman notice that in my question I have suggested that on certain days reasonable charges should be made in order that many of the expenses might be paid by visitors, and that the institutions should remain freely open on other days?
    Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Member's intervention supplies the answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormesby-Gore). There is no intention of making a charge on every day.
    460
    The intention is to make a charge only on certain days.

    CENOTAPH (WREATHS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what are the Regulations as regards laying wreaths on the Cenotaph; is there any censorship on the messages attached to any wreaths; if so, who is responsible for carrying same out; and are wreaths only allowed in memory of officers, men, or regiments who suffered during the War?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The First Commissioner has received complaints as to political inferences in certain memorial notices. Wreaths have also been placed on the Cenotaph to commemorate children and relatives of ex-soldiers. The First Commissioner is reluctant to instruct his Clerk of Works to act as censor of inscriptions, which might raise delicate issues, but general instructions have been given to safeguard the use of the Cenotaph, and it is hoped that public sentiment as a whole will support the Department in maintaining the original object and character of the Cenotaph, which was erected as a direct memorial to those who lost their lives in Connection with the Great War. May I add that the practice of placing permanent memorials—bronze tablets, metal wreaths, and glazed artificial flowers—seems inappropriate, as such objects are unbecoming in themselves, and prevent the proper display of humbler and more transitory tributes of affection.

    SUNDAY GAMES IN ROYAL PARKS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any Sunday games are allowed in any of the Royal parks in London and district; if so, what games are allowed and under what Regulations; and, if no games are allowed on Sundays, whether, in view of the recent decision re London County Council parks in London, he will consider as to granting similar game facilities in the Royal parks on Sunday?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The attention of the First Commisioner has been drawn to the

    461
    recent decision of the London County Council; there is no disposition on the part of the Office of Works to restrict the use of the Royal parks on Sundays except in so far as is necessary to safeguard the enjoyment of the general public and also to prevent destruction of the turf. The substitution of gravel for grass, which would be inevitable if play were continuous, would, in the First Commissioner's opinion, be deplorable. On the other hand, boating has been allowed for many years, and arrangements are being made to throw open the hard tennis courts in Regent's Park on Sundays. If it proves possible to lay out a golf course in Richmond Park, Sunday play will also be permitted.

    CANADA (EXCHANGES AND DUMPING).
    Mr. J. MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information that the Canadian Government has brought forward proposals for the abolition of its legislation regarding depreciated exchanges and dumping, and requirements connected therewith?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have no information as to any such proposals. The Canadian provisions for dealing with imports from countries with depreciated currencies have, however, been modified recently by an Act passed on 27th June. Particulars of the modifications are given on pages 675 and 77 of the issues of the "Board of Trade Journal" for 15th June and 20th July, respectively.

    BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an article by Professor Henry G. Armstrong on the dyestuff situation, published in the Press on Monday the 24th instant; and, if so, whether he will give favourable consideration to the proposition contained therein that the Government should withdraw its control of, and influence upon, the British Dyestuffs Corporation or, alternatively, insist that the management of the business
    462
    should be in the hands of technically qualified people?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have seen the article to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The Government do not control the British Dyestuffs Corporation and have no influence over its management except in so far as they have a substantial, though not controlling, shareholding interest, and appoint two of the board of directors. I do not think it is expedient. that this interest should be withdrawn. As regards the last. part of the question, I would refer to the proceedings at the recent general meeting of the corporation, from which it will be seen that the board or directors had the support of the great majority of the shareholders, and particularly of representatives of important consuming interests.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Has not the British Dyestuffs Corporation now the assistance of scientists and technically qualified men on its management?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Sir; most certainly.

    PATRIOTIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
    Vice-Admiral Sir R. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if, he will state by what authority the ships of the Patriotic Steamship Company's fleet fly the red ensign; what is the nationality of the directors; whether the shares are held by British subjects; whether any of the officers or men on board the ships are British subjects; and, if so, how many in each ship?
    Mr. A. HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Greek Patriotic Steamship Company fly the red ensign but carry no British officer; has his Department any record of legal action recently taken against the Greek captain of the ss. "Sheffield" of the Patriotic line; and, if so, of what nature?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Patriotic Steamship Company is a Greek, not a British company, and vessels owned by the company are therefore not entitled to British registration or to fly the British flag. As the company is a foreign one, I

    463
    am not in a position to give the information asked for in the latter part of the first question. The master of the "Sheffield," named Evangelinos, who claims to be a naturalised British subject, was recently sentenced to five years' imprisonment by His Majesty's Supreme Court at Constantinople for rape.
    Sir R. HALL: May I ask whether the s.s. "Sheffield," belonging to the Patriotic Line, was flying the red ensign at the time she was under this man's command?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not quite certain what the position is about the "Sheffield." As far as I know, it is not owned by the Patriotic Line. It appears, from the latest particulars, to be on time charter. I am, however, making further inquiries.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONES.
    Mr. J. MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of finding a substitute word for either five or nine for use in the telephone system, so as to avoid the confusion of similar sounds?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): Many suggestions have been made from time to time for overcoming the trouble which occasionally arises from the similarity in sound of these two words, but none has been found satisfactory. The only remedy appears to be that of clear enunciation, and to this end telephone subscribers are asked, at the head of various pages of the directory, to emphasise consonants when giving numbers.

    WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Postmaster-General whether an undertaking has been given to the manufacturers intending to establish wireless broadcasting stations in this country that no imported wireless sets will be licensed, and that either a complete ban or a high tariff will be imposed on such sets?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As I stated on the 18th instant, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Kin-
    464
    cardine and Western Aberdeen, the manufacturers of wireless apparatus in this country have been informed that, in the event of their supplying the capital required and providing efficient broadcasting services, I will agree that the apparatus which it will he permissible to use under the Post Office licence for the reception of those services shall for two years be restricted to apparatus manufactured in Great Britain.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was this matter before the Cabinet, and was there a Cabinet decision promising protection to these people before the right hon. Gentleman gave this promise?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first point raised by the hon. and gallant Member is that the matter was considered by the Cabinet.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Post Office considered that, if they shut out foreign inventions from coming into this country, the development of science may suffer in this country?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member I have taken into account all these very elementary considerations.

    ZAGHLOUL PASHA.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the order for the deportation of Zaghloul Pasha was made before the declaration of independence of Egypt state under what authority the order is being maintained; and whether, in view of such declaration of independence, the British Government will now revoke its order?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The detention in exile of Zaghloul Pasha now depends on the legislation of the place where he is detained. It does not depend on any decision taken under martial law in Egypt. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PRACTICE FIRING, PENALLY.
    Sir EVAN JONESasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that

    465
    the recent firing of big guns for practice near the village of Penally, in Pembrokeshire, caused great inconvenience and distress to many of the inhabitants and much suffering to delicate persons and children; and that the military authorities propose to continue the firing of these big guns during the period from the 31st July to the 17th August next, which is causing much alarm among the inhabitants; and if he will cause immediate instructions to be issued to stop this proposed action taking place?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut. - Colonel Sir R. Sanders): No, Sir; I am not aware that the practice in question has caused the inconvenience and distress suggested. It is true that a complaint from a single individual was recently received, but careful investigation has not resulted in its being substantiated, and it is not endorsed by other persons, of whom inquiry has been made. The safety arrangements made in connexion with the practice were very complete, and no satisfactory alterative locality was available. On the information before me, I do not see my way to prohibit future similar practices, which are essential for the efficiency of the Territorial Artillery concerned.

    CATTERICK CAMP.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the land occupied by the Catterick High Camp was part of the best agricultural land in Yorkshire, the War Office propose to reach an early decision as to the future of this tract, covering many square miles?
    Sir R. SANDERS: A decision in this matter will be given as early as practicable, but cannot be given immediately.

    DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. MILLSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Birmingham day continuation schools have been abandoned by administrative action; and, if so, why Parliament is being asked to absolve the London County Council from its statutory commitment when Parliamentary sanction
    466
    was dispensed with in the parallel case of the Birmingham schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford on the 19th June last.

    EX-SERVICE MEN (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in September, 1921, 212 ex-service men qualified in the examination for the posts of officers of Customs and Excise; that 100 of these were immediately appointed and 112 placed on a reserve list; and that the men placed on the reserve list were officially informed that they would be eligible for vacancies as they occurred; and what steps have been taken to redeem the implied undertaking then given that vacancies as they occurred would be filled from the reserve list?
    Mr. YOUNG: The number of ex-service men who qualified at the September examination for poets of officer of Customs and Excise was 206, of whom 100 were declared successful and 106 placed on the reserve list. Not all the successful candidates have yet been appointed and it is doubtful whether any appointments will be made from the reserve list. No undertaking was given to the men placed on this List; on the contrary they were informed that no appointment could be guaranteed to any of them.
    Captain LOSEBY: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it most unfair to tell these people they will be placed on a reserve list and will be eligible, if there is no intention whatever of making use of that reserve list, and is it a fact that another examination is about to be held?
    Mr. YOUNG: I will read the exact words of the announcement made to these men, and ask the hon. and gallant Member to say whether he considers it fair or not. It states that
    "The following candidates have passed the tests but are not declared successful and no appointments can be guaranteed to any of them. The candidates whose names appear on this list will be eligible in order of merit at the discretion of the Civil Service

    467
    Commissioners for any vacancies that it is decided to fill under this award."
    The names are in order of merit, and I think, in view of that announcement, it cannot be considered that an undue expectation was held out to these men.
    Captain LOSEBY: Has anything been done in pursuance of the implied promise which is held out?
    Mr. YOUNG: There is no implied promise. There is a list of vacancies which have to be filled up, first of all, from the successful candidates, and, in the second place, from the reserve list. All the successful candidates have not yet been placed, and there is very little prospect of getting down to the reserve list.

    REMAND PRISONERS, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. GILLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the case of persons who are brought before the Sheffield Bench and remanded without bail having to be sent to the prisons at Leeds, Lincoln, Derby, etc., on account of the lack of proper cell accommodation in Sheffield; and whether he will now take whatever action is necessary to secure that a city like Sheffield shall be provided with proper cell accommodation for prisoners on remand?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): Persons remanded in custody by the Sheffield magistrates for one or two days are detained in the police cells at the Central Police Offices; these cells are not suitable for detention for longer periods, but if a prisoner asks to be allowed to remain, instead of going to prison, so as to have facilities for preparing his defence, this is permitted. I am informed that there are no other police cells or other buildings suitable for remanded prisoners, but I am making further inquiries.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir WILLIAM DAVISON:
    28. To ask the Minister of Health what local authorities in Great Britain have adopted the model bye-laws of the Ministry for slaughter-houses; and whether the Ministry proposes to take steps to require the use of a humane killer for the slaughter of animals in the slaughter-houses of local authorities who have failed to adopt the Ministry's model bye-laws?
    Sir W. DAVISON: I apologise for not being in my place when this question was called the first time. May I have an answer now?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Ministers are not under any obligation to remain when Questions have once been called. The hon. Member can hardly expect the Minister to come back if he has himself missed his first chance.
    Mr. W. THORNE: As a matter of courtesy, surely the Minister should remain in the House till all the questions have been gone through.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what Orders on the Paper he proposes to take in the event of the Supply Votes and the Divisions thereon being concluded by about half-past eleven?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We must take Order No. 11, Committee of Ways and Means, and Order No. 12, which is a declaratory Resolution dealing with Air Expenditure in 1920–21, and which, I think, is purely formal, and I should like to take the Lords Amendments to the National Health Insurance Bill. There are only two Amendments, which, I understand, are of a purely drafting character, and we can dispose of them quickly, I hope. Lastly, there is the Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be considered. That Bill has not yet gone to the House of Lords, and I should be glad to send it there as rapidly as possible, but I would not think of asking the House to take it at an unduly late hour unless with general consent.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: It cannot be done.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member lays down his veto, but I hope he will not hastily make up his mind, as we desire to get this Bill to another place as quickly as possible.
Captain W. BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster-General is already using powers granted to him in 1904 in a manner that is very unexpected, and consequently that any legislation proposed by him requires the most close scrutiny?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will reserve his criticism of my right hon. Friend, who in the administration of his Department possesses the confidence of the public and of this House in a degree that is unusual in a Postmaster-General. I may say that, speaking as an old Postmaster-General myself.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Supplementary
Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven o'clock."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the House will note that in the Motion which is before it the Government are asking practically that a sum of £3,551,000 should be granted without any discussion whatever, and I wish to make that comment, although I am quite aware that it is open to reply that this has often been done before. The answer to that is that the finances of the country were never before in this position and never required, as they do now, the most careful and meticulous examination of the House of Commons, especially in the case of Supplementary Estimates. With that protest, I shall ask those who usually act with me in the House to divide against this Motion.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 68.

HAGUE CONFERENCE.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Probably it will meet the convenience of the Committee if at the outset of this Debate I attempt to give hon. Members a general review of the work of The Hague Conference and an appreciation of the situation that exists now that the Conference has terminated. I would say at once that I think the Conference has made a long step forward on the path towards a Russian settlement. At Genoa a serious attempt was made for the first time, by frank discussion, to arrive at such a settlement. That settlement was impossible there, partly because of the unwillingness of the Russian representatives to face economic facts and partly
492
through the impossibility of reconciling conflicting political principles. Though a settlement could not be reached at Genoa it was the unanimous desire of all countries who were represented at that Conference that an attempt should be made at The Hague to see whether a practical solution could not be found apart from political considerations. I think all those who took part in The Hague Conference are entitled to say that it served its purpose, for it marked a further step on the road. The next and final step rests with the Russian Government.
The work of the Conference falls into three stages. In the first there were the preliminary meetings of the non-Russian countries. In the second there were the detailed negotiations between the Russian Commission and the non-Russian Commission. In the third there was a plenary session with the Russian Commission, and the final plenary session of the non-Russian Commission. The arrangements made at Genoa were that the representatives of the countries present at the Conference, other than Germany or Russia, should assemble at The Hague on 15th June, and the object of that meeting was to afford an opportunity for a preliminary exchange of views to determine the composition of the Commission of Experts that was to meet at The Hague and to determine also the line of action that was to be followed by the Commission in its meetings with Russia. The Governments had agreed that in the light of those discussions they would intimate whether they were prepared to take part in the Commission or not. The preliminary conference was very short. It had the advantage of being presided over by Dr. Van Karnebeek, the Dutch Foreign Minister, and the rapidity with which it did its work was in no small measure due to his admirable chairmanship.
4.0 P.M.
The work was short, because it was clear at the outset that all the countries who were represented—and there were 26 of them—were anxious not only that The Hague Conference should take place, but that they should have direct representation upon the Commission. It was clear, if you were going to have a Commission of that size, that it was far too large a body to engage in detailed negotiations of a technical kind, and it was

493
readily agreed that the size of the Commission and the nature of the work which it had to undertake made it desirable, and indeed necessary, that it should divide its work into three sub-Commissions dealing respectively with the three outstanding questions—property, debts, and credits. That was accordingly done, and the representation of the various countries upon these sub-Commissions was arranged by consultation with the President and in a way which gave complete satisfaction to everybody concerned. Once that had been done, it closed the whole of the work of the preliminary meetings, the preliminary Conference dissolved, and the main Commission then took its place and proceeded with its preliminary work of electing a President. A very distinguished Dutchman, M. Patijn, was selected, a choice which was not merely a compliment to the country whose hospitality we enjoyed, but was one prompted and justified by the admirable qualities which he displayed throughout as Chairman. There were then a few days before the Russian delegation was due to arrive, and those days were spent on the various sub-Commissions in mapping out the order of the work and collating the material which the different delegations had at their disposal, so that each sub-Commission would be able to take up the discussions with the Russian delegation as soon as they arrived.
I should like to say one word about the spirit in which the Commission undertook its task. We met as experts and not as plenipotentiaries. We were not concerned with any political issues, but with purely practical questions, and from start to finish the whole of the work of the Commission was conducted in that atmosphere. Politics were left in the cloakroom, and the Commission throughout worked with a determination to subordinate questions of principle to practical considerations and with a firm intention of finding, if it were possible, a solution which would meet the realities of the position. On the arrival of the Russian Delegation the President of the Non-Russian Commission at once met them and explained the procedure which had been adopted by the Non-Russian Commission, and the formation of the various sub-Commissions, and he proposed, if that suited the Russians, that the three sub-Commissions should
494
meet concurrently and proceed with their work as rapidly as possible on the understanding that we should assume that each Commission would arrive at a definite conclusion.
That was obviously desirable, because we did not want the work of one Commission held up because it was waiting for some decision which might be taken hereafter by another Commission. It made for convenience and expedition. That proposal was at once very readily assented to by the Russian Delegation. I mention that fact, because at the close of the Conference the Russian Delegation adversely criticised that procedure and even suggested that it was in some way responsible for the temporary impasse at which we arrived. That certainly was not the fact. The procedure was not in any way forced by one party on the other. It was a procedure which both parties agreed upon as essentially practicable and convenient. It was a procedure which was, in fact, successful, because in that way, and in that way only, was it possible to clear up the whole of the practical issues concerning the different problems with which the sub-Commissions were confronted. It is also incorrect to state, as has sometimes been stated, that the sub-Commissions arrived at their conclusions dependently one upon another. They did not; their conclusions were arrived at independently upon the facts which were before each Commission. These sub-Commissions were in continuous session, sometimes with the Russians and sometimes by themselves, for more than a fortnight. The great value of that work was this. It enabled all the relevant facts to be clearly set out and weighed, possible solutions were considered practically without prejudice, misunderstandings were removed, and, in the result, we obtained the considered and unbiased judgment of practical men on practical issues.
Let me take, as shortly as I can, the work of the three sub-Commissions. On the Property sub-Commission we approached the problem not merely from the point of view of trying to find a practical settlement of outstanding claims, but equally from the point of view of the reconstruction of Russian industry. Anyone who knows Russia—indeed, most people who do not know Russia—can realise that the whole history of Russian industry

495
shows how great a part foreign capital and foreign enterprise have always played in the development of Russian resources. In normal times, even, that capital and that enterprise was the dynamic force behind all the development, and, when you come to the present condition into which unhappily their industry has fallen, the one hope of the re-creation of that industry lies in bringing back that foreign assistance and foreign co-operation. We proposed on the Property sub-Commission to take the various industries in which foreign enterprise had had a great share, to consider the extent to which foreign owners could be enabled to resume possession, to consider the general conditions which would govern the operation of their undertakings, and then to consider the mode of assessment and discharge of other forms of compensation. A former owner of property in Russia whose property has been nationalised is without doubt entitled to demand either restoration or effective compensation. That is not only good law; it is good sense. It is quite obvious that nobody would go to the country and lend it money again if the whole of the old obligations of the past, the old loans of the past, are repudiated. That is axiomatic in any business transactions. It is equally obvious that no property owner, old or new, can afford or risk going into a country, whatever the general conditions offered may be, if the whole of the rights of those who were engaged in similar enterprises in the past are to be wiped out altogether. He would have no security and he could not possibly dare to take that risk.
It is quite apparent that the real compensation—and compensation must be real; compensation does not mean waste paper—which it is to-day in the power of the Russian Government to give, apart from the possession of property in some form or other must be very limited. On that, I want to make it quite plain that the Commission, in dealing with restitution and the question of restitution, was not in any way insisting upon a juridical right of property. It was faced with a practical issue. The main form of compensation which it is in the power of the Russian Government to give is possession, and the only hope for the restoration of Russian industry lies in bringing back
496
into it as many of those who built it up as they can possibly get back. That being so, the sub-Commission was most anxious to discuss any form of possession, whether by lease or whether by concession—whether it was possession of a property which the man had previously enjoyed or possession of some alternative property which would be afforded to him—which would meet the realities of the position. I think it well to make that clear, because the British Government has always taken up the position that it is the right of a country to nationalise property, if it pays compensation. That is a perfectly right position to take up, but the compensation must be real, and, when you ask practical men to sit round a table and see whether they can get a practical solution on a compensation issue, they must look at it in a practical light and see what it is within the capacity and power of the Government with whom they are negotiating to give.
Let me state briefly what was the position in which the Property sub-Commission found itself when it adjourned. It is very important to recognise and appreciate that position, first of all, in order to see why it was impossible for us on that Commission to proceed further, and, secondly, in order to appreciate the very marked advance which the Russian Delegation made in the course of the last two or three days at the Hague Conference. Unless you relalise the position taken up during the first three or four weeks, it is impossible to realise the step which they took, and it would be very wrong to minimise the importance of that step. When the Property sub-Commission adjourned, the position was this: The Russian Delegation had produced a list of properties which they said they were prepared to grant, either on lease or by concession, or in the form of mixed companies, to foreign nationals. That list contained only a relatively small proportion—a very small proportion—of the properties which had originally been owned by foreign nationals. Whole classes of property were excluded. The textiles, largely built up by foreign enterprise, engineering, one of the most essential things for Russia, and in which this country had been a pioneer, and coal were excluded, and there were others. But it

497
did not rest there. Even within that limited list there was no guarantee whatever that the former owner would receive a preference over any competing concessionaire, notwithstanding the fact that the whole value of the factory or property might be directly attributable to the capital which he had invested in it. Moreover, no right was admitted to compensate at this stage, either in the form of possession or in any other form. Indeed, it was contended that compensation must depend upon credits, and that the country should pay for its own nationals' compensation. That proposal would have left the owner in exactly the same position as he was before the Genoa Conference assembled. If that had been the position he would have been in no better position than he was a year or two years ago. He would have been invited to negotiate without any acknowledgment of his rights, or any practical guarantee that he would be given either possession or any other form of compensation.
I think it will be admitted, in almost all quarters of the Committee, that three conditions are essential to any general agreement on property. The first is that there must be an acknowledged right to restoration or compensation. The second is that the compensation must be real. The third is that you must establish effective working rules and effective machinery, which will automatically secure that the obligation will be fulfilled. To leave an owner to negotiate at large, without the security of such rules, would preclude the essential basis of an agreement. In these circumstances, and in the position in which we found ourselves on that Commission—a position in which, as I say, the owner was really left in exactly the same condition as he was before even the Genoa Conference assembled—it was clear that an agreement was impossible, so long as that attitude was maintained. Moreover, from the point of view of reconstruction—we were looking at this, as I have said, just as much from the point of view of Russian reconstruction as from the point of view of satisfying property claims—the outlook was hopeless as long as that restriction was maintained. It meant that great fields of industry, which before had been worked by foreign enterprise, and which had been reduced to a condition of chaos, were still to be
498
retained in the hands of the Russian Government. Therefore, apart from all question of the rights of foreign owners, a prospect like that was bound to destroy any hope of industrial revival.
Those were the circumstances under which the Property sub-Commission decided that it could not negotiate further. That conclusion, and their reasoning, are set out in their Report. It was a unanimous conclusion; it was a Report unanimously adopted, and unanimously confirmed by the whole of the Commission. I am convinced that any practical man, finding himself in that position, would be bound to come to the same conclusion. While we came to that conclusion, however, and while we could come to no other Conclusion upon the facts before us, we declared our readiness and our anxiety to consider any new proposals which the Russian delegation could bring forward. We were bound to close the door on the impossible suggestions which had been brought before us, but we were anxious to open it to any new proposals.
The Debts sub-Commission had a somewhat similar experience. The acceptance of the obligations of previous Russian Governments was declared by the Russian Delegation to be conditional upon the grant of credits, and, apart from this, it appeared that it would be impossible to agree upon any independent tribunal which could decide the length of the moratorium and similar questions. The situation which had developed in those two Sub-Commissions, in respect of property and in respect of debts, would in itself have been enough to make the work of the Credits Sub-Commission abortive. It was obvious, if the position were maintained, which had been taken up on those two Commissions, there could be no basis of confidence which would justify credit, and there could be no real future prospects which would induce anybody to advance money. Apart from that, the proposals which the Russian Delegation submitted to the Credits Sub-Commission were of such a character that, even had an arrangement over debts and property been possible, they would have precluded all chance of an agreement. The position was very clearly set out in a speech of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which is annexed to the Report in the White Paper.

499
The whole idea—and I want the Committee to appreciate this, partly in order that they may see why the work of the Credits Sub-Commission resulted as it did, and partly, again, in order that they may appreciate the real advance that was made from this position at a later stage—the whole idea with which the Russian Delegation approached the question of credits was founded upon a complete misconception of facts and actual possibilities. In the first place, the Russian Government was determined not to seek credits from private capital, but only from Governments. Yet it must be private capital to which Russia has to look for her credit. The most that any Government can do is to assist the wheels of private credit; but it can only do that if conditions are forthcoming which will induce the private investor to invest his money. All a Government can do—all the use of the Government credit, all the machinery which we have employed in this country and which has been employed in other countries for the use of Government credit—is simply and can only be to stimulate the flow of private credit; and—and this is essential—there is no difference in the conditions which must command the confidence of a Government in the use of its credit and the confidence of a private investor in his investments.
In the second place, the Russian Government insisted that credits, if they were found, must be credits directly to the Russian Government, and not to private individuals or foreign nationals engaged in trade. That, again, was a fatal bar. In the conditions which exist in Russia to-day no one will be found to invest money to any large extent, unless either the investor has some control over his investment, or at least has confidence in the efficient management of the undertaking in which he invests. It was, therefore, perfectly clear, from the plans submitted by the Russian Government, that there were no conditions which would protect the private investor or would justify the Government in pledging its credit.
That, then, was the position at which the Conference had arrived when the three sub-Commissions terminated their negotiations. It was a position in which it was plainly impossible to negotiate further with any hope of success so long
500
as the Russian Government maintained the attitude it had adopted throughout the discussion. If matters had rested there, I am bold enough to say that The Hague Conference would still have been of value, because it would have established clearly and plainly the reasons why an arrangement was impossible. It would, as a very distinguished American banker put it, have for the first time laid all the facts plainly out upon the table, facts unanimously established by practical men, trying to work out a solution in an atmosphere of practical common sense. Had that been the last word, however—though it would have cleared away misunderstandings and would have made the economic position plain, not only to us, to whom it was plain before, but to the Russian Government also—the immediate future would have held little hope of a solution, either for Russia or for any foreign interests. It would have appeared as impossible to resolve practical difficulties as it had been to reconcile conflicting theories. Happily, that was not the last word, and the matter does not rest there. Though The Hague Conference was unable to recommend any basis of immediate agreement, the final phase does offer a real hope of concrete results. That phase could certainly have never been reached but for the long and detailed discussions and the clear conclusions which had taken place and been reached in the various sub-Commissions.
As I have said, the sub-Commissions had all expressed their desire to consider any fresh proposals of the Russians which might be forthcoming; and the Russian Delegation was invited to submit new proposals. In reply to this invitation, they stated that they would like an opportunity for a further meeting. It appeared that the questions which they wished to raise were questions relating principally—if not exclusively—to property, and, therefore, it was proposed that they should have a further meeting with the Property sub-Commission. They replied that the questions they wished to raise, or were prepared to discuss, went beyond that, and covered other matters. It was accordingly arranged that there should be a Plenary Session of the full non-Russian Cora-mission, with the Russian Commission, to consider any of the new facts or proposals that could be put forward. The attitude which the Russian Commission

501
adopted at their meeting constituted a very distinct, and, indeed, a remarkable, advance from the position which they had hitherto maintained at all previous meetings with the sub-Commission. The proposal, or rather the suggestion which they made, is set out in paragraph 6 of the Report of the non-Russian Commission, which is the first document in the White Paper. It is this:
"If the other delegations represented at The Hague agree to refer the proposal at the same time to their Governments, the Russian Delegation will at once refer to the Russian Government the question whether the Russian Government is prepared, assuming that credits to the Russian Government in the sense intended by the Russian Delegation cannot be given:

(1) to acknowledge the debts due by the Russian Government or its predecessors to foreign nationals; and

(2) to agree to give effective compensation to foreigners for property previously owned by them which has been nationalised by the Russian Government; provided that terms of payment of the debts and terms of compensation, whether in the form of concession of properties or otherwise, be left to be agreed between the Russian Government and the persons concerned, in the course of two years."

I do not wish to place, and I am not entitled to place, upon that suggestion a higher construction than it is actually entitled to bear. It was not a firm offer and it was not a formal recommendation, but, at any rate, it was a statement that the Russian Delegation were definitely prepared to invite their Government to consider the policy set out in the paragraph which I have just read, a policy which included a formal acknowledgment of her debts, and a formal acknowledgment of an obligation to pay compensation where property was nationalised by the Russian Government. The fact that that suggestion was made wads a great advance by the Russian Delegation upon the position which they had previously taken up, and it showed a real appreciation of the realities of the position. Above all, it shows an appreciation of the fact that credit must rest on confidence, and the obligations which it was suggested the Russian Government might undertake were, according to this suggestion, to be undertaken irrespective of any question of granting credits. I would say more than that. They were based on a recognition of the fact that the investment of new capital in Russia and the re-establishment of her credit
502
must depend upon the extent, the thoroughness and the promptitude with which the proposed obligations should be discharged. The Commission immediately proceeded to consider this suggestion. They considered it upon the assumption that the Russian Government would adopt and approve the proposal made by the Russian Delegation; and on that assumption they unanimously passed the resolution which is set out in paragraph 7 of the Report, which is as follows:
"The non-Russian Commission concluding its labours at the point reached in the exchange of views with the Russian Commission which have taken place at The Hague and which are contained in the Reports prepared and approved by the three sub-Commissions, notes with satisfaction the proposal of the Russian Delegation to submit to its Government the contents of the declaration read by Mr. Litvinoff at the Plenary Session of 19th July.
Although the non-Russian Commission cannot find the basis of an agreement within the terms of this declaration, it considers that the line of conduct indicated in this declaration can, if it is accepted by the Russian Government, and if it is loyally carried out, contribute to the re-establishment of the confidence which is necessary for the co-operation of Europe in the reconstruction of Russia.
The non-Russian Commission also considers that this declaration is calculated to create a favourable atmosphere for such further negotiations as may be considered opportune by the Governments here represented."
The non-Russian Commission at its Plenary Session was unanimous in regard to the views expressed in that resolution and the reasons which prompted it. It was clear to all of us that we could not recommend such a proposal as the basis of an immediate agreement. We all felt that if we were to recommend to our Governments a definite and final agreement it must be an agreement which carried with it, not merely an acceptance of these obligations, but the necessary working rules and machinery to ensure the due performance of the agreement made. The Russian proposal excluded by its very nature the possibility of such an arrangement. In place of a comprehensive agreement complete in itself and containing definite rules and machinery which would secure its execution, the Russian Delegation envisaged a formal acceptance of the obligation, and a proposal that the Russian Government should carry out its obligations by individual negotiations in the course of the next two years.

503
This, in place of the present arrangement, would substitute a test of future action and the proof of the capacity of the Russian Government to carry out its obligations and the proof of its good faith were both to rest upon the independent action of the Russian Government in the future. While, therefore, it was clear to us that such a proposal could not form the basis of an immediate agreement, we welcomed it warmly as a great advance upon any proposal that had hitherto been made, and because it foreshadowed a policy which, if adopted and carried out by the Russian Government, would go far to solve the practical difficulties upon which we could not agree.
It would be idle for me to prophesy what will be the result or what action the Russian Government will take; but I think I can say with certainty that The Hague Conference has brought the Russian Government face to face with the realities in a way which it has never been brought before.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: You are four years too late.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I hope also, if hon. Members opposite will study the records of The Hague Conference, they, like the Russians, will for the first time be brought into touch with realities.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have been for four years.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I appreciate that, while some of us have been working to try and put things right, others have been talking. It has also shown to Russia the willingness of other countries to cooperate, while at the same time showing the inevitable character—and this I would commend to hon. Members opposite—of the economic forces which must govern the co-operation which other people can give. The future of Russia lies in the hands of the Russian Government. It is unnecessary to elaborate the grave economic position of her industries. That is as well known, and better known, to the Russian Government than it is to us. Time is an essential factor, and if the Russian Government are to act, they must act without delay. As time goes on, month by month, factories become more and more decayed, mines fall in and mines are flooded, transport deteriorates, and therefore time is an
504
essential factor. The need is great. The policy must be thorough. We went to The Hague Conference anxious to co-operate, and they will find us so still. It is not only that capital will not be forthcoming unless obligations are recognised and discharged, but the sole hope of Russian industries lies in bringing back the skill and experience of those who did so much to build them up in the past.
If ever there was a case where honesty is the best policy, it is the case in Russia. I sometimes wish that hon. Members opposite would give the Russian Government advice more in consonance with the interests of that country than with the immediate prejudices of their own views. If Russia decides to accept and pursue the policy which was foreshadowed by the delegation, she will not. be merely entering upon a path which will bring her back into the community of nations, but she will be setting out on the one road which can lead to the restoration of her economic life. If she takes that step, I am convinced she will find that, not merely persons who cannot render her assistance except in the form of gratuitous advice, but practical people whose help she needs will be ready to assist her. She is mistress of her own fate. The facts are plain and the way is clear, and while she is considering her course, I, at any rate, am optimistic enough to hope that her decision will be wise and right.
Mr. CLYNES: There was a single lapse in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, into which he was no doubt tempted by an interjection from this side of the Committee. I think he has placed us under an obligation to him for the clear manner in which he has recited to the Committee the main events which transpired recently at The Hague. What he has dealt with is only part of a very big subject, but to that part we must limit ourselves during the course of this discussion. It may be that, before the House rises, an opportunity will be given for again considering the larger issue, both of reparations and our relations to other allied countries and France in particular. In to-day's discussion, however, we are confined to events at The Hague and, as the speech of the hon. Gentleman has shown, the transactions there were limited to three definite points. Firstly, the question of compensation to owners of property in Russia

505
who have been dispossessed; secondly, the question of debts as between Russia and ourselves and as between Russia and France; and, thirdly; to the question of credits with a view to assisting Russia with both agricultural and industrial restoration.
Frankly, I cannot trace in the speech of my hon. Friend any definite obligation which has been placed upon Russia except to carry out the next step to which he has referred. If the next step rests with Russia I think we are entitled to offer some comment and to ask what advantage has already accrued either to Russia or to ourselves from the previous steps taken by the Government, or any one of those recent steps indicated at the various conferences which have been held. The greater part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman dealt with property, and it was limited to the question of how far private property owners could secure guarantees which could be made effective for compensation for the property which they have lost.
Closely related to this question of property is the question of our political attitude towards Russia; our general policy in relation to that country since ever the beginning of the first Revolution in Russia. Before the second, or what might be termed the economic Revolution, before the Lenin and Trotsky regime, it cannot be said that this Government maintained anything like the attitude to the Kerensky Ministry which had been maintained towards the Government of the Tzar, either during the years of the War or before. Our guilt rests in our past actions in relation to the Russian nation during the War and since its close. Military and political resistance was offered by us to the Russian Government. We have been guilty of sustained refusals to treat with that Government. We have been guilty of delay in repairing the effects of that policy and of resistance to those who, for the time being, are in authority in that country. It is because of our conduct under these several heads that our efforts in these recurring Conferences are rendered less effective, and that Conferences are required, and evidently are to continue without end. I shall show before I conclude that there is a proved relationship between the things I have referred to and the nonsuccess of this last effort of The Hague.
506
I agree with much that has been said by the hon. Gentleman (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) in his pronouncement as to the obligations on Russia regarding compensation to our dispossessed nations, but I think, in the speech which has been delivered, we might well have expected to hear something about the Russian right to claim compensation and to press for consideration of the enormous losses she has sustained, and sustained, to a large extent, as a result of our action.
This is not a one-sided affair at all. The claims are similar. They are similar in character if not in degree. I submit to the Committee that enormous losses of man-power, of wealth, and of property were sustained by Russia as a result of the assistance which we gave for a considerable period to those who attempted a counter revolution and by means of arms and armies resisted the established Government of the day. It must not be forgotten that the Government and the methods by which it acquired power were imitations—no better and no worse—of the methods by which for long the Russian people had been controlled. Let us not forget that the Russian Government were our Allies and continued with us as long as they were physically able to do so. The economic breakdown internally in Russia which brought her to her knees had a bearing on it, but undoubtedly there were political influences as well as economic facts all of which hasten the inability of Russia any longer to continue, to fight on our side. No wonder there were political influences at work in a country where such incompetence and corruption were supported by the Throne and by those who upheld it. Naturally insidious principles were at work there which produced very serious results. Russia was our ally. She suffered enormously, and much of her misery is attributable to her partnership with this country in the earlier years of the War.
I remind the Committee of these facts because it appears now that the theory of our Government is that if Russia is to secure credit and to borrow money in the world's market, she must borrow from individuals or corporations having the control and possession of wealth. I ask the Prime Minister, on the assumption that he is to speak later in this Debate, how does he expect that a nation placed by us and the other Allies in the position

507
of a political outcast not yet recognised by us or being permitted to resume diplomatic relations with us, how does he expect such a country to secure credits, or to inspire that confidence without which it is admitted advances or credits cannot be obtained at all. The Russian Government could not hope to secure any large sums by way of credits in the ordinary private market. If we could throw Russia on the mercies of those who control credit, there would be no need to meet her representatives again. We could leave her alone to negotiate with those who have control over national or international finance, but the very fact that we have had these conferences is proof of the necessity for us to enlarge our political association with Russia, to bring her properly into the family of nations, and to restore her to the state of a friendly ally in which she stood before she fell out of the War. I suggest, that so long as we do not diplomatically recognise her, so long as we do not resume normal relations with her, it is idle to talk of Russia being able to go into the market. She could not secure that confidence alone which would enable her to raise any considerable sum at a time when she is not in a real state of political association with the rest of the allied countries.
There have been no inconsiderable changes of policy or of conduct on the part of the Russian representatives. At the conference of July, 1919, a very much modified Russian view was expressed by M. Litvinoff. The Russian Government, he said, were prepared to acknowledge debts. They had declared, in the first Sub-Commission, that the Russian Government was prepared to give compensation to owners of property in Russia for property which had been nationalised by the Russian Government. In regard to compensation, the Russian Delegation had not declined to discuss the questions raised, but they had said, on the contrary, that the question of the terms of payment should be left to some future tribunal or some other organisation. The Russian Delegation insisted that these questions should be fixed by agreement by the Hague Conference. They said further they could not carefully discuss these questions and make proposals with regard to the main details until they knew in what way and when the Russian State
508
would be placed in a position to carry out the obligations and liabilities which it would take over. A reply to that was necessary, but with a little good will on one side the gap could be bridged. I submit that that is not obdurate, unreasoning language. It is language of a representative explaining that this is a two-sided question where the obligation and the acceptance of the finding of a way out must be mutual. M. Litvinoff, in fact, told the representatives at the Hague that if they were to be expected to undertake to pay compensation, means must be provided in order to assist them to do so. That, surely, is a reasonable proposition, and it will be interesting to hear what the Prime Minister has definitely to say on that aspect of the question.
It is said the Russians must recognise the rights of private property. But these rights always are limited by the interests of the community. That is not merely true of Russia; it has been true of all countries in the modern, world. Property has no unlimited rights, its rights must be measured by the necessities and general condition of the State itself. Even in capitalist communities, private property has not been allowed unlimited rights, and no one has more pointedly challenged those rights in former years than the Prime Minister himself. If it were proper to reinforce my point by a wealth of quotations, it would be enlightening, I think, in these days, to the Prime Minister himself. It has yet to be proved in practice what the recognition of private property means. It is nonsense to speak of the Soviet policy to-day as though it was the policy of 1920. A new economic policy was adopted last year by the Soviet Government and was publicly proclaimed. Industry and commerce have, in some measure, begun to revive in Russia, and there has been a limited recognition of private enterprise and private property. This is no mere abstract statement. It is a fact. The new economic policy provides ground for this country to promote the issue of credits and to offer further assistance to Russia. Upon what ground is it claimed that we are justified in continuing the present lack of recognition of Russia? Indeed, the political aspects of this question are so linked up with the economic that they cannot be separated. If the questions of the recon-

509
struction of Russia, the economic condition of Russia, and the building up of the internal state of Russia upon economic conditions are to be considered, they cannot be considered apart from the political issue, which is at stake also in this matter. Our recognition of the old Government of Russia before the War, bad as it was, was never made conditional on the Tsar's recognition of democratic institutions or upon the Russian Government not slaying, as it so often did, its Russian subjects.
Mr. J. JONES: Five thousand in one day!
5.0 P.M.
Mr. CLYNES: The association of this country during many years with the old Russian Government was the subject of criticism in this country and in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, public opinion in this country then said what, indeed, quite recently the Prime Minister of this country has said in regard to the Soviet Government, namely, that we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Whether we differ from its form of government or not, and however much we may censure its conduct, it is the Government of the country, and it is with that instrument that we are obliged to deal in any relations that we may have with them. This failure to settle, not merely between Russia and ourselves, but between other countries and ourselves, is a source of mutual and very serious loss. We cannot limit the discussion of this matter to any question of proportion of mutual interdependence. I put that view because I have so often heard statements to the effect that Russia needs us more than we need Russia. I suggest that it would be fatal to an arrangement to measure points too nicely in that manner. Let us consider that we are mutually interdependent, that, if there is a difference in degree, the needs of both are so urgent that we cannot or ought not to fall back upon an argument of that kind.
It may be true that Russia needs our help more than we need Russian products, but that view will only stand in the way of an arrangement. Russia's industries are for the present secondary to Russia's agriculture, anti the assistance which this country could give in the revival of Russian agriculture would be a source of
510
great trade and profit to this country, if it were given speedily and in the right degree. The revival of agriculture in Russia is, of course, dependent upon transport and improvement in transport, and on the supply of materials which can be provided by this country. Our mutual needs, therefore, should hasten a settlement. I am not leaving the question of security out of account; I am submitting to the Rouse that we have a, choice between leaving things alone, letting them drift, and hoping that something will be done in the way of improvement, or giving the only form of substantial assistance which will hasten the state of security that even the Government, I am sure, now desires to set up in that country. The question of security, like all others, is a question of policy, a question of what we are going to do to produce it. Russia's economic position is urgent, just as our own unemployment problem makes urgent for us a settlement in Russian relations. Russia cannot afford to stand by a policy which alienates her from the rest of the world, and we cannot afford to stand by a policy which Russia is determined to resist.
This, therefore, is a question of accommodation. It is a question, so far as Russia is concerned, of a complete departure from the methods which for long she followed. Her internal condition, no matter what sacrifices for the moment her people may be able to endure, cannot be improved in any large measure unless she does recognise the methods by which the world is governed, unless she comes more nearly to the point of amicable agreement between herself and the Allied countries. I suggested earlier in this discussion that to sonic substantial degree Russia has done that. Indeed, one point that was made more than once by the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, was that a. very considerable change had taken place in the attitude of the Russian representatives during the last few days of the Conference. Part of the way, as I think, of making this effort a success is to encourage and to nurse towards perfection tendencies of that kind. We are, perhaps, older, that is to say, those who are acting for our Government in these matters are, perhaps, older, and, perhaps, more experienced, in the arts of governing than some of those who may be acting for the Russian people. If that be true, the obligation

511
on us is all the greater. At any rate, we can lose nothing by assisting Russia to come more nearly to the methods by which great tasks of negotiation of this kind have to be carried on.
I repeat that, in my judgment, there can be no revival without credit, that some method must be found whereby Russia can be financially and economically assisted to her feet. That assistance it would be worth our while to give because of its immediate and, as I believe, its sustained benefit to us in the improvement generally of our trade interests. Our interests, in fact, lie in arranging substantial credits, if we are to secure Russian recognition of the debts and of the compensation which we claim should be made to cover property in Russia of which our citizens have been dispossessed. We have, of course, rather different interests—it is no use disguising the fact—from some of the Allies whose representatives so often act with us in these recurring conferences. The French investments in Russia before the War were exceptionally large, and that, no doubt, has much to do with certain lines of French policy in these negotiations. The French have special reasons for the emphasis which they place upon this question of restitution and compensation. They may have just complaints to make against the policy of the Soviet Government, and it is right that our Government should show an appreciation of the French point of view; but nothing is to be gained by pretending or assuming that the British point of view is identical with the French point of view. French investors in Russian bonds are not receiving their interest, and they are uncertain about their capital; but the British working man has not enough to invest savings anywhere. That is a difference which necessarily compels different treatment of these questions, or a different point of view in dealing with them. If France has her grievances, Great Britain and the working people in it have their present sufferings. A million and a half of unemployed are, waiting for the restoration of world commerce. The British Government should stand by these, whoever may stand by the bondholders.
I would, therefore, say that while, up to the moment, no definite result has come from the decisions at The Hague, and
512
there has been no actual change on questions of credits, compensation or any of the other matters touched at The Hague, our chance of getting results from any future decision must necessarily depend very largely upon whether Russia can feel that we are to help her substantially to discharge the obligations into which we are asking her to enter. Is this the last of these Conferences? I trust not. It may be that if at this stage the Prime Minister fails completely he will not be discouraged, but will try further Conferences. Indeed, should it befall us that Russia drifts further away, and becomes less disposed to arrange with us, it may be that our efforts towards further Conference will enable us to do little. The high hopes of Genoa have at The Hague fallen low indeed. Whether they may be revived by some further statement or announcement by the Prime Minister this afternoon, I shall be curious to hear. At any rate, he may depend upon it that, while we cannot forget what we regard as the Government's follies and failures of the years towards the end of the War and of the years since its close, anything that can be done from this side of the House to assist in improved relations with Russia and with other countries will be done; for, if we have a difference of opinion on methods, we have a mutual and, I hope, an even interest in speedily, if possible, reviving the trade of this country.
Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: The interesting speech of the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade did a good deal to bring the Committee face to face with realities. If The Hague Conference has done nothing else, I think it has cleared away many things and made the Russian Government really recognise the realities of the position. I would venture to put before the House my view of the realities of the position to-day. Firstly, there were two Commissions, one of which dealt with the debt of Russia and the other with the question of property. Whatever we may all desire to do in regard to the debt of Russia, it seems absolutely certain that in the immediate present no satisfaction can be obtained with regard to money payments from Russia on account of the old debt, until there is industrial restoration in Russia. I am not suggesting this with any want of appreciation of the French attitude,

513
but until the industrial position in Russia is restored, the question of the old debt becomes of secondary consequence. The prime question to-day is what we can do to help the industrial restoration of Russia. We are all greatly concerned, and have the utmost sympathy, with the disastrous position in which our old Russian Allies are to-day, and I am sure that every party in the House of Commons is anxious to do everything that it can to rescue a great people from a difficult position.
Upon what does that depend? Two or three things which were brought out by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade are really fundamental. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, first of all, that industrial Russia has always depended upon foreign capital. The Russians themselves needed German, American and British capital in order to arrive at prosperity. Another thing which the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and which I think is perfectly clear, is that this could not be done to-day by any Government system. Every Government in Europe to-day is full of its own troubles. I am sure that our Prime Minister is anxious to do everything he can to help the Russian Government, but look at the position at home. I think that any Government will find it very difficult to embark in direct Government action, and will have to rely upon the assistance of their own nationals who are able to undertake some portion of the industrial restoration of Russia. Therefore, effective help to Russia is not likely to come by an Act of Parliament. It can only come through the assistance of our own nationals who are willing to give that assistance. That means that it is through private enterprise rather than through Government action that the restoration of Russia is likely to be arrived it; and that is an entire contradiction of what has been the policy of the present Russia Government. So long as the gospel of the Russian Government is Communism and the destruction of the capitalist system we are in fundamental disagreement. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) says the view of the Russian Government has been modified. I think to some extent it has, but until you can make European and American capital believe that it is going to be altered for good, you will not get individual assistance for the deplor-
514
able Russian situation. It may not be what hon. Members opposite would like, but I am trying to point out what I think are the realities of the situation to-day. Until private enterprise and the industrial resources of the world are assured, and until the Russian Government abandons its policy and really means not to make its fundamental position the destruction of the capitalist system, but is willing to he assisted by it, I think Russia will fail to get the real amount of capital assistance that is required. To my mind that is fundamental. The Soviet Government may possibly be willing to restore and to give compensation, but more than that is required. What is required besides is the belief in the future that there will be no return to the old methods in which confiscation of private property was accepted by the Russian Government as being quite legitimate. Until you get those two facts firmly established, that is, restoration and compensation and the belief that there will not be future interference, you will not get the proper amount of European capital into Russia which is needed to restore that great country.
As far as we are concerned ourselves, I am sure everyone in this country would be only too glad to assist in promoting the industrial recovery of Russia. After all, are we in the best position to do it? I have no doubt we shall do what we can, but I remember the inquiry into, industrial conditions after the War when a very full inquiry was made into the position of the various nations with regard to trade with Russia, and it was remarkable how great were the advantages Germany possesses over this country. First of all Germany is close to Russia. For every Englishman who can speak the language a thousand Germans can. They have enormous advantage in carriage. In those days it was £1 a ton for the whole of Russia except the extreme South, and I imagine to-day those advantages are greater still. So we must not expect, as sometimes one hears from the other side of the House, that enormous trade advantages are going to come to this country from the restoration of Russia. To my mind when the restoration of Russia comes we may have some share, but not the chief share. I do not think our trade and industry is likely to receive the advantages which are sometimes expected on the other side of the

515
House. May I tell the House which were the points which were brought home to me in the speech of the Overseas Secretary. I believe they are the foundations of the situation. Russia cannot be restored by Government assistance. It will be restored only by the ordinary old-fashioned capitalist system which is so much decried on the other side. Capital will not flow into Russia until the Russian Government have really made the commercial world believe that the change of attitude they appear to have adopted is going to be persisted in and until security is established, and then and only then will Russia get the full aid and the full benefit from the commercial resources of the world, to which she is entitled, and which I believe is the only way in which she can be rescued from the lamentable position in which she is to-day.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the speech he made so ably. [Interruption.] I am not complaining, I am congratulating him—I am sorry my remarks are misunderstood—especially on the first few sentences of his speech, in which he completely buried Genoa and stamped his foot on the sods on top of the grave. He told us that Genoa had been a complete failure and nothing had come out of it, but that, at any rate, a little had been done at The Hague, and, reading the White Paper which was issued yesterday, I think they have accomplished something and I make every allowance for that. But from one point of view The Hague Conference was an enormous success, that is the point of view of the wheat producers in the Argentine, in the United States, in the Middle Western States of Canada and in South America. We are paying through the nose for our wheat, and the rest of Europe that imports wheat is also paying through the nose. From their point of view the Conference was admirable in every respect. We shall now for some years, I suppose, go on paying for our wheat, with the exchange against us, and we shall turn our backs on the wheat-producing possibilities of Russia. May I first of all make a small complaint about the White Paper. It contains an admirable speech by the hon. Gentleman who
516
represented the Treasury at The Hague. I do not know who wrote the appendices. They are extremely interesting. But there is something missing. There is nothing from the Russian Commission. I should have liked to read the arguments put forward by the Russians. They are extremely interesting, no doubt. We are only presented with one side of the case. I am not conversant with the Russian side. I am speaking here on behalf of about 1,750,000 British citizens who are to-day without work. It is from that point of view that I approach this whole subject, and from that point of view alone I should like to have seen what the Russians had to say, and I hope those Papers will be forthcoming at no distant date. I know my hon. and gallant Friends opposite have only just come back, and I am not making this complaint in any carping spirit, but I hope those Papers will be laid as soon as convenient.
During the sittings of the Hague Conference, everyone I met and talked to about it in this country, on the Continent, in Germany arid Belgium, and one or two Russians who, I happened to meet and talk to about it, of various political opinions, were all unanimous in one opinion, and that was that they did not expect the Conference to make any great success. They did not expect any great results to come from it. I have met no one really who had a different opinion. Those who expect very little are not disappointed, and I am not a bit disappointed, because I did not expect very much else to happen. It is very remarkable, however, that that should have been the general opinion, and I think the reason for it is really not very far to seek. At Genoa it was practically laid down that nothing in the shape of Government credits or expenditure for the reconstruction of Russia should be given. The Prime Minister answered a question to that effect across the Floor the House soon after his return from Genoa before the Conference commenced. Under those circumstances, if no Government credits were to be given, there was really nothing to discuss further, because the only other source from which credits could come was from private financiers, bankers and capitalists, and for them it was not necessary to have a Hague Conference. They could go to Russia,

517
or they could meet Russian representatives here, at Berlin, Vienna or Rome, and discuss their business with them, and if it was possible and practicable for those people to give credits to Russia, they could have given them without any Hague Conference at all. Therefore, it is not a bit surprising, when you start by laying down that under no conditions, whatever Russia does in the way of acknowledging debts and trying to pay them back, restoring property, and so on, even to overthrowing the whole revolution and, I suppose, setting up a Tsar again—under no conditions are you to give any credit to Russia for the reconstruction of the country, it was impossible for The Hague Conference to succeed as an international conference, and the only sort of conference which would have any hope of succeeding would be a conference, not of Government experts, but of representatives of financiers, capitalists and property owners in Russia and here of various nationalities. If you start by saying Governments are on no account to give credits, it is no use conferring at all with the Russian experts and representatives.
Let me immediately challenge, as I propose to do in the Division Lobby presently, the theory that on no account must we give Government credits. I think that is a short-sighted and a criminal policy. We found plenty of credits for purposes of destruction in Russia. Any miserable adventurer who set up his standard in Siberia or in the Baltic Provinces or in the Ukraine could get stores, money, munitions, clothing, shipping, transport—anything he wanted. Before the Bolshevists came to power at Moscow at all, before there was any property nationalised or confiscated in any way in Russia, Korniloff was backed against Kerensky by the Allies, as public documents show, and has been admitted in the main by the Colonial Secretary frankly at the Treasury Box. We can always find credits for destroying life and property and injuring the natural wealth of that great country, but when it comes to finding credits for reconditioning, for transport, for making it possible for our merchants to trade and for our ships to carry goods to Russian ports—ships which are lying idle, with their officers and crews wondering where their next meal is to come from in many cases, we button up our pockets. We say, "It is impossible; we
518
have not the money; we cannot find it. You can only look to private enterprise, and Governments are not to help." That is a policy which must be met on this aide of the House and combated here and in the country. I only hope the gentleman who is now an hon. Member of the House, and will take his seat to-morrow for Pontypridd, preached that openly and honestly in his constituency, as I have done in mine. I think that Pontypridd is a very good answer to Genoa, and, with all respect to the hon. and gallant Members opposite, to The Hague and all its works.
There is an idea which is being sedulously put about in very high quarters and by Members of the Cabinet, that whereas we may deplore the decay of the European market, and of the ancient centres of civilisation, and the ancient centres of culture and so forth, we really need not bother much about it or about European trade with this country, including Russian trade; but that we must develop the Empire, become a self-supporting Empire, take in our own washing, and that we need not find other markets for our goods, and other sources of supply for our businesses. That is a very dangerous doctrine. I do not want to enlarge upon it now, but I may say in passing that to-day we are suffering because Russia is not buying Indian tea, and because of that the Indian market is not so much Open to our goods. We are suffering also because Russia is not buying Brazilian coffee. The Brazilian coffee farmers are feeling the loss of the Russian market, with the result that we are sending less British goods to Brazil. I mention these facts to show that world trade is interdependent. However much we may succeed in Russia, it will be useless if Germany is going to be allowed to collapse and go the way of Austria. It is no use our salving one country; it is no use pursuing successfully the efforts which the hon. and gallant Members opposite tried to pursue at The Hague when they tried to restore trade with Russia, if the German market is going to be allowed to collapse.
I should like to ask two questions. First of all, is there any secret agreement other than is given in paragraph 5 of the White Paper, as to discouraging our nationals not to trade with Russia? Paragraph 5 lays it down that the Governments concerned shall not encourage their

519
nationals—I am quoting the words very widely—to acquire concessions including the property of other foreign nationals. That is perfectly fair. Is there any other agreement to discourage our nationals, or is there any agreement amongst other countries to discourage their nationals, from trading with Russia, or from going into Russia and developing concessions that are not claimed by other foreign nationals? That is very important. At the present time it is a fact that there is a sort of understanding, apparently, amongst the banking circles in this country to refuse credit to people who wish to do business with Russia. Not only that, but if they find that certain people are embarking upon enterprises in Russia—I do not mean developing property belonging to other foreigners—they cut off credit, not only from that enterprise, but from those peoples other enterprises in other parts of the world. That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and if this or any other Government recognises it, it is a very criminal policy to pursue.
Secondly, have the Government any intention of extending the Overseas Trade Credit Insurance scheme to Russia. This scheme has been in operation for two years, and Russia has always been cut out of the list of countries to whom credit could be extended in this way. Are the Government going to alter their policy and extend it in that respect? I do not think that the Overseas Trade Credit Insurance scheme goes nearly far enough. It is only of limited use. It has been of use to some countries, and it might be useful in Russia. It may be asked what proposal we can make from this side of the House. I am not going to repeat the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) that we should recognise the Russian Government de jure, because I have always done that. I suggest that we should consider first of all the granting of credit to Russia in a certain form. The debts owing by Russia to foreigners—I am counting both Government debts and municipal debts—amount to about £800,000,000. I may be wrong in my figures. Has the question of a conversion loan for that amount of money been explored? I am not a financial pundit; I do not pretend to be, and I put forward with diffidence the proposal of a conversion loan, to convert the whole of that
520
debt into a new issue, not of £800,000,000 but of £1,200,000,000. At the present moment it is only waste paper. The Russian debt to us for war services, and the various municipal debts, are waste paper; but the Russian Government that is apparently prepared to acknowledge the debt in principle, and to my knowledge has been so ready for many months.
What I suggest is that there should be a new loan of £1,200,000.000 supported by the countries interested, and that the £800,000,000 should be new paper. Of course, what would make the value of the paper would be the credit and backing behind it. We must always remember that our trade in this country is languishing. The £800,000,000 would replace the old debt, and the old debt could be cancelled. The other £400,000,000 could be expended in five years in providing the necessary transport and machinery and the other goods which Russia must have, and have quickly, if the country is to be developed. That would be the beginning of the revival of Russia. The need is very great for new transport, the repair of existing transport, the re-conditioning of the ports, agricultural machinery, fertilisers, etc., and the £400,000,000 spread over five years would be a credit for the supply of those goods, and would make work possible. [Laughter.] Can hon. Members suggest anything better? As things are at the present we are at a complete deadlock. If hon. Members say this scheme is impracticable, can they suggest anything better?
We have to think of the great numbers of unemployed people in this country. We have the makers of agricultural machinery and transport, and of the goods Russia wants, idle to-day, and drawing unemployed pay at the rate of many millions a year. I think they are drawing about £1,500,000 a week, or something like £80,000,000 a year, in unemployment pay, and that is likely to go on for years. If this scheme had been adopted two years ago, we should have saved this country much of the unemployment compensation that is being paid now. I suggest that the £400,000,000 is not to be supplied by this country entirely, but that France, Italy, Germany, and possibly the United States would come in with us in such a scheme. It need not be in cash. If that conversion loan is guaranteed by the countries I have mentioned, no actual

521
cash need pass, if people will take the bills at not too great a discount. I always regret embarking upon credit discussions, because it is an extraordinarily complicated subject; but in the meantime Russia is crying out for the goods that we and America and Germany could make, and our people who could make them are idle. I hope that we shall encourage our people to go to Russia and to do as much business as they can, and to take up concessions which are not held by other foreigners, and, if necessary, we should give them financial backing, as we do other capital undertakings in other parts of the world.
It was said by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that the Conference at The Hague had brought Russia a great step forward. Our Government has come a great step forward. It is a very far cry from the speech which the hon. Member made to-day and the sort of speeches that were made by the Government two or three years ago. The bloodstained Bolshevik has sat down at a table with the hon. Member, and I believe that he honestly tried to help this country. We have come forward a great deal, and I hope that it is not, because of any false cry or false prejudice that we are prevented from taking the next step. It is also true to say that the policy of the Russian Government has been enormously modified. They are allowing houses and offices to be owned, bought and sold; their citizens are allowed to enter upon private business, and they are allowed to hire labour for wages. They allow the banks to hold deposits, and they are rapidly restoring free markets in the great towns. These are great departures, and it is due to us to make still further steps forward in response. I hope the Conference at The Hague will have been the beginning of some real opening up of trade with that great country. I feel that the Government's attitude on credits is absolutely wrong, wrong with regard to the credit for the famine district, and wrong with regard to the whole of the Russian market, and it is as a demonstration against that that I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
Mr. HOPKINSON: I will not attempt to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) in his great conversion loan
522
scheme. Since the time of Mr. Micawber, no such notion was ever put forward seriously. When Mr. Micawber felt it impossible to take up the bills which he had issued, he used to collect them together, then issue a further bill for the total amount, and, having done so, he felt that he had paid his debts, and could go about his business in security. That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) proposes to the Powers of Europe.
I merely rose to ask the House to consider seriously what was said by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce). He pointed out that the economic development of Russia must come from Germany rather than from this country or from France. My only complaint is that he did not, as it were, insist enough on that point. If we may look at that particular point from another aspect, I should like the Committee to consider for one moment exactly how, in actual practice, that economic revival of Russia is going to take place.
Over a great part of Russia it is impossible to suppose that, for a long time ordinary trading can take place. Mr. Lenin himself has apparently recognised and said publicly, that to abolish capitalism in a country means to reduce that country to a. state in which the inhabitants are bound to live upon its unimproved natural resources, inasmuch as any improvement of natural resources involves the capitalist system. Having come to that conclusion, he seems to think that he has merely got to allow the ordinary capitalist system to re-establish itself and all will be well with the Russian people. But he has forgotten apparently that having destroyed the capitalist system in Russia it is impossible to restore it in the modern sense because during the restoration the whole of the population of Russia is bound to die of starvation, that the present capitalist system of free competition in industry has been built up during a very long series of generations, and that having reduced Russia to all intents and purposes to the condition of a thoroughly primitive country, with a population living upon its unimproved natural resources, it is impossible to restore the modern capitalist system in time to save the inhabitants from starvation.

523
Therefore it seems to me that the situation will have to develop somewhat on the following lines. Russia will be split up into great concessions which will be ruled autocratically by foreign capitalists of some nation or other. In other words, we shall have a form of capitalist feudalism in Russia for a period. The position is that over great portions of Russia the main desire of the inhabitants is to have enough to eat, and to be protected from their neighbours. In those conditions, where the population of the country is simply longing for protection against its own neighbours, and the possibility of being able to sow and reap its corn in safety, you are bound to have some form of feudalism as a temporary measure. That being the case, the development of Russia surely will be somewhat along the following lines during the next few years. The Soviet Government would be obliged to grant concessions involving the whole resources of great districts of Russia, and involving also the inhabitants of the districts which are the subject of the concession.
It is easy for the Soviet Government to hand over districts of Russia including the soil and the people. It is easy inasmuch as the people already are in the same position as the serfs in the Middle Ages. They are not allowed to leave their trade or their villages and are truly adscriptus glebœ. Therefore, it is easy to hand over to the concessionaires not only the districts, but the inhabitants as well. It is possible to do so also for this reason, that the state of destitution of the inhabitants in many parts of Russia is such that they are willing to give up political and economic freedom entirely to anyone who will really protect them. If there is going to be any development of Russia, and if the development is going to be along those lines during the next few years, until ordinary capitalism can be re-established, I for one should be glad that German or American capitalists should do it and not our fellow-countrymen.
The process will involve the complete negation of liberty for the inhabitants of Russia. It will probably involve a brutal autocratic rule by those concessionnaires, and I should be very sorry if fellow-countrymen were in any way involved in a system of that sort. Again,
524
it is not necessary for capital in this country to seek employment in Russia at the present time. We have not been reduced to anything like the state of poverty of Germany. Therefore we should not be justified in investing our capital in any but much safer risks than those which are to be found in Russia. On the other hand, the capitalist industrialist of Germany is in a very different position. He has got to turn over his capital extremely rapidly at the present time, and he has got to take extremely grave risks in doing it. Therefore, from every aspect, it is desirable, in fact it is inevitable, that it shall be German capital and German capitalists who will be the saviours of the economic life of Russia in the long run. I only rose to impress upon the House the very wise words of the hon. Member for Limehouse and to put forward certain other aspects of the question in addition to those to which he has referred.
Mr. WISE: I would like to congratulate the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department on his statement that, having met the delegates from Russia face to face, with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he feels that the Conference has taken a long step forward and that something may fructify from it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to unemployment. I do not see that there is any possible chance of solving our unemployment through Russia unless the credits required wore under a scheme organised by the Government. It is not often that economic forces furnish a story so dramatic and so ironical as that afforded by the course of the rouble or the kronen or the mark. I should be out of order in referring to the latter two, but I propose, in a few remarks, to refer to the rouble and to endeavour to show the chaotic position of the financial affairs of Russia. I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Limehouse that nothing can be done in Russia, in a large way, without Germany. I feel that the German understands Russia better than we do, and that if we were to go into Russia alone it would be a mistake.
This Conference really started at Genoa. At Genoa the Russians demanded a credit of two milliards of roubles. The Conference continued at The Hague, and the Russian delegates appeared with a demand for three milliards of roubles.

525
The White Paper which was issued last night states on page 13 that the credit demand was to be split up as follows: 1,000,000,000 for transport, 924,000,000 for agriculture, 750,000,000 for State industries and 500,000,000 for trade and banks. The Conference at Genoa came to an end because the Prime Ministers refused to allow any credits to Russia, and I do think that for the Russian delegates to come forward again at The Hague and to demand not only the same amount as before but 50 per cent. more was hypocrisy. With regard to currency in Russia, I feel that there can be nothing stable or satisfactory until we get the currency on a sound basis.
Within the last few months the rouble paper currency has expanded by leaps and bounds. Up to August, 1921, and the 18 months previous to that, the total amount of currency was about three milliard roubles, but since August, 1921, the expansion has been tremendous every month. The issue for September of last year was one thousand milliard roubles; in the month of October it was two thousand milliard; in the month of November it was 3,365 milliard; in December it was 7,700 milliard; in January it was 12,000 milliard; February 18,000 milliard and in March 24,000 milliard paper roubles. I apologise for giving these figures to the House. They are very important as showing the position of Russia, so far as credit is concerned. No nation on earth has ever got into such a chaotic position in its currency as Russia is in at the present time. They issue these currency notes to pay for their State industries. Russia is made up of a nation of valueless multimillionaires.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were those enormous issues of notes limited to the payment of State industry? Were they not used for all State purposes, the payment of salaries and everything else?
6.0 P.M.
Mr. WISE: No. I understand from the Deputy Commissioner of Finance, Sokolnikoff, that they were all for State industries. That was his statement. Whether it is right or wrong I leave it to the Committee to decide. There is one benefit which Russia has brought about recently. I hope that the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will be able to confirm this. It is that they have brought in a new type of rouble. After 1922 one
526
new rouble is to be equal to 10,000 old roubles. The equivalent of the old rouble was 20,000,000 to the pound sterling and that of the new rouble is 2,000 to the pound sterling. That is a big asset. It shows that Russia is endeavouring to get her domestic policy into some sort of shape. It is difficult, but it is a move in the right direction. It is more than has been done by Austria, Germany and other countries. In spite of this the country is faced with a financial crisis that is unparalleled. The Government owns everything but yet owns nothing. At a meeting of the Eleventh Communist Congress when the Deputy Commissioner of Finance, Sokolnikoff, was present, he stated that the only cure for Russia was to get her industries going and to develop trade and commerce. We are all agreed with that view. It is a right view. But it is not right that the Russian Government should undertake the task. The only possible chance is for the individual to do it. The Government is there to govern, to give security to the individual, to give security to trade and commerce; and only when you have that security can you expect credits to go into Russia. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) referred to the necessity of credits going into Russia. I feel confident that the right hon. Gentleman would not invest, his own funds there. Nobody should invest their funds in Russia until Russia is in a position approaching the balancing of her Budget.
I want to refer to the White Paper again. On page 9 it says:
"A certain number of questions was asked by the non-Russian sub-Commission about the Budget and the economic situation in Russia. The more precise information which was elicited in this manner was sufficient to make quite clear that the Budget proposals hold out no hope whatever that it will be possible at an early date to balance revenue and expenditure in Russia."
Those are very important words. Until you get some possibility of Budget balancing, and confidence restored, I shall be against any organisation for putting credit into Russia.
Mr. J. JONES: I cannot, of course, claim to have the expert financial knowledge of the last speaker. My knowledge of finance is limited by my lack of it. I always like to hear the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. He

527
has tried to-day to teach those of us who sit on the Labour Benches that because we advocate the reopening of Europe we are committing an offence against economic science. I may remind him that we do not know everything, and that the youngest of us does not know it all. We stand for the reopening of Europe after the greatest catastrophe in the history of the world. We all know who started the issuing of paper money. What is the English pound note worth from the standpoint of intrinsic value? It is hardly worth the paper on which it is printed from the standpoint of real value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eighteen shillings!"] Where is the 18s.? It is in the blood, the sinew and the brawn of the workers of Great Britain. You are banking on the possibilities of the future. None of you can afford to throw bricks at Russia. What has happened in Russia? Up to the present moment you have never recognised the fact that Russia made greater sacrifices to save the Allies than any other country which took part in the War. What are we fighting about now? What is the quarrel at the conferences, at Genoa, at Washington, and at The Hague? Fagin's kitchen—who is to get most of the swag. All the people who run Europe and the world, the hook-nosed patriots who sing "God Save the King" in broken English, meet round the table to decide what shall become of Russia, of France, and of Germany. And the hon. Member opposite, who says he hated Germany during the War and joined the Army to fight her, now turns round and tells us that we are going to hand Russia over to the Germans.
Russia is the greatest potential market of Europe. I do not believe that you can strike 12 o'clock at 11. I happen to be one of those terrible characters, a Social Democrat—a Democrat in politics and a Socialist in economics. I do not believe the hon. Member for Mossley understands what that means. We have always preached the doctrine that until a country is economically developed you cannot have a real democracy. The hon. Member says we have to go back to feudalism. Russia is in a feudal state to-day, autocracy based upon agriculture, a country with a small industrial population, of whose people 85 per cent. can neither read nor write. How can you expect democracy in such a country? You cannot have
528
democracy until you have educated democrats. The kind of Government that Russia has is a matter for the Russians themselves to decide. What are we doing? We would sooner pay £1,500,000 a week to keep the unemployed walking the streets in Great Britain than vote a similar sum to develop the resources of one of the greatest countries in the world. We Labour Members stand for the opening up of Europe and the breaking down of the barriers that divide countries. Hon. Members say, "Let Germany monopolise Russia. If she does, God help her." If Germany and Russia get together, God help Britain in the near future. The Germans have the industrial organisation and the military sense, and they have the power and opportunity of expressing the revenge that they would like to express. If you hand the people of Russia into the arms of Germany you are not the patriots that you pretend to he, but the enemies of your own country.
We want to break down the harriers. Russia is a great country, with great possibilities and great natural resources, and if the brains of Great Britain cannot develop those resources and help Russia, we shall suffer in the immediate future for our neglect. It. is not a question of politics; it is a question of common sense. The rouble has been mentioned. I have 5,000 in my pocket now. I do not suppose they are worth a farthing. After all, the people of Russia do not live on roubles, but on food, when they can get it. I have had money in my pocket in this country and with it could not get anything to eat, great people though we think ourselves to be. The question is not the amount of money which you may have. Real wealth is life. Real wealth consists of men and women capable of producing wealth. Russia is a country starving to-day for the want of development. The Russian Government, have been prepared to meet you. They have come to your conferences and have placed their cards on the table. What do you want? You want them to foot the bill. You are asking the people of Russia to pay the debts of the Czarist Government before the revolution of 1917. You ask them to pay for their own murder. What about the 5,000 men, women, and children who lost their lives in the squares of St. Petersburg before the revolution of 1917? What about the thousands who, fighting for political

529
liberty in their own country, were shot like dogs in the street? Who found the money for the Czar and his Government to murder the Russian people? Now you ask the people of Russia to foot that bill. They say they will not do it. Because they will not do it, you reply that there is "nothing doing."
You may go on with this policy. I have been in South Wales, among the workers there and elsewhere, and I say that the people of Great Britain are sick and tired of this non possums policy, this game of beggar-my-neighbour. Because you do not like the Government of Russia you are not prepared to open international relationships. We say that, whatever the Government of Russia may be, we should not quarrel with it. It is a matter for the people inside that country to settle for themselves. We are a country which lives upon exports and upon international trade, and if this House, because it is prejudiced against Soviet Government, is not prepared to shake hands with Russia in the economic sense, our difficulties must continue. I do not ask you to sleep in the same bed as Lenin or to shake hands with Trotsky, but I ask the House to realise that throughout Russia there are 200,000,000 people, that a country naturally rich is now cut off from civilisation, and I demand the restoration of international relationship. The Government of Russia say they are prepared to meet you, and they have laid down the conditions which you say you are prepared to accept. If you do not accept them, I cannot understand the position. It seems that the decision is to remain with the die-hards and the lie-hards. They say they believe in the Empire. They are always waving the Union Jack in front of the Union Jackasses.
We stand for the re-opening of international relationships. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has been to The Hague Conference. I suppose they sent him there because, possibly, the Government would not be committed to anything that he said or did. It is a very peculiar way we have of doing things. The Hague Conference was proposed as a means of settling the Russian question and the Russians were given a special invitation. They went there. They modified their policy, but we have not modified ours. The big five still put their foot down and
530
said, "So far shalt thou go and no farther." You may say what you like about Russia, but I predict that before many years are over the people who are now opposing international relationship with Russia will be sorry for the attitude they took up. Russia will recover herself. If you think that you are going to force the Russian Government into a revocation of existing policy you are wrong. The only result of your policy up to now has been that you have driven the majority of the Russian people to the support of their Government. Whatever chance there was for the re-organisation of Russia on democratic lines, and for a different kind of Government to be established in Russia, has become almost hopeless because of the attitude adopted by the rest of the Governments of Europe. Therefore, the Russian people have rallied to the Soviet Government more than they would have done otherwise. That is the only triumph you have achieved.
We on the Labour Benches want the world to be restored to industry, because we have nothing to gain by international difficulties and differences, and we have everything to gain by international co-operation. We do not wish to hand Russia over to Germany. We are not going to say that we are less capable of managing the affairs of Europe than the Germans. We are told by hon. Members opposite that the only hope for Russia is to throw her into the arms of Germany. If you do that, before many years are over, you will have to spend the money you are now being asked to give to Russia, in defending yourselves against an organised Russia controlled by a militarist Germany. If that is what you want, then say so. We, on our part, do not wish that that should happen. We want to restore the international relationship which ought to exist between all countries, no one country taking advantage of the other. We hope that The Hague Conference, although not the success which some people hoped it would be, will have good results. We hope the principle behind it will develop, and that the next time the representatives of the nations meet at The Hague, they will be able to come to some understanding as to the restoration of real economic relations between Russia and the rest of Europe.
Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I should apologise for speaking at all in this Debate, in view of the fact that I was unfortunately unable to be present at its earlier stages, and did not hear the speech of the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. There is one question, and one only, which I desire to put to the Government in relation to this matter. Genoa has passed: The Hague has passed. Certain progress has been made at The Hague, although there may be a difference of opinion as to how much. What is to happen now? We are discussing or supposed to be discussing the Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and perhaps it is an irony that this Debate should arise on that Vote, since I fancy no development of foreign policy, within the memory of the present generation, has had less to do with the Diplomatic and Consular Services of this country than the Conferences of Genoa and The Hague. I have expressed my opinion on that subject before, and I am not going to reiterate it. I think it is agreed that, while the Genoa Conference was fully prepared for, so far as the advice and recommendations of the economic experts from various countries were concerned, that Conference was in no way prepared for, as regards any preliminary sounding of the Governments with whom we had chiefly to deal at Genoa and on whose opinions and tendencies and policy, and on the trend of public opinion in whose countries the success or failure of the Conference depended. That, I think, will be generally admitted.
Now, what is to happen as a result of The Hague Conference? If we have made any progress, how are we going to ripen these half-ripe fruits which we have secured at The Hague? We are going back for the moment to the ordinary international relations with Russia—ordinary to this extent, that we are going to deal with the Russian Government during the next few months through intermediaries, through trade representatives, diplomatic representatives, and others. Are we going from henceforth to make a real attempt to do what, after all, the machinery of foreign policy exists for, namely, to exert an influence on the tendencies of the Russian Government and the Russian people through representatives who may be unofficial
532
and not accredited by the Government, so long as we have not recognised them de jure, but representatives who nevertheless are there already, who know the status quo and who are able to exert influence, or should be able to exert influence, if they are the right representatives? Are we going to use the machinery of our representation at Moscow, or strengthen the machinery of that representation, so that we may be able to conduct in, however non-committal a manner—I ask for no official communications—continuous relations and discussions with the Russian Government? That seems to me to be the most important question at the present time.
Are we, on the other hand, to go back to the situation as it was a year ago or six months ago? What was the situation for two or three years before the Genoa Conference? We conducted discussion with the Russian Government. We did not abstain from discussing matters with them, but we carried on the discussions by means of wireless telegrams which were subsequently published. That procedure may recommend itself to the minds of some hon. Members of the Labour party as open diplomacy. But open diplomacy does not consist of Press propaganda, and it has always seemed to me that the most hopeless feature of our foreign policy during the last two or three years has been the violent conversion of the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by Lenin to the custom of conducting all negotiations by published wireless telegrams and preaching long lectures to the Russian Government, which have no force, so far as any conviction can be conveyed or any influence can be exerted on the Russian Government by such communications. Are we going to go back to that system, or are we going to really use the machinery of our foreign relations for gradually and continuously persuading the Russian people? I hope sincerely that is the course we are going to pursue. It is by that course only we can make any future conference bear fruit. Conferences are useful when you bring Governments to the point where they are prepared, in principle, to come to an agreement if means can be found of devising such agreement. Until you have brought the Russian people up to the point where they are prepared to make an agreement in principle, any future

533
conference will be futile, and the only way to bring them to that point is by continuous negotiation through what are, in essence, diplomatic channels.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The speech of my Noble Friend adumbrates what I think would Ire a very useful step for the Government to take, namely, to appoint a regular representative in Moscow.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): We have a representative there.
Lord R. CECIL: There is a representative there, I believe, but as to how far he is a regular representative, and how far he can be termed a diplomatic representative, I am not sure. If you are going to try to arrive at any kind of a solution of this question through Governmental action—and I am not myself very sure that it is the best policy to pursue—then it is essential you should have the ordinary machinery of diplomatic negotiation in Russia as elsewhere. As my Noble Friend has referred to the regular practices of diplomatic negotiation, may I say to the Government I regret that they have not returned to the pre-War practice with regard to the publication of papers. I am very grateful for the fragment which the Government have laid on the Table in this instance—the papers relating to The Hague Conference. They are, of course, nothing but a reprint of what I believe has already been published, and the substance of which, certainly, has been in the newspapers. Before the War, it was the custom of all Governments to present, not merely the jejune resolutions of a conference of this kind, but documents containing a history of what led up to the Conference, and any other documents which would throw light, not only on the Conference itself, but on the policy of the Government in attending the Conference, and what the Government hope to accomplish. I respectfully suggest the time has come when we might return to that practice, and when the House of Commons might be taken more into the confidence of the Government in foreign affairs. After all, it is the duty of the House, not to direct foreign affairs—that I do not think it could do—but to pass judgment on what has been done by the Government of the day, and in order to do that it is
534
necessary that it should have full information as to all the circumstances of the case. In the interesting speech with which the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department opened this Debate, he gave us an account of what actually took place at The Hague, but as far as I heard it, there was very little to indicate what had been the policy of the Government leading up to The Hague, and still less to indicate what the policy of the Government is now—what they propose to do, and what action they think they might usefully take to deal with an admittedly serious and grave situation. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department said with great emphasis that we had taken a great step forward at The Hague, but later on he said that the step forward had led us to a temporary impasse.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I said that the final stage was a very definite advance, but that a temporary impasse was reached in the course of the long negotiations leading to that final stage.
Lord R. CECIL: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for correcting me. I do not wish to misinterpret him, and my observation for what it was worth is disposed of. There was a temporary impasse, and then there was a final advance. I am not quite sure about that advance. Let us bring to our minds the real situation in Russia as far as we know it. I agree fully with what everbody wishes, namely, that we should reopen commercial relations with Russia, and that that great country, with its enormous resources, should once again come into the commercial community of the world. All of us, Russia included, would gain by that re-entry. For the moment what is the position? The currency of Russia is absolutely gone, as was pointed out, by the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) who, after making his speech, has left the House.
Mr. WISE: No, I have not.
Lord R. CECIL: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not observe him. I should say that the hon. Member for Ilford, who sets such a very good example to some other hon. Members, who after making their speeches leave the House, has illustrated with great knowledge the fantastic condition in which the Russian currency now finds

535
itself. Another fact is that so far as we know the Russians have no goods to sell. There are no manufactured or semi-manufactured products to be sold. As far as I can guess, there is no gold. The knowledge of the hon. Member for Ilford on this question is greater than mine, but as far as I can guess, all the gold which the Bolshevist Government once had, or practically all of it, has been spent. Therefore, that is the situation, and when we talk about reopening trade with Russia, let us be quite clear what are the possibilities. I am not talking about reopening trade with the Government or anybody else, but there is only one thing that the Russians can give, so far as I can see, and that is concessions in some form or another. That is the situation, and what we have got to consider is how to induce people to invest money in Russian concessions. That is not a very easy problem, and I have a further observation to make which I am afraid will not make it any easier. I put aside the malicious suggestion that we went to The Hague to cover up the ill-success of Genoa, and I am prepared to assume that we went to The Hague for a definite purpose, that we went to The Hague in order to discuss in a practical manner the guarantees that we might ask from the Russians. I should be very glad to know what really were the guarantees which the Minister thought he could obtain from the Russians. He read—and I share in the pleasure with which he read it—the statement made at the very end of the Conference by the Russian Delegation. It was a statement that the Russian Delegation, in spite of the fact that they were to get no credits, were prepared to acknowledge the debts due by the Russian Government or its predecessors to foreign nationals, and that they were agreed to give effective compensation to foreigners for property previously owned by them, on terms which were to be arranged in each case by the people who had lost that property.
The Conference apparently unanimously regarded that as a perfectly hopeless suggestion, and I am not saying they were wrong, but what did they expect to get at The Hague, more than something of that kind? What kind of guarantees did they expect? The hon. Gentleman said there were no regulations, but what kind of regulations did they want? What was it
536
that they wanted? From the paper which I have read, I gather that they rejected the plan of looking into every specific case of confiscation and suggesting the compensation that ought to be given. I quite agree that it was hopeless to do that, but what did they want? What was it that they asked from Russia which at any rate could not have been worked out from that statement, if they really thought there was any guarantee which the Russians could give which would be any use? I rather agree with The Hague Conference in their conclusion that any statement, or guarantee by the Russians world not really help matters very much. Personally, I agree with them, but why did you go to The Hague? What were you going to do there? What was your purpose? All you could get at The Hague was some guarantee, or statement, or promise from the Russians, but what promise did you want? I should be very glad to have an answer to that. I feel myself that there is a great deal of difficulty, if you are going to proceed by negotiations with the Russians, in hoping for a successful result.
After all, let us recognise the economic foundation on which the present Russian Government is built. As I understand it, it is built on the Communistic theory of property—that is to say, that they distinctly reject private property as an institution. Our theory is, on the contrary, that all our economic system is ultimately based on the acknowledgment of private property, and we say, and say with great force, that you will never get what the Soviet Government would call capitalist Governments, or people living in a capitalist economic system, to trade in Russia unless Russia is prepared to recognise private property. I think that is true, but really what you are saying to the Russian Government is this, that the guarantee, if you want any guarantee, is an abandonment of the very foundation on which the whole of their economic system is based. Is that a thing which you are likely to get from their experts at The Hague? It seems to me that the real foundation of the matter is that, as far as the Russian Government is concerned, it is impossible to have trade relations between a system which rejects private property and a system which is based on private property. If that be the truth—and, as far as I can see, it is—I do not see myself what on earth is the use of all

537
these conferences with them. I think there is a great deal to he said for the view which, as far as we in this House are allowed to know it, was put forward by the French and Belgians at Genoa. They said, What is the use of talking to these people unless they recognise private property? And they were very much disposed to say, Until they do, nothing is to be gained by negotiations with them, and if you are to restore—I do not know whether the French and Belgians went as far as this, but I submit it—if you are to get back, as I earnestly desire that you should, into something like commercial relations with Russia, it can only be done, not by asking the Russian Government to abjure the fundamental tenet of their economic faith, but by getting somehow or another into some actual, commercial relation with the actual people of Russia.
That being so, I wish to call attention to what seems to me to be the latest of the failures of this Government to deal with the Russian situation. There is nothing more melancholy, in my judgment, than the history of our relations with Russia during the last three years. They have been unbroken failure. There was, first, the period of Prinkipo. There was a great deal to be said for entering into negotiations with the Russians, in some form or another, at the time of the Peace Conference, with a view to putting a stop to the actual fighting then going on, but that failed, and the next phase was the Koltchak-Denikin phase, when we spent vast sums of money in fostering attacks on the people with whom we had just before asked to negotiate. I am not going into it now, but there is a kind of defence—and to some extent it is a good defence—for assistance to Koltchak and Denikin, but there is no defence whatever, in my judgment, for the money we spent and the assistance we gave to Yudenitch and Wrangel, that almost filibustering procedure, without the slightest justification. But, justifiable or unjustifiable, it was another complete failure. Then came the Polish war. I think it was a disaster to allow the Polish fighting to proceed. It added enormously to the economic difficulties that no effective steps were taken to stop it. I know the Government say they did something to stop it, but I say that they did nothing effective to stop it, and I believe something effective could have been done. In any case, they did not stop it—another
538
complete failure. Now come Genoa and The Hague, and I am afraid we must add those to the Russian failures of the present Government. The worst failure of all has been the failure of the Government in dealing with the Russian famine. I think it is a terrible thing, because the Government undoubtedly knew what they ought to do. The Prime Minister, in August last year, told this House what ought to be done. They knew what ought to be done, they knew the crisis which they were up against, and they deliberately failed to do what they might have done. It was not only a question of providing food, though I do not believe you will ever get Russia back until you get some kind of restoration of its starving population, but what you wanted to do was to take the opportunity of the Russian famine to re-open trade with the Russian peasants. I see, in the speech of the Financial Secretary, which is quoted on page 18 of the White Paper, that he says this, and, if I may say so, perfectly rightly:
"Restore to the peasant practically and without qualification his power to control, to sell, to pledge the whole of his produce, and he will readily be able to obtain for himself the credit which he needs for the purchase of agricultural machinery and so on. Those who know him have confidence in his goodwill, if he has the ability to fulfil his obligations."
I believe there was an unrivalled opportunity for reopening, with the machinery of relief, relations with the Russian peasantry, about whom everything that I hear absolutely accords with what the Financial Secretary tells us. I believe that would have been a right policy, and that it would have done a great deal to help the situation. We did not deal with it. I see that some of these Commissions rejected—I have no doubt wisely rejected—the optimistic statements made by the Russian Delegation as to the condition of Russia, but in the result three million people have died, in great misery, and many, many more have suffered and have been reduced to powerlessness and in ability to restore their custom. But I still believe that even now, when all these opportunities have been missed, your best chance of re-opening commercial relations with Russia and restoring something, slowly—and it must be done very slowly—of the old commercial intercourse between the two countries is by utilising the entry you have got into Russia by your

539
relief organisation. There is a statement in this White Paper, a statement with which I heartily agree, and which points out the great difficulty of restoring Russia and the inevitable slowness with which any restoration can take place. It intimates in no uncertain terms grave doubts as to how long it will take to do this work, and what will be attained in the end. This is what it says:
"The derelict condition of Russian industry to-day, the chaos into which it has been plunged by those who have seized control, convinced us that there can be no hope for the restoration of that industry and of the industrial life of Russia, unless the Russian Government is prepared wholeheartedly to seek the co-operation of foreign skill and foreign capital. It will at best be a long and uphill task."
I am sure that is true. I do not believe that you will restore Russia readily or that we can help in the alleviation of European economic difficulties in the near future without the restoration of Russia. Though we are entitled to do what we can, I do regret very much what I think has been the mistaken policy of the Government. I earnestly hope that they are not going to proceed on the lines of further aimless—as I think—Conferences, but that they will try now to see whether it is not possible and practicable to reopen intercourse without raising those difficulties and controversial questions as to the proper economic basis of property. Only in that way, in fact, by building up from the very foundations a system of barter and exchange, can you hope, as I think, really to get any restoration of Russian commerce and Russian industry.
Though it is right we should do what we can to restore Russia, there is another urgent question that awaits us in regard to European restoration. That is on this Vote, as other questions, I believe, dealing with foreign policy, but by tacit agreement we are discussing mainly the Hague Conference. I trust I may be allowed, however, to say a few words here on what seems to me to be the very pressing economic danger which confronts Europe at the present time. I am afraid I have taken an anxious view almost ever since the summer of 1919 about what may be called "the margin of economic safety" which still remained in Europe. That seems to me to have diminished very greatly in the last few months. I confess that unless
540
we can take more vigorous and rapid steps to restore confidence in Central Europe, and the countries of Central Europe of which Germany is the most important, it does appear to me that there is not any reasonable hope of avoiding a very serious economic collapse.
I should welcome it if the Government were able to say later that they were prepared to face the facts boldly and clearly, to state what I believe to be the truth, that the economic policy for which they are very largely responsible in the Versailles Treaty has turned out to be a profound mistake, and that considerable changes will have to be made. Since our signature is attached to that Treaty they can only be made with the good will of the other parties. Since we have placed ourselves in that unfortunate position, we must be prepared to deal generously with the situation. Above all, let us face the facts. Do not let us go on trying to buoy ourselves up with unrealities in this matter. We must recognise where Europe is going to, and the urgent necessity of something being done to prevent this great economic danger which seems to be confronting us. Perhaps the Government have information which will enable them to say that the danger is not so urgent as it seems to me, but let me remind them that this danger has in the mind of some of us always been threatened, and it is coming nearer and nearer, and it is only a question of time when it will arrive at a climax. I do earnestly hope that we shall hear from the Government, at any rate before the House rises, that they are determined to take a vigorous and courageous course, to meet their Allies fairly, to recognise that they have Treaty rights which must be respected; to meet them as you can only meet people who have treaty rights by making concessions, so that it will enable them to modify the position at present laid down.
Mr. MALONE: This debate is crippled by the fact that complete papers have not been laid on the Table. We have been given what is entirely ex parte documents containing speeches made by one side. I believe if it had been possible to provide us with the Minutes we should he in a better position to-day to give a considered judgment on The Hague Conference. It is like so many other occasions in connection with this present

541
Government to whom one phrase can be, as it was once, applied: "Too late, too late"—too late is the action of the Government in this case. Was there ever a more deplorable sight than the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) coming down and from that Box to-day praising The Hague Conference. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of three years ago when he was on the back benches below the gangway, and when he and others, led by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) opposed those of us in this House who suggested another such Conference to see if a solution of the Russian question could not be found! Was there any more despicable sight than the hon. Member coming down here to-day and eating his own words? I do not like to dwell on personal references, but I cannot help passing this observation: "I told you so."
It is very nearly three years ago, in November, 1919, that I went to Russia and came back here and endorsed the policy of the Prime Minister and his suggestion that another attempt should be made to hold another Conference. May I remind hon. Members of the manner in which certain Members of the Government have utilised every opportunity both inside this House and outside to express their displeasure at the attitude I took up in showing up their policy in Russia? I certainly hope that any effort I have been able to make in trying to break down the barriers between these two countries may also be carried out in a similar manner by the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin division (Sir C. Townshend) who is now, at his own risk, trying to break down similar barriers which this Government have erected between the British Government, and the Government of Turkey, and Angora. If the Government had accepted our advice three years ago to try to bring about peace between this country and Russia, millions of money and thousands of lives would have been saved. The £200,000,000 which we have poured out in the deserts of Russia under Denikin, Koltchak, Yudenitch and Wrangel might have been saved, and might have been put to the building of houses and other social improvements which were required here. Hon. Members jibe us on this side for having done the talking. Having done talking in the last few years one may
542
draw a comparison between talking and action. Consider the action that has sent money to kill other people. If your action means sending secret service agents to do all this work that has been done it is a pity, and for my part I prefer to be on the talking side in this House, and to have clone a little to make matters better. I myself take credit for having addressed from 200 to 300 meetings in the course of the last few years on this matter. What is the result of this continued policy of inaction of the last few years? We are losing trade with Russia.
The Noble Lord who spoke last said there was not very much to come out of Russia. Every day we go on there is less and less, but, as a matter of fact, I believe a certain amount is even now, at this present time, trickling into the ports and harbours of this country. I believe that in the Port of Hull very nearly one shipload of timber is coming per week. Cannot we do something to increase that? I heard a few days ago that a contract for a thousand locomotives had been put out by the German Government. I understand the arrangement was made for it to be shared between Messrs, Krupps and Messrs. Vickers—that this contract should be halved; but how can any firm in this country without proper recognition add to that trade? What is the state of affairs? I believe that Krupps have taken over the whole of that contract and have already turned out nearly all the locomotives asked for.
There is a very much more serious aspect of this case, and a very much more serious result is likely to come. It is the whole re-orientation of European policy. At the Genoa Conference we heard of a secret military pact between Germany and Russia; we heard a good deal about the massing of troops on the Polish frontier. It may or may not have been true—we have heard little about it since. But there are, very ugly rumours going about on the Continent which I heard only a few days ago. Whether these be true or not, they show the sort of intrigues likely to take place if the present policy continues. The rumour that I heard was that there had been a secret military pact between the Russians and between certain sections in Germany, and that, simultaneously with the rising in Bavaria, or somewhere in that part of Germany, there would, possibly, be an

543
attack made on Warsaw and Poland from the other side, that later, probably, a new monarchy would be founded out of Bavaria, and, subsequently, there would be brought about an amalgamation of Austria and Western Germany. These stories may or may not be true. They at least show that something is going on. There is no smoke without fire. The longer we go on adopting a policy of isolation as regards Russia the longer shall we force these countries to intrigue and scheme to the detriment of Great Britain.
7.0 P.M.
There is a great deal of employment in Germany. Everybody is working, but with the state of the market as it is to-day by the end of this year unemployment will be setting in in Germany probably on a scale a great deal bigger than it is in this country now. This is what the British policy of isolation will lead to. I feel that The Hague Conference and the Genoa Conference have definitely done some good. They have definitely broken down barriers and have begun to remove misunderstandings between different peoples. I believe they would have been carried out more quickly with any other form of government than the present one. I say, without wishing in any way to apologise to the Prime Minister, that I believe the greatest obstacle with which he has had to contend during the last three years has been certain sections of the Press. On every occasion when an understanding with Russia has been tried—when Prinkepo or some such other solution has been in sight—the Northcliffe Press has started a campaign throughout the whole of this country and has jeopardised the chance of success of an undertaking which I believe the Prime Minister, or at least part of him—the part of him which sees what is true and right—would have wished to have put into effect if he had not been stopped. We all regret, no doubt, the sad illness which has now befallen Lord Northcliffe, but it may well be that the misfortunes of that Press will turn out to be of inestimable benefit to the peace and prosperity of this country and to the salvation of Europe.
What is the next step? I would like to know, when the Prime Minister replies, what is going to be done. I feel we are not very far off arriving at a solution.
544
Both sides—the Russians and those opposed to them—have tried to achieve certain goats. When you do not achieve your goal, you have to aim nearer home. You have to try not to go quite so far; you have to modify your ambitions and what you are trying to achieve, if you are going to achieve anything at all. That has got to be done by both sides. Nobody—and I am only able to read what is written by the other side—has been more frank in admitting their failures, so far as failures have occurred in putting their system into operation, than those who represent the present Russian Government, We have got to admit our failures. We can no longer overthrow what still exists in that country; we have got to give up any principle of that sort. What is really wanted is a greater amount of good will on both sides; a greater desire to come to terms between the two contending principles which are meeting at these Conferences. One of the best ways of achieving that would he for the British Government to give the fullest possible recognition to the Russian Government. There are business men—I saw one only to-day—who are coming to a successful agreement with the Russian Government with regard to their pre-War concessions. I saw a very big business man, who controls very many hundreds of thousand pounds of pre-War capital, and I believe he is quite satisfied with the negotiations he has been able to carry out with the Soviet Government. These can only be concluded if the Government recognises the Soviet Government. Therefore, in conclusion, I urge that the Government should do all in their power to give the fullest possible recognition to the Soviet Government.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The very lucid statement made by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) with regard to the business of the Hague Conference renders it quite unnecessary for me to dwell upon the proceedings there by way of explanation. All I would say is that I think, having followed this matter very closely now for years, The Hague Conference represents a very distinct advance towards a final solution. Whether it will be a final solution or not will depend, not upon the action which is taken by this country, or by its Allies and Associates, but upon the action which is taken by

545
the Russian Government as a result of these two Conferences. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that, whether the Conference be a failure or a success, that is no reason why these discussions should come to an end. I rather regret that the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. (Cecil) took up the position to-night—as I understood him—that if a conference does not achieve all you hope for, you should suddenly become discouraged, allow things to drift, and by that means take risks which the world cannot possibly face at the present moment. The Noble Lord at this moment is engaged in conferences himself. If he thinks he is going to succeed in one conference or in two conferences, in one year or in two years, he is very sanguine. May I say that he will not criticise his own conferences in the spirit in which he criticises the conferences attended by us. I am not saying that as a retort, but am making it as an appeal. I trust, if the Noble Lord fail the first time, I shall certainly not taunt him. If he fail a second time, I shall not chide him; if he fail the third time, I shall not criticise him; and if he fail seventy times seven, I shall then rather admire him, because it will show that he tenaciously clings to his purpose, and hopes in the end that he will achieve something.
I say the same in regard to your dealings with the very troublesome situation in Europe. You are not going to bring that to an end in one Conference or two, or perhaps even in a dozen, and whoever may succeed this Government, I hope they will not be embarrassed by any criticisms or jeers that they may have directed at the present Government because they attended Conferences. Let them be quite oblivious of their part in that respect. Let them take care not to live up to it; on the contrary, let them live it down, and go on "conferencing" until peace be established in Europe and the world has been restored to order. I am saying that in all sincerity, as one who thoroughly realises what the difficulties are, and how impossible it is, except step by step, to achieve the end we all desire. We are too apt to forget that we are only three years from the greatest War the world has ever seen. When I think of that, I am amazed that such progress has been made—I do not mean to say by this country, but by the world as a
546
whole. I do not accept the view of the Noble Lord that affairs are getting worse in Europe. If you compare Europe as a whole to-day with the Europe of three years ago, affairs are better. There are parts of Europe which may perhaps be conceivably worse, but, taking it as a whole, the well which was exhausted by the War is gradually filling.
I do not want to enter into a discussion as to the past in Russia, not that I am in the least afraid—not in the least—of that discussion, but it is barren. I have never been an apologist for the, corrupt ineptitude of the Czarist régime. As an old Minister of Munitions and a Minister of War, I know how much Russia and the Allies suffered from it—how millions of the most devoted, loyal and submissive peasantry in the world were sent to the-slaughter by the million without any arms in their hands, and without any artillery to protect and support them. Therefore, I axe not defending that system, with its pogroms and Siberian prisons. I have never been a defender of it, but when my right hon. Friend says that we are partly responsible for the, miseries of Russia as Allies through the War, I think he cannot possibly have remembered the story a the War. Russia was first in, and first out. We did not start it. It was not we who dragged Russia into it. I do not say that Russia dragged us into it, but Russia fired the first shot, and the first declaration of war was by Russia, and not by us. Therefore, so far as Russia and the Russians are concerned, we certainly have no responsibility for any of the disasters that befell her. On the contrary, we did our very host to repair the deficiencies in the Russian organisation right through the War. At considerable expense—expense that ran into hundreds of millions—we involved ourselves in liabilities in America, in order to support Russia. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not do the injustice to this country of saying that we were responsible for the great disasters that befell the Russian arms.
Mr. CLYNES: The Prime Minister is not touching the point which I tried to make. That point is that, after Russia fell out of the War and following the revolution in Russia, our attitude towards the Russian Government, and our support to military excursions within Russia, was to a great extent a contributory cause of the Russian misery.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am coming to that point; but that is a totally different one. I took a careful note of it at the time. The right hon. Gentleman went on afterwards to make other points, and I am going to deal with them shortly—very shortly—because I think it is rather futile to discuss these past episodes. If my right hon. Friend says he did not mean that we were in the least responsible for dragging the Russian peasantry into the War, with disastrous effect, I have nothing more to say. I am dealing categorically with the statements that the right hon. Gentleman made. His next statement was that we did not give the necessary support to Kerensky. We gave every support in our power to Kerensky, and if he failed it was not our fault. There was no request that he made for any material support to which we did not accede. We sent him whatever he requisitioned, and the failure was due to causes to which I do not wish to refer, as I am afraid it would look like a criticism of the Kerensky régime.
I come to the third point—that we were responsible for what happened afterwards. I have never been able to accept that point of view. Hon. Members opposite assume that there was a Russian Government established in Russia—something which was called a Soviet Government, controlling and governing the whole of Russia—and that we wantonly invaded Russia in the face of that Government, and stirred up strife, civil tumult and rebellion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am afraid my hon. Friends have read their history in the columns of the "Daily Herald." It has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the facts. What were the facts? The Soviet, or the Bolshevists, by a coup d'état—by force, not by an appeal to the Russian populace, not by an election, not by seeking the suffrages of the country, but purely by force—overthrew a Socialist Government. The minority which you always have in a revolutionary movement, a small, resolute, extreme minority, prepared to resort to force, and, while their opponents were hoping to quell them by speeches, attacked the Socialist Government, and overthrew it by the sword. Some of the Socialists, undoubted Socialists, seized certain provinces, and had the support of the population there. In other provinces there were con stitutionalists, not followers of the Czar,
548
but men who were in favour of a constitutional monarchy, and there were others, like Koltchak. You had more than half Russia following one régime, and the other half under the heel of a junta, who were governing, not with the consent of the people, but by the sword. Among the former were men who supported us in the War, who organised Russia's resources in the War, who prevented Germany from seizing the national resources of Russia, who were in possession at that very moment of those very territories which they had defended on behalf of the Allies.
Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: They asked for our help.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. How can you put that in the category of the invasion of a friendly territory, governed by an established Government, which is there with the will of the people? It is no use treating this question as if we went there in order to overthrow a Government which the workmen and the other people of Russia wanted. Let us be quite frank. They are the de facto rulers of Russia, but Russia lies never asked for them. There is no evidence that Russia ever wanted them. Russia has acquiesced in their rule, and you cannot put it beyond that. But it is only acquiescence in their rule after they had, by sheer force, conquered the provinces of Russia which were attached to other forms of government. I only want to correct the theory that we invaded a friendly country. I regret that it should be necessary to go into this question, and I would not have done it had it not been that two right hon. Gentlemen, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, thought it necessary to take up the bones of the past, and to fling them at the head of the Government.
I come, therefore, to a much more genial task, and that is the consideration of the present. For five years there has been a Soviet régime in Russia. During the whole of that time the enormous resources of Russia have been practically inaccessible to the world. It is idle to pretend that is not a loss to civilisation. It is, The trade of the world is suffering from the fact that the world is impoverished. You find that India cannot buy from us, because she cannot sell to Russia and to other countries, and that China cannot buy to the same extent. Trade is interdependent, and the moment

549
you lock up the resources of a great country like Russia, then to that extent you deplete the resources through which the trader does business, and provides employment for the multitude. The only question is, Is that to continue? How long is it to continue, and is there anything that Governments can do to accelerate the restoration of normal conditions? That has been frankly examined by conferences, attended by about 26 different nations, who have thought it quite worth while to come together twice, in order to examine the conditions upon which their own peace and prosperity so much depend. There are people in Russia who imagine, as my right hon. Friend very fairly stated, that an arrangement with us and other Powers is entirely to our advantage, and there are people in this country who think that an arrangement of that kind is entirely to the advantage of Russia. It would be to the advantage of both—if it could be done.
What is the condition of Russia? It could not very well be worse. It is a country of infinite resources, which, during the last few years, has been visited by every conceivable calamity. There was war and war which inflicted greater losses in killed and. wounded than were suffered by very nearly all the allied countries put together. The losses were terrific. If you put all the dead of all the other allied countries together, you would find that the Russian figure would surpass it. We must not forget that in our reckoning of the. Russian peasantry when we are out to criticise them for a premature peace. That was the first fact. Then came a revolution. A revolution may be necessary; people may be driven to it, but, nevertheless, a violent revolution is a calamity to a country. If a country cannot save itself without a. revolution, it is just like an operation—it may be necessary, but it is debilitating, it is destructive, and it is very terrible. There were two revolutions; and then civil war. What greater disaster could happen to a nation than civil war? It raged for two or three years, tearing through the vitals of Russia. Another calamity was that Russia has had every form and kind of bad government, a succession of had government. Think, of every conceivable kind of bad government! It has been inflicted on Russia. [An HON. MAMBER: "We have got one, too."] Well, it has
550
many faults. Then there were pestilence. drought and famine. It is difficult to think of any category of disaster to which Russia was not subjected in the, last seven years. That is the country with which you have got to deal.
Are things going to get better? Things will not get better in Russia, and it is no use pretending they will, until Russia falls in with the civilised world. I have been reading a very able document, placed in my hands by an Englishman who has just. returned from Russia. It gives a very vivid and striking account of the country. I think it represents the real state of things. There is an appearance of plenty in some districts. You find some people well-dressed; you find them even daintily dressed, and wonder where those good clothes, and excellent boots and those dainty fripperies come from. You say, "Here is a prosperous Russia; its factories are working—its textile factories, its boot factories." Then you begin to discern what has happened.
Undoubtedly a change has come over government in Russia, and the people are bringing out their hoards of old clothes. Russia. is dressing in the fashion of pre-War, in clothes which have been hidden all that time. But there is nothing behind. The shops have got everything in the windows; there are no reserves. The factories are becoming derelict; every month is making them drop into decay. They cannot run factories. I said, on coming back from Genoa—and I am still of the opinion—that they are bound to restore the factories, because they do not know how to work them. Getting the Western capitalist as they are called—what I call Western brains, the Western trader, and Western skill—is essential to Russia, to enable her to run her manufactures. What has happened to the railways? They cannot build locomotives, they cannot repair locomotives. The result is that the rolling stock is getting worse and worse; and unless the West come in, you will have permanent ways which are wearing, and along which you can run nothing. If you had the permanent way, the sleepers are rotten, the permanent way is worn out, the locomotives and wagons are out of repair, and in a very short time they will be short of even that which is necessary for the very minimum of requirements. That is the condition of Russia, and that is her need. As for her cur-

551
rency, it is a joke. The gentleman to whom I have referred was held up by a couple of porters and he handed to them 3,000,000 roubles. The porters said, "Is that the sort of payment you are giving to an honest Bolshevist?" He paid 5,000,000 roubles for a little stick of chocolate, and there is no doubt that the ordinary medium of currency is rapidly disappearing. Unless something be done, and done soon, Russia will be reduced to something like primeval conditions, property owners will have no property which can be restored, and there will be nothing but the sites of the railways which will be of no use.
It is idle to talk about "recognition" in these conditions until you restore the country. On the other hand, there is the need in this country for orders for the very things of which Russia stands in need, such as locomotives, engineering, and all kinds of agricultural implements, so that the two needs together make one common opportunity, and the question is how can it be done? My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) asked: "Why do you not give recognition to Russia first, and all the rest will follow? Send an Ambassador to Moscow, to be followed by a train of bankers, financiers, manufacturers, traders, and so on." If you sent out the best Ambassador we possess, he would not be followed by a single banker or trader until the necessary conditions were established, and to say otherwise is really misleading the public. Russia should understand the only conditions under which it is possible for the West to come to her aid, and until she thoroughly comprehends that fact, no business will be done.
Misleading statements of that kind only encourage Russia to hesitate. They say, "Let us wait. There are people coming who will put all these things right. They will advance us credit, and give us the necessary things we want." But they will not do it. As a matter of fact, they dare not, and until normal conditions have been restored in Russia, it cannot be done. Therefore, in so far as my feeble voice can reach, I want the Russians thoroughly to comprehend, to appreciate and understand that until those conditions have been restored it will be idle for them to seek any credits or any aid from the West.
552
In my judgment, one of the greatest advantages of these Conferences, in a very large measure—in fast I think it was our greatest achievement—was the process of educating Russia to an understanding of the facts. As my hon. Friend has already said, the Russians are getting to realities. They have among them some very able and intelligent men. I have had a great deal to do with Russians during the last e or six years, and I do not think that I ever knew Russians who were more able men than those I met at these Conferences. As long as you have conflicting statements made by other people, there will be delays but when they once realise what has to be done, then they will act upon our advice. We cannot give credits to Russia until she has established security. Until that has been done, Russia is not going to get Government Loans from us, because that is impossible. The loans were only granted to Russia during the War when it was a necessity, and before the War the Russian Government had to seek its loans in the ordinary market like any other Government. It is no use trying to draw a distinction between the Czarist régime and the Socialist régime. The Czarist Government had to go upon the strength of its own credit to the markers in France and here, and the present Russian Government must do the same. although it would be idle for them to attempt to do so under present conditions.
I put it in this way to hen. Gentlemen opposite. Here we have the only people who can restore Russia. As my hon. Friend (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) has already said, the only people who can really restore Russia are those who were engaged in Russian trade before the War. Unless their interests be made secure. and encouraged, I do not know of any other agency by which you can do it. Our Government cannot do it, and who has to do it? The people who are interested in that kind of trade. But how can anybody expect them to do this when the investment in private property in Russia is not regarded as a sacred trust to be undertaken by the Government? [Laughter.] Hon. Members on the Labour benches laugh, but supposing, instead of this being property that has been confiscated, it had been wages. I will put the ease quite fairly. [An HON.

553
MEMBER: "The same as South Wales!"] Yes, there were workmen from Wales who went to Russia, and founded a town with a Welsh name. Supposing they went there as workmen in Russia, and were turned adrift, without their wages being paid, their cottages were confiscated, their furniture either burned or destroyed, and they were sent away without a penny in their pockets, and suppose it was a question of asking a number of these workmen to go back to Russia under such conditions. How many would be prepared to go back! I do not think you would get a single bus load to leave the most unemployed area in England under those conditions.
Mr. SUTTON: That has been done in Lancashire.
The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the question at issue. I am trying to show that there is no difference between the confiscation of private property and wages. But this is not so much a question of property as a question of security. Men are not going to invest their capital or their labour unless they feel that there is security for both in that country, and that is the first fact which the Russian Government have to recognise. The next point is, how is security to be established? My hon. Friend stated quite clearly what is the position of the Allied experts at The Hague, and he has laid down the only conditions which will make it possible for credits with Russia to be established. Russia must first of all accept her liability for credits granted to her before and during the War, and I understand that she has expressed her willingness to do that.
Lord R. CECIL: When?
The PRIME MINISTER: A statement to that effect was read out by my hon. Friend. The difficulty has not arisen over that matter, but over the question of the restoration of property. With regard to property, Russia must either put the owners of private property back into their old position, under some workable terms, or she must give real compensation in one form or another. Is Russia prepared to do that? I understand they are taking those propositions back to their own Government for consideration, and we are awaiting their reply. If they are prepared to do that, and to carry out
554
loyally their undertaking, then it is not a question of waiting until the very last transaction has been fulfilled, because that is not the point. It is a question of Governments being satisfied that Russia is likely to carry out her ender-taking, that she is willing to carry out her promises and pledges, to carry out the agreement she has entered into, and put back the owners of property into their former position wherever it be possible, and to show us that they intend to do it as rapidly and effectively as they can.
As I stated here before I went to Genoa, and as I have stated several times since, that will be the time for recognition. The time for recognition is when the Russian Government has not merely given an undertaking and verbal guarantees, but has given some practical example of her intention to carry out such an undertaking. That will be the time to accord to Russia full diplomatic recognition. Until then, it will be impossible for us to do that. It would be a mistake. It would be a mistake on the Russian part; it would give them nothing unless they established their bona, fides, and they have to do that either by restoration or by compensation. I believe their representatives at The Hague realise that. They are taking back these propositions to their Government, and if their Government, profiting by the terrible experiences of the last six years—which have shown how impossible it is to govern a country on these disastrous principles—if they profit by this experience, they will give us that guarantee, and they will not only do that, but they will proceed instantly to put the guarantee into operation. Once they do that, there will be an inducement for the capitalist to go there. There will be an inducement for men seeking for investment to place their money in Russia. It is no use hon. Members smiling at that; it is a purely business proposition.
These people have tried the other experiment, and have failed. They have now, I am perfectly certain, enough discernment to realise that they must proceed on other lines. If they do it courageously, well and good. Every time we have discussed this matter, instead of giving plain, simple, straightforward answers, they produced a brilliant piece of writing, which gave great satisfaction to the person who wrote it, great satisfaction to the unthinking man in Russia,

555
and to some people here, who said, "How they score!" These "scores" have been fatal, and I earnestly hope that Russia will give an unequivocal and a simple answer. Then peace will follow. It is not a question of the success of The Hague Conference, or of the Genoa Conference. That is not what we are looking after. What we want is to restore the normal life of Europe. I believe that can be done. It can be done if there be bona fides on both sides. There is already a better spirit. The mere fact that all those nations which were arming and intriguing against each other have sat round one table, and discussed their common interests, has already produced good results. When there was a danger of the break-up of the Conference at The Hague—and some people wanted to break it up—all the Powers along the frontier which a short time since were arming against Russia, signed a paper begging that the Conference should not be broken up. And the mere fact that you have this new desire to work together is worth something. If it is only on that basis, and that basis only, that peace will be restored to the world, and there will be a restoration of prosperity to many millions of people.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Prime Minister congratulated the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) on the tenacity with which he sticks to his guns, and told him that if he did not achieve disarmament at present he will be forgiven for his non-success, and that forgiveness will be extended to him seventy times seven if necessary. Surely these words directed to the Noble Lord might well be addressed by the Prime Minister to himself. For the last three and a half years he has been striving, he has told us, in one way or another, to bring Russia back within the comity of nations. It is related of George IV that towards the close of his life, so often had he told the story of the part he took in Waterloo, he came to believe that he really had been there. The Prime Minister has been trying to achieve the enormous result of bringing Russia back to the Coalition Government. He has told us that so often that he will really believe that all along the Coalition Government of Great Britain has played a noble part in trying
556
to restore peace to Russia, The tragedy of it is the right hon. Gentleman's heart throughout has been in the right place. Prinkipo was his true self, Ever since then he has been seeking, with his hands tied more or less, to settle the Russian question, even when his colleagues have dragged him at the chariot wheels of Denikin and Koltchak. He knew it was wrong, but he could not. help it. When it was a question of a Polish war, he knew what the frontier ought to be, but it was altered to the disadvantage of Russia against the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman. Again he knew it was wrong, but he could not help the French policy. Even within the last six months at Genoa he again would have made peace; he knew peace was possible, he knew a settlement was possible, and he might have achieved the result in spite of his evil companions had it not been for the wickedness of M. Poincaé. It is always somebody who prevents the great and good man doing what is just. I am afraid there will always be someone to prevent justice being done as long as the. Prime Minister of England lacks the moral courage to do what is right in spite of what his colleagues may think.
I ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his policy was. Apparently we are to go on with this endless vista of conferences until they reach seventy times seven. We are to go on educating the Russian people bit by bit, at intervals of six months giving them a fresh lesson, and an expensive one, too, as Under-Secretaries do not go out to these conferences for nothing. We are going to carry on this series of educational conferences until the Russian Government puts on a white sheet, takes a candle in each of its two hands and apologises for the crime of being socialistic. I really do not see what good is going to be gained by forcing a Government to apologise for its past. The right hon. Gentleman himself, with the wonderful ability be has in reconciling two parties who will not sit down together, might from his experience elsewhere have drawn the conclusion that it is possible to get right results out of a country without forcing it formally to apologise and recant. Apparently those wicked people who fomented civil war have only to say, "We will allow the capitalist to come back and give him assistance," and in spite of their lurid past

557
the right hon. Gentleman is willing to shake hands with them, to embrace them, and to forget all the bloody incidents of the Russian rebellion.
If the policy of the Government in connection with Russia is to consist of waiting to see whether they apologise, then I say it is the feeblest policy that even this Coalition Government has ever adopted. To wait until the Russian Government apologise means to wait until more and more people in this country are on the brink of starvation. I can quite sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman when he is pressed to lend money to Russia or Austria or Germany. I understand all these suggestions are being made to him at the present time. I can quite sympathise with him in refusing to look at any of them, for, after all, if there is any money to invest the people of this country would prefer that it should be so invested as to give employment here. The only thing we say is if you open up diplomatic relations with Russia, if you again will treat Russia, in spite of her Government not meeting with approval in Downing Street, as a civilised Government., although she has a Soviet ruler, then in time the educational process which you are going to promote by conferences will take place through ordinary diplomatic exchange and commercial exchange, and will gradually extend.
I admit that for a long time you will not get any capitalists to put their money into Russia. But that will come sometime. They will not put money in unless they can be pretty sure of a big return. The lack of security means a demand for a higher rate of interest and the people of Russia will have to pay in high prices for the foreign goods which they buy for the lack of security now existing. That security has to be built up again. No dramatic act by the Russian Government will induce the ordinary investor to put his money into Russia. He is considering very dolefully his other foreign investments, and he is not likely to spring into Russia and put his investments there, merely because the Russian Government have signed a document saying that they are going to be good boys in the future.
8.0 p.m.
It seems to me that the only policy which can be of service to Russia is the policy advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting, of sending your
558
Ambassador to Russia; to give her recognition and to treat her as one of the ordinary civilised countries. I do not believe there will be much trade done with Russia for many years to come, but, at any rate, we shall be doing the right thing, and we shall not be deflected into dubious courses by the pressure of foreign administrations which cannot have the interests of Great Britain or the interests of Europe at heart as much as we whose whole trade depends on the recovery of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman startled me by suggesting that really the position of Europe to-day is far better than it was two years ago. Surely he does not really think that the position is improving. Surely he realises that his administration has not resulted in saving Europe, although it may have resulted in preventing England herself sinking into the same bottomless pit of insolvency. He has only to look at. Europe a year ago to see how far, far worse we are to-day than we were then. A year ago the Austrian crown was worth just about what the German mark is worth to-day; and, where the Austrian crown is to-day, if this system of letting Europe-rip continues, the German mark will be this time next year. The gradual "rouble-isation" of the coinage all over the East of Europe has been progressing throughout the last three years. There has been no check; things are getting consistently and continually worse. The reflection of this continual deterioration upon the trade and industry of this country is becoming so marked that even the children of the electors recognise it, as has been shown at Pontypridd. Trade is getting worse. The right hon. Gentleman has not got any cure for it. He does not know what to do. He is at his wit's end. Is it not really about time that he considered whether his whole policy during the last three years, of allowing British policy to be chained to the chariot wheels of French Imperialist diplomacy, has not had something to do with the lamentable result that we see in Europe to-day?
This consistent, perpetual pressure upon Germany, hanging a gigantic and undefined loan for reparations over the head of Germany, makes it, first of all, impossible for the German nation to recover, so that our best customer in Europe

559
may again be able to buy our goods. It also makes it impossible for the French Government to balance their accounts. As long as they go on reckoning upon getting vast problematical sums from Germany, they do not balance their Budget, and now, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the only question is, when France at last becomes disillusioned as to the possibility of getting real substantial reparations out of Germany, whether the franc will not suffer from the same disease that is already affecting the currencies of the rest of Europe. The reparations have been a curse both to the country which was to pay and could not, and to the country which was to receive the reparations and did not. There is complete instability in both cases. This policy is not only bad for Germany, and we know it; it is bad for France, and we know it; it is bad for the whole of the rest of Europe, and we not only know it but are suffering from it more and more.
Is it not possible, even at this late hour, for the Prime Minister to deflect his course into a different direction? Nothing can be clone unless the economic Clauses of the Versailles Peace Treaty are altered. That must be done somehow. I quite admit that it is difficult, when you have signed in conjunction with many other parties, to alter a Treaty. But the Prime Minister knows that pressure can be brought to hear upon the other signatories to that Treaty, owing to the financial control which we have, owing to the financial obligations which are owed, not only to this country, but to America. The position of England and America, so far as any alteration or revision of the Peace Treaty is concerned, is comparatively simple. I would beg the Prime Minister if and when—I am sure it must come sooner or later—he comes to the conclusion that the Versailles Treaty must be revised if civilisation is to recover once more in Europe, to get closely into touch with America on the question. Let us see that the two Anglo-Saxon races of the world, who are the financial centres of the world, who really are the only two Powers that count in the world now—let us see that they pull together in order to attempt the salvation of civilisation.
Our interests and the interests of America at the present moment are one. In both countries there are millions of un-
560
employed— unemployed because their customers are unable to buy their goods. It seems to me that the whole trusteeship of civilisation rests upon them. Civilisation in Europe is dying, and its death can be measured by the gradual fall of the currency its salvation, if it is to be brought about, depends upon the Anglo-Saxon races. Our interests are one, and our joint power in forcing any revision of the Versailles Peace Treaty that we desire to see is certainly far in excess of that of any other combination in the world. Indeed, when England and America together are aiming at a financial policy to save civilisation, it would be worth bringing a certain coercion to hear in order to achieve that result. I do not think the Prime Minister sees that the alternative is a desperate one He thinks we are getting better. He cannot think, although if he consults his experts, he must realise, that, as each country successively goes down the bill, the opportunities and the hopes of saving civilisation get less and not mere. The trade of this country, while it may have some temporary spurts, due to special circumstances across the Atlantic, must consistently get worse and worse as Europe gets less and less civilised. The people there will not buy our goods. The whole trade which was built up in the nineteenth century is vanishing. The danger is getting daily more imminent. The time must come, sooner or later—by this Government, if it is wise if not, by some other Government in this country—when the Government. of Great Britain, in conjunction with the only other Government in the world whose interests are the same as ours, will have to revise the Financial Clauses of that Treaty, in order to do away with the hopeless rush to ruin which is the curse of Europe and the result of the Versailles Peace Treaty.
Mr. JAMESON: The speech to which we have just listened is an instance of the unfortunate habit of conceiving beforehand what your opponent is going to say, composing your line of criticism upon what you expect and hope is going to be the line of his speech, and then firing it off. Of course the result, in such a case, of your own speech, depends on whether your opponent has actually said what you hoped and expected that he would say, because, if he has not, you find yourselves throwing sticks at an Aunt

561
Sally of your own putting up, and not criticising in the least the speech which has just been delivered. As I understand it, the main attack of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) upon the Prime Minister was that the Prime Minister had said, as he put it, that he was not prepared to have any dealings at all with the Soviet Government until the Soviet Government stood in a white sheet and cried mea culpa. What the Prime Minister did say was exactly the opposite. The Prime Minister was appealing to the House and to the country to bury the past altogether. He was appealing to this country not to think of the unfortunate history and circumstances of the Soviet Government in the War, and its unfortunate relations with the civilised world ever since; and, on the other hand, he was appealing to the Soviet Government to forget its theories and its ideals, whether practicable or not, and to come down to business, to set its house in order, so that it might invite decent people to come into its house with a sense of security—so that, if they came into its house with full pockets, they might do so feeling that they would not have their pockets picked. It was common sense to say that, unless they had that feeling of security, they would not come into the Soviet house and carry their riches into it.
That was the burden of the Prime Minister's speech, and it is a complete travesty and misrepresentation of that speech in toto to say that it constituted a demand upon the Russian Government that it should appear in the guise of a penitent and ask that its sins might be forgiven. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went; on to say that these Conferences were vain as an attempt to educate the Russian Government, to bring the Soviet to some sort of co-operation and good will, and to convert it to the idea of entering into relations with the civilised world. But when one listened to his own suggestion as to how this necessary educative process was to be carried out, it certainly did not compare very favourably with the Prime Minister's, because he said that the educative process was only going to be carried out by sending an Ambassador to Moscow with the whole train of an embassy. He quite frankly admitted that he was even more -pessimistic than the Prime Minister. The
562
Prime Minister looked forward to good will and co-operation and a manifestation of willingness to enter into honest dealings upon the part of all Governments, so that trade might be resumed at some not remote date. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, while deploring, and blaming the Prime Minister and the Government for the fact that trade was not being resumed with Russia, said that there was no prospect of trade being resumed with Russia for many years, and that, therefore, there was no question of commerce at all, and the only glimmering of hope that was to come must come through the establishment of a British Embassy in Moscow. To my humble mind, the common sense of the Prime Minister's appeal, in view of the situation, was much more cogent. What he said, and what is obviously the truth, is that Russia has no particular use for ambassadors; that what she wants is capital to build up the civilisation of the country again; that she does not want a train of attachés; what she, wants are locomotives, and rails, and generally engineering works arid goods of all descriptions. The task of the British Government, and of every Government of good will, ought to be to bring these things to the door of Russia, and if the individual people of this country are not encouraged by the Russian Government to give Russia bread, it is in vain for the Government of this country to offer them a stone in the shape of an embassy at Moscow. It strikes me that that is obviously sound sense. I was very glad to hear the optimistic note which was sounded in the speeches, as far as I have heard them, which have been delivered, that something had been carried away from The Hague Conference, and that relations with the Bolshevist Government were not absolutely going to be broken off. The Prime Minister really went much further than that, because he indicated that he disapproved entirely of the old Tsarist régime. I think the restoration of a Tsarist régime in Russia would obviously be a tremendous misfortune at present. The first thing a Tsarist régime would be likely to do, with the Imperialistic traditions of Tsarism, would be to start a war against Poland, Esthonia and the other countries which have broken away from Russia, and try to join hands with Germany and inaugurate a new partition of

563
Poland and all the rest of it. It is rather a curious result, but I am convinced that the continued peace of Europe depends in no small degree upon a Republican Government and a purified Russian Government, but not a revolution in the present Government. I think we are much more likely to find friends in such a Government than in a Tsarist Government if it was restored, and, as far as I can understand, the trend of the Prime Minister's remarks, it was in no way an appeal to get back to the old régime or to humiliate the present Russian Government, but it was a proffer of friendship and renewed trade upon the only terms that trade can be renewed with Russia, and that is that Russia shall convince the private trader in this country that he will not lose everything he has if he invests and carries his money to Russia.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have listened with considerable interest to the Debate from the very commencement. We, on the Labour Benches, have always evinced a general interest in Russia. We are interested in the subject because we have a faith—it may be a simple one—and a belief, that if this country could once more be connected with Russia and could trade with Russia, as was the case prior to the War, our unemployment problem would be partly solved. We have come to the conclusion that very little can be done within these shores to solve this great problem of unemployment. We are conscious of this fact, that the world must produce more of the necessities of life and produce them on a cheaper scale than has hitherto been the case. That will probably appeal to hon. Members opposite. But those goods can only be produced cheaper when international goodwill prevails. We who negotiate conditions on behalf of the workers are told that our people must accept, as a consequence of the War, as a penalty for the War, as a payment for the War, that during the next generation, at any rate, they must be satisfied with a standard of life at least 25 per cent below that of 1914. We are of course not accepting that philosophy. We are going to demand that our people shall be employed under good conditions in manufacturing goods required by other countries; that in the main is our interest in Russian affairs. One important point
564
has emerged from this Debate, and that is that there was a conflict of attitudes at The Hague. Our representative, whatever ability he might possess in arguing the case for this country, after all represented Western civilisation, in the words of the Prime Minister. Western civilisation, said the Prime Minister, and brains from Western countries must restore Russia. He meant by that that Russia would not be restored at all, until Western capitalism went to its aid. Some of us on these benches do not believe that unbridled, unbarnessed capitalism is such a good thing. When the Prime Minister was speaking, as he is capable of doing, with the instinct of his nationality, perorating in this House, I was reminded of a spot in the little country to which he and I belong, and when he pictured, as only he can, the. poverty and destitution in some parts of Russia it reminded me of the Blaina and Nantyglo districts of South Wales. There are spots in this country, under a capitalist régime, which will compare with almost anything by way of poverty and destitution in any other part of the world. I think that the value or otherwise of capitalism is the main fact which has emerged from The Hague Conference.
Let us pursue this point for a moment. Here was the representative of a first-class capitalist Government—not only a capitalist country, but a capitalist Government. The present Cabinet does not represent the economic theories or the view of the British people in relation to capitalism at all. In going about the country one finds that there is a distinct change of attitude among the British people, as witnessed it the two recent by-elections in South Wiles: the working people have no longer that faith in private capitalism that the present Government seems to have. In speaking of The Hague Conference, and the work our hon. Friend did there, I was very interested in a part of the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. One would almost imagine that this paragraph is taken from the speech of a Labour agitator when he says:
"The British Delegation came to The Hague willing, nay, eager to find some means for the restoration of the productive power of Russia and the re-institution of her foreign trade. They desired to do so for the sake of the Russian people."
I can stand a great deal of hypocrisy, but it is sheer, colossal hypocrisy that a

565
representative from this country should go to The Hague and say that the British Delegation went there to try to reestablish trade between this country and Russia for the sake of the Russian people. Nothing of the kind. I can remember the attitude of the Prime Minister towards Russia when he spoke in quite different language from that which he talked this evening. I can remember the opportunity occurring to myself at a Labour conference calling upon the workers of the country, if the Government of the day declared war on Russia, to down tools as a protest. At that time the sentence which was on the lips of all our statesmen was that we must set a sanitary cordon around the whole of Russia in order to prevent Bolshevism spreading to the rest of Europe. It is a truism to-day, as it ever was, that you can go to all the forests of the world, you can cut crosses for all your agitators and your prophets, you can crucify the agitator, you can kill him, you can destroy him, you can bury him, and you can burn him, but he will always resurrect on the third clay. That is the case with ideas, irrespective of where they emanate.
I want to proceed with the main reason why I rose to speak. I am informed on very good authority that at The Hague Conference, on the 7th July, the Russian Delegation presented a memorandum to the representatives of the Powers, setting forth in full detail the concessions offered by the Russian Government. There is a point in this connection that I fail to understand. The White Paper says nothing about concessions that were offered by the Russian Delegation to the Powers. In listening to the Debate I have been convinced that Russia has very little to give to any country except concessions, and in this connection I agree with the statement made by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) when he spoke about concessions. The memorandum placed before The Hague Conference by representatives of Russia stated:
"One of the modes of reconstruction of Russian industry proposed by the Russian Government is the direct participation of foreign capital in the administration and direction of this or that enterprise or combination of enterprises. As a general rule the Soviet Government considers that the most convenient form which this participation can assume is that of mixed companies or associations in which there participates on
566
the one hand foreign capital and on the other capital that can be invested directly by the Soviet Government."
Then follows the concessions the Russian Delegation was prepared to make to the Powers, and I repeat that I have been somewhat surprised that scarcely anything has been said about it by the Prime Minister or by the Secretary for Overseas trade, because in these concessions, strange to say, there are these provisions:
"There shall be concessions in regard to petroleum, in the areas the positions of which are clearly specified in Baku, Grosny, Ural-Emba, Kuban, and Turkestan."
Following those concessions there are others in relation to minerals, forests, butter, sugar, cement, phosphates, and manures. Surely, if the Russian Delegation were prepared to offer concessions by way of minerals, forests, and other things this House ought to be informed what those concessions were, and what was the attitude of our representatives towards those concessions when they were offered. I do not think it is fair to the House that nothing at all has been said in that connection. It has been discussed pretty freely in the, House as to whether we are to teach the Soviet Government the good things that appertain to capitalism or whether they must die without our help. That is the main fact that emerges from the Debate.
It would have been very difficult even for the Prime Minister, if he had lived in Russia from 1917 onwards as an ordinary citizen, and had found out the attitude of the British Government towards Russia, not to have been a leader in the Bolshevist cause in Russia. His spirit is such that he would naturally have been one.
Mr. HOPKINSON: Hear, hear!
Mr. DAVIES: And the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) would be in opposition to him even then.
Mr. HOPKINSON: He is now.
Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member understands economics so well that I am sure he could settle the Bolshevist problem in a very short time. We have been told in the discussion that the Government, through the Prime Minister, desire to bury the past. That is a very noble sentiment. We would all like to bury the past. The past of some people is better than the past of others, but we would all like to bury the past. But I

567
think the Government ought to be reminded occasionally of one or two things that have transpired in the past. I cannot see in any statement that has been made this evening on behalf of the Government that our representatives have in the least changed their attitude towards the Soviet Government. Why is it that the British Government affects to be more moderate and more modified in its attitude towards Russia to-day than hitherto? Not because our Government has come to believe that the Russians have changed their attitude, but because of the statement made by the Prime Minister the other day that you have to accept the fact, whether you like it or not, that there are 3,000,000 men in the Bolshevist army on the frontiers. That is the thing, unfortunately, that has convinced our Government. I am one of those who believe that we ought to have good relationship and goodwill between peoples, not because peace is cheaper than war, but because business, trade and employment in all countries will be better if we establish peace and goodwill all round.
We are asked whether the Soviet Government will give up the idea of communism or socialism in favour of capitalism. That is one problem before the House this evening. I am not enamoured of the Soviet régime. But I am confident of one thing, that if the statesmen of this or of any other country had been thrown up as leaders in Russia after the War, after two or three civil wars, after famine and pestilence, I am not sure that even the Prime Minister would have conducted himself much better than the people who have controlled Russia during the last two or three years. I dislike those references to bad Government in Russia. What about our own Government? Under very much better auspices what have they done? We have in this country, under the delights and pleasantries of capitalism, people in Lancashire, which I know very well, and people in South Wales, absolutely on the border of starvation. That is happening under all the glories of capitalism and then we are told that all the trials and troubles of Russia arise because of socialism and communism. Socialism and communism have never yet been tried in any country in the world. They have never had an
568
opportunity, not even in Russia. I am hoping that some day they may have an opportunity, and then the hon. Member for Mossley will presumably be in opposition still. I trust, however, after the criticism that has been levelled that these Conferences will continue. It is a good thing for representatives of our Governments to see, face to face, the men who have been painted in so much red by the Press of this and other countries. It is a step forward, and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that the representatives of the Bolshevik Government were as intelligent as any others. Imagine the discovery, that a Bolshevik can be as intelligent as a Welshman! It is a strange discovery. I trust we shall continue the Conferences, and I should like to know what is the next step we can take, because if we can secure trade with Russia, the engineers in Woolwich, on the Clyde and in Manchester will find some work to do. It is the duty of statesmen and of the Government to sink their prejudices about forms of Government. To them the comfort and prosperity of the people of their own country ought to be their first consideration.
Sir GODFREY COLLINS: Having listened to the major portion of this Debate, and read the White Paper circulated by the Government, I am anxious to put some questions to the Financial Secretary. As I understand, the Conference at. the Hague broke down mainly because the Russian Government would not recognise the private property of the nationals of different countries. There appears to have been some reason to hope that the question of public debts contracted by Russia might have been settled. On page 6 of the White Paper there appears to have been drawn up a statement by the non-Russian Sub-Commission of the amount of claims by the nationals of dixerent countries against the Russian Government. Can the Financial Secretary tell the Committee the total amount of these claims I have heard it stated that the total amount is only some £6,000,000 to £7,000,000. I hope that before the Debate closes the Committee may have some information on that point, so that the public may judge the total extent of the claims of the different nationals against the Russian Government for the property of their citizens in that country.

569
The speech of the Prime Minister dealt with the future. What is his policy? Is it not that he is waiting on events? We heard much in the early months of the year of the Genoa Conference, of the glorious hopes that that Conference was going to realise, of the peace between nations, of the great trade which would result. These hopes have not matured. The Genoa Conference has failed and the smoke screen of the Hague Conference has gone the way of the conferences of the last two years. I rise to appeal to the Government with a definite suggestion. We can no longer wait on events. The people in Russia to-day are stricken with disease. During the last 12 months and more I urged that the British Government should help the Russian people in the famine districts. To-day disease is rampant throughout Russia. The Government are aware that in February or March this year the Polish Government called a Conference at Warsaw to consider this matter. The parties who met at Warsaw published a unanimous report. Their appeal was to the Allied Governments to come into Russia and help them to stamp out the cholera and typhus raging there.
If we are to succeed in securing the assistance of the Russian Government and the Russian people to trade with us in future, I would suggest that an enlightened self-interest in this respect would hasten that day. Russia in this matter is eager to co-operate with Europe, and in the report to which I have referred to it is stated clearly that some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 spent in that way would go a long way to stamp out, if not entirely, the cholera and typhus which are raging in that country to-day. In that connection, I noticed a speech made by the President of the Board of Education the other day, in which he urged that there should be what he described as a sanitary cordon put around Russia. That policy, I suggest, is a mean policy. It may secure health insurance so far as Western Europe is concerned, but it will not stamp out disease inside Russia itself. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) earlier in the Debate appealed to the Government on this subject. I am anxious to supplement his remarks. My appeal to the Financial Secretary is this. Having been in close touch as he has been with the Russian representatives at The Hague for three
570
or four weeks, is he not of the distinct opinion that if this country, moved by a humanitarian spirit, is willing to assist and give credit to the extent of some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to stamp out disease in that country, it will hasten the day when the Russian Government, composed as it is of men holding views which seem to many in this House, and outside-it, strange, may, through our readiness to assist them in this matter, be more willing to face the practical question which the Financial Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary put to the Russian members at. The Hague.
I wish also to point out to the Financial Secretary that while this disease is raging in Russia to-day it is difficult to trade. We know that many men associated with Dr. Nansen have lost their lives in trying to stamp out disease in Russia during the last 12 months. Surely, by granting credits to the extent of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000, the money, which would be spent in that Country in stamping out disease, would be well spent. There are the two points on which I wish information. What is the total suns which the nationals of all countries claim against the Russian Government, and will the British Government take into consideration the question of giving a grant of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 to Russia, through the League of Nations, to help Nansen and his colleagues to stamp out the cholera and typhus which are raging in that country?
Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but some of the things which have been said, especially from the Labour Benches, have provoked me to make some observations and try to present the case of Russia as to the prospect and possibility of our being able to help Russia in the way in which it appears to my mind. With regularity, unanimity and emphasis speeches come from the Labour Benches blaming the Government and the British people for all the sorrows and difficulties of the Russians. The less one knows about the political problem the easier it always is to blame the Government, and the opponents of the Government have taken and will take the line of least resistance in this matter, which is to put aside the facts, to ask no questions of themselves or others regarding the objectivities of the case, and simply to pile up blame

571
and accusation against the Government. This is the problem of helping a nation. The prime condition of the beginning of that help in effective ways is confidence. From the Labour side of the House there come accusations against the Government that the British nation, British policy and the British Government are solely responsible for the lack of confidence in this matter. I would ask hon. Members to look elsewhere for this great lack of confidence, for great it is. I would ask the Committee to look at Russia as Russia really is and as what she really is.
We hear a great deal about Communism, Bolshevism and tyranny, and these things are true names for much of what exists and what goes on in Russia to-day. But I would like, if possible, to get down to a simpler and more human and more recognisable description of the state of things in Russia. Before the War Russia consisted of many millions of people, 85 per cent. of whom were not illiterate, as the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones) suggested, but merely peasants. The remaining 15 per cent. included the upper classes, the middle classes, the bureaucracy and the industrialised masses in the towns. I do not know how much of the 15 per cent. is represented by the industrialised masses in the towns. A just estimate would be, perhaps, 5 per cent. of the whole of Russia. Of that 5 per cent. a great part has already perished. Communism, Bolshevism and unconstitutionalism are fatal to industry, and they have been fatal to Russian industry. The middle classes have perished; the aristocrats have been killed. The bureaucracy, I believe, on the whole is still there. More than ever before the solemn and steadfast mass of the peasantry is Russia.
The position in Russia is not that this Government, or any other Government, has damaged Russia, although damage may have been done, but that a great breach of confidence has taken place inside Russia between the Government of Russia and Russia, namely, the peasantry. That loss of confidence has led to other losses of confidence, the most obvious and serious of which is the entire loss of confidence which outside Governments and peoples and capitalists show towards Russia. Earlier in the evening the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) suggested that the only possible way in
572
which Russia could be rebuilt would be that feudal concessionnaires on a capitalistic basis should take over great tracts of Russia. That seems to me to be a fantastic idea. Those who know Russia, those who look at Russian affairs and conditions from a position nearer than this House, know that the hope of Russia lies in Russia itself, in the 85 per cent. or 90 per cent. of its peasantry whom the present Government has antagonised. and between whom and the present. Government there is no proper confidence. The problem inside Russia is to restore that confidence; the problem outside Russia is to do the necessary things, to afford the necessary materials and services when that confidence has been restored.
Each time Members of the Labour party speak of the British Government and the Government's policy, not a personal note or sign of personal knowledge of the situation comes from one of them. The rest of the House understands from them that confidence can be built up by charity from here. The Government is to have confidence. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is to have immense confidence; he is to have the confidence and boldness and brass to put his hand still deeper into the pockets of the impoverished British people and to hand out this money to Russia. That is what is called confidence on the Labour side. It is charity in reality, and wasteful charity at that. The confidence that is wanted to start a reconstruction of Russia is a new degree of confidence between the peasants and their Government. Who has bottled up Russia? Who has crushed and weakened her energy? Who but the Government of Russia based on the towns, based upon the industrialism which it has ruined? Who but the Government of Moscow, and all the subordinate Governments that draw their strength and armed forces and baleful inspiration from Moscow? There is the problem inside Russia. The peasantry are all individualists. The leadership for them will not come by a capitalist feudalism from the outside, but from the natural leaders of the peasantry. Who are they? They are the big peasants. The movement is there; it is flickering into flame. One day it will rule in Russia and the peasantry will make short work of the pretensions and the preposterous theories of those who now rule in Russia. Observers nearer Russia than this House

573
look to the bigger peasantry to take their natural lead, and to bring Russian policy hack to sanity and safety for Russia and the rest of Europe.
A good deal has been said regarding the share that this country and this Government may take, perhaps in cooperation with the Germans, in reestablishing Russia. It has been suggested, falsely, I believe, that the German nation and ourselves are rivals in the exploitation and re-establishment of Russia. That view will not be borne out in the events that are coming. As regards Germany, it is fair to say that she has not the money to develop Russia. In Germany the scarcity of capital is extreme. All business men are embarrassed. They have enough to do to keep their own businesses running, to pay the immense wages that have to be paid, and to pay immense prices for foreign goods, as there is a shortage of all raw materials in Germany itself. The German industries cannot look forward to developing Russia by themselves. In my opinion, they can do it best or rather they can only do it, by close co-operation with this nation.
If I may suggest a combination of functions between the two nations that seems to correspond to the situation and to the powers of the parties, it would be that this nation, having money, should play the part of banker or capitalist to Germany, which is closer to Russia and has a thousand Germans who know Russian to one Englishman who knows it —that Germany being near, with its costs of transport low, should be the manufacturing and distributing agency, and should have behind it the strength, stability, and sanity of English capitalists. There are difficulties about the plan. There is the political policy of the Bolshevist Government in Germany. Moscow has placed in Berlin an important missionary centre, in the hope of working from that centre towards the conversion of Western Europe to Bolshevism. That mission is ably rim, has money at its command, has the support in Berlin of many thousands of Russian Bolshevists, and is a serious embarrassment and difficulty to the German Government in a political sense. If we hope that Germany is going to co-operate with us in the re-establishment of Russia, and if we think that without such co-operation Russia cannot be re-established, we have to take account
574
of the disturbance and embarrassment caused in the minds of the business men of Germany, by the presence and the activities of that Bolshevist mission. I make bold to say that to-day the missionary zeal of Bolshevism is not exhausted; that it is active in Germany and that it is a real difficulty in the way of Germany taking part with us in the rebuilding of Russia.
9.0 p.m.
I could say more about Germany. The subject is unpopular, it is a little difficult, indeed it is dangerous. But I am persuaded that only on the one hand by the re-establishment of confidence between the population of Russia, that is the peasants of and their Government, and on the other hand by the cooperation of these nations which are most able to help from the outside, can Russia be set on her feet again. We know our own conditions, we know what we can do, and what we cannot do, and what we should shrink from doing in the way of any cooperation, having for its object the re-establishment of Russia. We know little about the state of Germany. A visit of three weeks to Germany recently gave me two great impressions. There was the first-gla impression, that all is well with Germany. The sun still shines there, the people wear clothes and go about their work and seem to have something to do, the greets are swept and clean and life go on and Germany, so seen, on its superficial aspect is a fit co-operator in the re-establishment of Russia. But our must look below the surface in order is realise the truth of the matter. The with I will try to put without wander outside the bounds of order, and in as few words as possible. I would say that many at this moment is torn by strain, and by strife. It is torn by strife of a deep though not a dangerous kind—dangerous for the unity of Germany—any of the Federal States which make up Germany; by strife among the nine or ten or eleven political parties represented in the German Parliament; by strife among the social classes; by severe strife between town and country and by strains of all sorts. There is the domestic strain of attempting to live when the cost of living runs up fortnightly, so that workmen's wages have to be revised once a fortnight. There are the difficulties of finding food, the absence for long days at a time of supplies of meat in any

575
adequate quantity for the population, and the fact of the supplies, when they do come, being present only at prices which the masses in Germany cannot pay. I would mention too, the severe housing crisis in Germany, the painful condition of congestion in which not only the former population of Germany, or what is left. of it, has to live, but also all the incomers, the Germans banished back to Germany from many countries of the world, and from the regions that were taken from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. I put forward the housing congestion in Germany as a condition of life which tends to create a serious state of nerves. Then there are the political questions of what the reparations are finally going to be; of what steps the French are eventually going to take; of what are the real, final, definite intentions of the Allies. There are a thousand questions which Germany, still undernourished, still striving beyond her strength, still living and working upon her will rather than upon her strength, has to face. There are a thousand things which combine to build up in the mind of Germany a state of nervousness, anxiety, touchiness, alarm, suspicion, and doubt, which is a danger to herself and a danger to Europe.
That is the Germany with which we have to deal as a conquering Power. That is the Germany with which we have to deal as a co-operator in the reestablishment of Russia, if that be a good end to pursue. I put it to the Committee that we ought to think objectively, putting away names as far as they have caused strife, and realising that the internal difficulty in Russia comes first, and must first be relieved. Let us realise that the peasantry must be made or induced, or in some way got, to trust their Government, and that their Government. must be the kind of Government that the peasantry of Russia can trust, and that there must be outside help, coming predominantly, I believe from us, through Germany and through German industry into Russia—we to act as the bankers and the Germans as the undertakers. There I point out again the difficulty for this scheme, which the Bolshevist mission and the Bolshevist machinations in Berlin constitute. I would sum it up in this way. No British Government can put the Germans in funds to trade with Russia.
576
That is for private British persons. Nor can German traders, o r any other traders, deal with the Russian Government. They are not Russia; it is the peasants who are Russia. The true policy is: Hands off the peasants of Russia, so that the private capitalist in England or elsewhere, working directly or working with the help of Germans, may reach the real Russia without interference of any kind whatever from the Government of Russia.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire to apply myself to some of the remarks which have fallen from the last speaker prior to discussing the larger issues. I followed with great interest his Contribution to the Debate, but I cannot accept the opinions which he ascribed to these who sit on these Benches when he said that we desired to attribute all the blame to the Government for all the ills which hive fallen upon the unfortunate Russian people. No speaker on this side has given him any right to assume that, except only that I will admit that I for my part, and probably others of my colleagues, would quite frankly say that in one opinion a good deal of the trouble that has fallen upon Russia is due to the present Government. May I say, in passing, that when the hon. Member delivers himself of this piece of wisdom it would be well if he would apply his remarks to his own friends. He said that the less one knows about the point of view of the Government, the easier it is to blame the Government. That presumably explains why the Russian Government is so much blamed—because of the colossal ignorance that people have of the print of view of the Russian Government. I row understand why it is that they are blamed so much. Neither is the hon. Member entitled to assume that we include the British nation in our indictment of the Government in the matter of responsibility for the state of affairs in Russia. Indeed, we draw a very sharp distinct inn between the opinions of the British ration and that of the present Government and if present indications are anything to go by, the divorce between the nation and the Government is likely to become rather more accentuated as time goes by.
In my humble judgment, the problem that arose for discussion at The Hague is one and the same problem that has been discussed repeatedly at ether Conferences. Indeed, The Hague was very largely neces-

577
sary because of Genoa, and Genoa was necessary because of the failure of Cannes, and Cannes was necessary largely because of the failure of Versailles. The failure of one probably requires the putting in of another, and it seems to me that when we come to examine the present condition of Europe, there is no possibility of denying that the fundamental error which has been committed was the error which was committed at Versailles. [HON. MEMBEES: "Why?"] There is no reason to enter into a detailed discussion. It is absolutely clear
Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: No.
Mr. JONES: I am not hoping that I shall be able to percolate through my hon. Friend's brain, but I will do my best. After all, the people of this country depend, in the main, upon the happiness of their relationships with other countries abroad. Indeed, the persistence, the survival, of English trade depends on those harmonious relationships. When, therefore, a Peace Treaty is signed such as was signed at Versailles, which had the effect, temporarily, at least, of ruining our foreign market for coal— [HON. MEMBERS: No!"]—It is true. In my own part of South Wales, men have been out of work to the tune of tens of thousands because their foreign market was lost and signed away. That foreign market has only been able to be restored to them by compelling the miners of South Wales to accept a wage far below a living wage, in order to enable the owners to send cheap coal abroad. The same thing applies to the shipbuilding trade We had reparation ships coming ever here, bought at a cheap rate, and because of that, there was no call for building new ships. That is not a statement of my own, but I recall that very same statement being made by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould), who spoke in this House soon after me in October last on this very question.
I gather from the Prime Minister that he is prepared to conduct this business of holding Conferences even seventy times seven. For my part, I entirely agree that there is no other way of restoring equilibrium in Europe than by the Conference method, but I think, after all, that you cannot expect complete success with these repeated Conferences unless you recognise that you must start upon a road that does give some sort of chance
578
of restoring that international good faith that is so necessary. The Prime Minister said—and I thought quite truly—that before you can have normal relations between us and Russia, you must have what are called bona fides. I entirely agree, but you must show good faith on both sides. That cuts both ways. It is not merely the Russians who have to be called upon to show good faith; you must do the same, and, after all, if hon. Members would only put themselves in the position of the Russian people, they would find very little to encourage them to believe in the good faith of this country, even at this moment. Let us review some of the things that have happened. I believe I am right in saying, though I speak subject to correction, that before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department left this country to attend The Hague Conference, I believe I saw a report in the Press that he attended a social function at which there were present a good number of capitalists interested in Russian finance. That may be significant or insignificant, but I am quite sure that the Russian people will not draw from that any evidence, at any rate, of the good faith of the people who went to The Hague. On the contrary, they are very likely to argue that the people who went to The Hague had primarily, before going there, some consultation with those whom they regard, rightly or wrongly, as their enemies.
Moreover, may I ask what deduction they would draw from the subsidised attacks that are being made against Russia? They have been conducted. No one can deny that, and, moreover, we do not acquire our knowledge of this from the "Daily herald," as we can get it in the repeated demands for taxation from the people of this country. The repeated demands of the Treasury show to us what the 'various attacks on Russia have involved in the matter of money. We have not read it only in the "Daily Herald," though incidentally that gives us far more information than the Government gives. How much encouragement is the Government of Russia to draw from the mean and contemptibly small support which this Government gave to the starving people of Russia during the famine? How far is that to be regarded as evidence of bona fides? I think it can scarcely be regarded as encouraging, to say the least of it. I have read briefly

579
the Memorandum which has been placed in the possession of Members of this House to-day for the purpose of discovering whether we have a record there of the questionnaire that was sent out to the members of the Russian Delegation. I admit having read it very cursorily, but I do not see that questionnaire reproduced here, and I should be very glad indeed if some speaker on behalf of the Government later would tell us what exactly was involved in that questionnaire. How far were the questions put before the Russians economical questions, and how far were they political questions? How far did they concern the matters over which this Government has no right at all of supervision? How far did they inquire as to the state of the internal Government of Russia? If I am right in assuming that, and that the Government did subscribe to the questionnaire, might I ask this: Was it done by way of encouraging the Bolshevists to send a questionnaire to this country, to inquire how we govern this country, how we treat our prisoners, how we control our courts, how we deal with the unemployed, what do we do with our starving people? If we are entitled to ask these things, then they, too, are entitled to ask them. You have no right to expect special treatment for yourselves, and to deny that same treatment to the Bolshevists.
I should like to say this further: I am not satisfied that this is as full an account of what took place at The Hague as it might be. I am somewhat inquisitive perhaps. I confess I am sufficiently inquisitive to inquire whether it is not possible for us to have a fuller and more detailed account of what happened, and not only the points of view of the representatives of this Government at The Hague. We ought to have the point of view of the Bolshevists. I am given to understand, as a matter of fact, that there is very grave reason to believe that at The Hague discussion the opposition and the obstruction came as much from the associates—not perhaps the colleagues—but the associates of the British representatives as it came from the Russians themselves. I have come to the conclusion, after a very careful watching of these affairs for some years, that our own and the Allied and associated Governments who are now trying to discuss affairs with Russia are not in the least
580
degree anxious to restore normal relations between our country and Russia. The real fundamental reason for that, I believe, is this: that there are some people in this country—from their point of view probably they are quite right—who are very much more concerned about the rights of private property in Russia than about anything else.
Let me say, quite frankly. so that I shall not be misunderstood—that personally I should be very glad indeed to see some sort of arrangement made concerning the rights of those people who have lost their property tin Russia. But I say this at the same time, that I conceive that those who invested their money in Russia invested it with the full knowledge of the risks involved. if they did not invest with that in their mind's eye, then they were very foolish investors indeed. If they invested with the full knowledge of how matters stood, then, obviously, they have no right to ask us to come along and pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I repeat, I would like to see some arrangement made, because I think if some of the difficulties were removed out of the way there would he a far better chance of re-establishing relations with Russia. But I want to ask the House very earnestly: By what right is the well-being, the prosperity, and the future of England being jeopardised merely to safeguard the interests of men who have speculated somewhat wildly in distant parts?
Sir H. BRITTAIN: What about guaranteed bonds?
Mr. JONES: There are millions of children in our own country—I may be wrong, but I think I can prove my point —who are suffering hunger and starvation from the absence of the international market. We decline to re-establish commercial intercourse with Russia because there are certain people who have lost money in Russia. I admit that is unfortunate, but why, simply because a number of people have lost money in Russia, should the millions of children go on starving? [Laughter.] Doubtless it is a very humorous question to some hon. Members. But perhaps hon. Members will explain in what way it is humorous.
Sir W. MITCHELL: I will.
Mr. JONES: Go on then!
Sir W. MITCHELL: I will afterwards.
Mr. JONES: After all, may I put this point: You have no right, not merely not to keep your own children in this condition of starvation, but you have no right to impose a condition of famine upon these children of Russia. That is an elementary thing to say, I admit, but bad as the Bolshevists may be they require boots. The Bolshevists wear clothes. The Bolshevists want ploughs and railways—and a good number of them from what the Prime Minister says—and we are people who can supply them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who will pay for them!"] Establish decent relationships between yourselves and Russia and I have not the faintest doubt but what there is sufficient ingenuity to discover a method of getting payment for goods supplied. I think hon. Members may be trusted to see to that! After all, there are people trading with others in Germany, trading with people in Austria, and with people in other countries, not quite as bad, perhaps, but almost as bad as the Russians. You do not raise these difficulties in those cases. Why do you raise them in the case of Russia? Is it against the Russian Government because it is the Russian Government, or because it is a Bolshevist Government? Is the nature of that Government worse or more demoralised than the nature of the German capitalist? I cannot see why! After all, what is required is a sufficient belief in the good faith of both sides. If you establish that condition of good faith, I have not the faintest doubt that normal relationships will come in time—not perhaps immediately—between ourselves and that very much distressed country.
There is only one further point I want to put. I was very grieved to hear—I had almost said heartless, but I will not say that—the pitiless reply of the Prime Minister this evening. He said in effect—I do not want to misrepresent him, but to state it accurately—and if I am wrong I shall quickly withdraw it—that we are or were refusing to reestablish normal relations with Russia in order to teach the Russians a lesson. Imagine a Bolshevist child in the midst of poverty and hunger, the gaunt spectre of disease and hunger standing at its very elbow, appealing to the Prime Minister of the leading nation in the world and the most civilised—so they
582
say!—appealing for food, and the Prime Minister turning on him, and saying, "Ah, my boy, I am very sympathetic with you, but, you know, I am teaching your father a lesson." That is the most pitiless language I think I ever heard, and the most disgraceful. I hope I am wrong in my interpretation, but certainly that seemed to me to be the effect and meaning of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. In that way there can be no hope for the world. If that is the way we are re-establishing and reconstructing Europe, then Europe is going to become merely a graveyard. You have no right to go on in that way. The children of to-morrow have a right to expect something better from you. You can never give it to them unless you approach these problems in a more humanitarian spirit than you seem to be doing at the present moment
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The hon. Member who spoke last is always very hard to please. He appears to be very displeased with the peace. I believe he was also very much displeased with the War. He is always hard to please, but the particular point of interest to us at this moment is that in this matter of Russia he is very much harder to please than are the Russians. He objects, apparently, to a questionnaire having been addressed to the Russian Government by the non-Russian Delegation, of which I formed one, at The Hague. In fact, no such questionnaire was addressed A questionnaire is a formal and alarming thing, which we should have carefully thought out. Certainly, a number of questions were asked of the Russian Delegation at The Hague, the answers to which were relevant in order that a just judgment might be founded on the present state of Russia and their present ability to meet their engagements. The hon Member appears to take the most violent objection to that. The Russian Delegation at The Hague took no objection to it.
Mr. M. JONES: I objected to it because it was not included in this White Paper.
Mr. YOUNG: The hon. Member will pardon me. His objection was that it was offensive to the Russian Delegation.
Mr. JONES: No.
Mr. YOUNG: This matter was looked at by the Russian Delegation at The Hague in a large-minded and commonsense manner, which might be an example to some others. Apparently, the hon. Member is difficult to please in the matter of the associates of my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department before he went to The Hague. He said that he and I associated with these financiers, who are acquainted with the country and connected with the development of capital and of undertakings in Russia. That was for the very obvious reason that they have the very best opinion on the subject. The hon. Member referred to these people as the enemies of Russia—a curious designation. They have been the truest friends of Russia and of Russian civilisation. It is to foreign capital and foreign brains, as is, surely, very well known, that the dawn and growth of an industrial system in Russia is due. It is upon their return to the assistance of Russia that its restoration and future depend. The Russians themselves do not look on these men as their enemies as described by the hon. Member. Again, he is harder to please than the Russians. So far from looking upon these men as their enemies, it is the most urgent desire of the Russian Government at the present time to persuade those who have the most intimate knowledge and the widest experience of industrial circumstances in Russia, to return to the assistance and development of that country.
Throughout this discussion I thought I observed a tendency on the part of hon. Members opposite to be more Russian than the Russian themselves. An unreasonable attitude was taken at one time by the Russian Government in the matter of the bargaining of the recognition of obligations against credits. We begin to see, as has been described twice, over today, an inclination on the part of the Russian Government to give up their unworthy and useless attitude on bargaining, and to make a voluntary effort to restore the credit of Russia: but I have not seen any recognition, in the speeches of hon. Members opposite, that they have begun to see the error of their arguments in that respect. On the contrary, if I understand the criticism advanced against the Government by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes), it is, "You have failed in your duties
584
and obligations for the solution of the Russian question by failing to arrange substantial credits for Russia." I believe one of the most substantial results of The Hague Conference is this, that the Russian Government have begun to understand that it is idle to ask the Government of any foreign country to arrange substantial credits for them. If that alone had been gained by the Conference, it would have been a great gain. I believe it has been gained.
The first step in the approach of the Russian attitude toward common sense in this matter was the demand for the assistance of inter-State credits. That has always been explained to be impossible. The second step was a demand, as a feature in a bargain, of guaranteed credits. That was the stage at which the matter was left at Genoa. I believe that the effect of the exposition of the practical state of affairs, by the unanimous resolution of the 25 nations represented—and not represented by theoreticians only—at The Hague, was to convince the Russian Government of the true state of affairs its regards the possibility of guaranteed credits. It was this, that in any scheme of guaranteed credits there are three parties: the recipient, the guaranteeing Government, and the private holder of capital, who must come in and take his part in the scheme. The bedrock of the matter lies in the private holder of capital, who must be converted to embarking on the risk before the wheels of the scheme can begin to turn. What was effected at The Hague in that respect was to make it clear, as a practical it matter to the Russian Government. that it was necessary for them to look beyond Governments, anti what Governments can do by way of agreement, to the private holder of capital, and to restore confidence in him before even that approximation to their desires which is the scheme of guaranteed credits can be expected to yield results in their behalf. Let me make this point clear. There-was no recession in our attitude at The Hague from that taken up at Genoa. It was mentioned there—what had been said at Genoa—that those things which the Government can do for the assistance of trade, by guaranteeing trade, would be done by us for Russian trade in the. same manner as for foreign trade of any other sort. as soon as the general con-

585
ditions of the Russian problem would allow. There was no recession from that.
Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that all we offer is the same scheme of trade facilities as we have given to Esthonia and Poland?
Mr. YOUNG: The same machinery for assisting foreign trade which is in employment as regards the foreign trade of other nations can and would be extended to the foreign trade with Russia as soon as the general conditions of the Russian problem permit of it being done. I have no doubt. about that attitude being maintained, and it is maintained to-day. If the suggestion finally put forward by the Russian Delegation at The Hague were to be adopted; if the Russian Government were to make some sort of voluntary reparation, recognising their obligations in respect of debts and in respect of the rights for private property previously held in Russia; if those obligations were to be faithfully and loyally carried out; if an earnest of the intentions of the Russian Government were to be given and shown by their being carried out from step to step, then, when the time came for the recognition that the credit of Russia had been re-established by these measures, the same facilities for the encouragement of the granting of credits could, and would, be extended to Russian trade that, at the present time, is extended to trade with other nations.
But until that time comes, until Russian credit is so restored by the voluntary action of the Russian Government as to make it possible for the schemes of guaranteed credits to work, it would be illusory, it would be idle, it would be merely deceiving the Russian Government, and would be deceiving the people of this country, to profess by a formal act to extend the benefits of those measures to Russian trade, because even though the Russian Government were willing enough, as goodness knows they are, to receive the credits, even though on the same assumption, the British Government were willing to guarantee the credits, the necessary third party would be wanting—the private holder of capital, who, having no confidence in the undertaking of the Russian Government, would refuse to fill his necessary part in the scheme. Let me take the argument
586
advanced by hon. Members opposite on their own ground. They say, "Here is Russia needing goods." It is so. They say, "Here are we wanting to manufacture goods, and to sell them to Russia." So be it. We recognise throughout this problem not only the miseries of a foreign nation, but their direct reaction upon our great problems here. Russia is desiring to buy; and we are desiring to manufacture the goods and to sell to them.
The argument from the opposite benches assumes that these are the only two elements necessary for bringing together the parties and opening up trade. The point is always made against us "Why, with the need there, and the possibilities of supply here, do we not bring the twotogether and gettrade going? Because there is nothing to pay for the goods with. It is not proposed that we are to manufacture goods as a present for the Russian nation. Trade cannot be conducted upon those lines. That would lead to the more direct impoverishment and misery of people in England and to unemployment in England.
The necessary third step in order to bring the parties together is that there should be a means of payment for our supplies. Do not let us confuse our minds and get the problem concealed by any loose ideas on the subject of credit. The machinery of credit cannot conceal the essential fact that you cannot get trade to move unless there is to be payment and you are confident that payment will be made. Supposing we were to sell them goods on credit without any confidence that they would pay? What does that mean? Somebody has got to provide the credit. Suppose the British Government provide the credit. Would the British Government be justified in providing credits unless they thought those credits were going to be liquidated by payment? Supposing they did provide the credits and they were not liquidated by payments from Russia. Let us rid ourselves of the confused stop-short form of thinking which thinks that by providing credits by the Government you will enable trade to be carried on for the benefit. of the country. If the Government provides the credits and they are not liquidated from Russia, it means only that you are paying out of the pockets of the taxpayers for the goods sent to Russia. Is that good business for this country As far as any return

587
goes, you might as well throw them into the North Sea. The only effect of such a credit scheme would be to distribute the loss over a greater number of people instead of accumulating it on the shoulders of those who actually manufacture the goods. The whole root of the matter is that you cannot sell goods to Russia unless and until you begin to have some measure of belief that Russia will pay for them.
Let me reject absolutely the idea that has been advanced against us from benches opposite that in the negotiations at The Hague we were considering properties, and properties first. Far from it. We went there, recognising to the full that not only in the general interests of humanity and those vast suffering millions in Russia, but for the sake of our own people also, the primary task of any conference was to find some means by which the joint resources of Europe could be placed at the disposal of Russia for the reconstruction of the shattered and ruined civilisation of Russia. That was the primary object. If this question of properties and debts came up for urgent, continuous, arduous, practical discussion, it was for the reason, first and foremost, that until some settlement of the question of property and debts can be obtained, the stream of credit cannot be expected to flow again. Until then Russia cannot expect to have her industries restored to prosperity, and we in this country cannot expect to have Russian orders and a Russian stimulus to trade for the benefit of our unemployed. It would be untrue to allege that at any stage of these negotiations they have been conducted in the interests of this class or that.
It is the absolute duty of every Government to protect the interests of its nationals abroad, I recognise, hut there is a wider import to the interests of bondholders and of property holders, because they are the test of that confidence, that recognition of common obligations which must be accepted by the Russian Government if it expects to restore its credit and to place itself once more in a position to take advantage of the assistance which can be given to it by the joint resources of Europe. Let me refer here to a criticism thrown across the Table by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). In criticising the pro-
588
ceedings of the conference, he asks, if I understand him rightly, "What guarantees did you expect to get out of a Communist Government?" It is a difficult question to answer because all the delegates of the Russian Government refused to discuss the practical nature of those guarantees. We asked for guarantees for the return of property, and they might have found them in an actual list of properties the return of which the Russian Government would be willing to consider. They might have found them in a reasonable and ready approach to other possible forms of compensation, the simplest of all being in cash, because there is no guarantee so good as the cash guarantee. They might have found them in the erection of machinery, or in the establishment of some tribunal whose decision would be binding as to the amount of compensation or the manner in which it is to be provided.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin asked how we could expect a. Communist Government to agree to any guarantees of that sort because, he says, "it would be contrary to their principles." I have some doubt as to his conclusions in regard to that argument, but one of them seems to be that no negotiations of any sort or kind would be of any use with the Russian Government, but, personally, I shrink from such a despairing conclusion as that. I think the first answer to that argument is that whether or not there is a possibility of giving guarantees for a binding agreement in accordance with the principles of Communism is a question for the Russian Government to decide. That is precisely what we went to The Hague for. We wanted to find out whether any reasonable approach to the ordinary standards of the West of Europe was possible in accordance with the principles of Communism or whether it was not. We did eventually discover that, there is hope for a reasonable approach in accordance with the principles of Communism as they are professed by the present Government of Russia.
What has taken place at Genoa and The Hague are steps which may lead the Russian Government back from the clouds to the solid earth. At Cannes certain rules were formulated for

589
future negotiations, which are the underlying rules which must be recognised by any nation which desires to join the community of civilised nations. At Genoa the Russian Government came to within an approximate distance of conforming to those rules, and as a result of discussion, not at arm's length, but close at hand, we succeeded in shattering some of the delusions of the Russian Government as regards the possibility of its relations with the rest of Europe. At The Hague that process was continued, not in the region of high political questions and principles, but. on a practical plane, and we had the invaluable result of proving and demonstrating and, if I may say so, educating the Russian Government as to what it is possible for business to do and for capital to do, and how Russia must go to work if it desires to turn the streams of trade once more into their old channels in Russia. As a. result of that useful work of discussion, which, I can assure the Committee, was by no means hostile or unfriendly to the Russian delegation, the Russians themselves have now got hold of the idea that they cannot have their credit restored by somebody else outside, but they must restore their own credit. That hint was the result of these discussions, and, if it is followed out, we may confidently assume that it will lead them to that high place in the community of nations to which the great Russian nation is entitled by its past attainments and its present genius.
Mr. THOMAS SHAW: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the speech delivered by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray) who apparently gives very little credit to these benches for a study of the Russian situation, and he went on to advance a most peculiar theory. After all, there are one or two hon. Members on the Labour benches who have tried to understand the Russian situation, and who have come to a totally different conclusion from that arrived at by the hon. Member for West Leeds as to the actual state of Russia. The hon. Member painted a state of things in which you had a population of 90 per cent. of peasants opposed to the other 10 per cent. who formed the Government. May I call the attention of the hon. Member and the House to the fact that the history of Russia since the Soviet Revolution is quite contrary to that statement.
590
As a matter of fact, it was the Russian peasantry who smashed Koltchak and who smashed Denikin, and the Russian peasantry stood like a rock behind the Soviet Government when we were attacking Russia and trying to make her have J Government of which we approved. That is a historical fact which admits of no contradiction whatever.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Nothing of the sort!
Mr. SHAW: I was in Russia myself and I spoke with all types of the Russian people. [An HON. MEMBER: "With Lenin and Trotsky!"] Yes, I spoke with them and highly intelligent men they were, and I think lessons might be taken by hon. Members opposite even from Lenin and Trotsky. I spoke with men of all types and opinions in Russia, and I will venture to put the opinions of the men with whom I spoke even against the opinion of the hon. and gallant. Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward). I found a unanimous opinion amongst all sections of Russians that our attempts to conquer Russia from outside had put practically the whole of the Russian people, including the peasantry, behind the Soviet Government. That is a matter of fact.
I want to speak for a moment in regard to the theory advanced by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray) that Russia might be developed by Britain acting as capitalist and banker and Germany acting as manufacturer and merchant. He painted a picture of Germany with a huge web of Soviet propaganda in Berlin and of the danger that existed to the German Government from that Soviet propaganda. I venture to think there was justification for the picture he painted. If my information is correct there is very great uneasiness in Berlin, and very grave danger indeed that Germany may be driven into a revolution, and if the revolution takes place whether Germany goes to the right or to the left, it will be a very serious menace to the future peace of Europe.
It is said in Germany, and it is stated by the Communists as well as by the Monarchists, that the next move of the Allied Governments is to take control of public expenditure in Germany, whether local or national, if the sum to be ex-

591
pended exceeds 500,000 marks, which at the present rate of exchange is equal to about £250 English. I know the difference between the real value of the mark and the value we put upon it in the rate of exchange. If the statement be true that all capital expenditure for public purposes of sums over that amount in Germany is to be controlled and permitted by Allied functionaries, let the House realise what that will mean in Germany. In the first place, Germany will cease to hold the position of a sovereign State governing her own expenditure. Secondly, thousands, and even millions, of schemes in the huge country of Germany are to be reviewed and permitted by foreign civil officials. If the statement be true, and I am informed it is, we shall have a swarm of officials in Germany, a swarm of locusts that will eat all that Germany can produce, and reparations to France from Germany may be bidden good-bye to. There will be no possibility of anything being left after the Civil Service officials of the Allied Powers have been satisfied. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) sympathises with me in trying to secure that there shall not be inflicted on Germany that of which he so bitterly complains in this country. If the statement be true, it means another added danger to the existence of Germany, and another imminent danger of revolution either to the right or to the left. While the Communists are working there is no doubt that the Monarchists are equally active.
Once the German Republic is destroyed, good-bye to all chances of reparation, and all chance of peace in Europe. The worst possible thing that could happen to Europe would be a Bolshevik revolution in Germany. Russia and Germany joined thereby would be a permanent menace to the future of the continent in which we live. I suggest that these things need careful inquiry and attention, and the urgency of the matter is admitted. It is almost impossible for this Government or for any other to solve the problem of future relationship with Russia. I am one of those speaking from these benches who welcome Conferences. I do not care if they do number seventy times seven—
It being Ten, of flee Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the. Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £751,843, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Question, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several classes of the Civil Services Estimates and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, Army, and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates."

HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

    CLASS 1.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,953,624, he granted to His Majesty. to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923. for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1. Royal Palaces

    30,400

    2. Osborne

    11,150

    5. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    53,000

    6. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    243,800

    7. Diplomatic and Consular Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

    76,810

    10A. House Building

    66,000

    10B. Housing Schemes

    2,020

    10C. War Memorials

    500

    11. Surveys of Great Britain

    87,646

    12. Peterhead Harbour

    17,000

    13. Rates on Government Property

    1,156,448

    14. Works and Buildings in Ireland

    158,850

    £1,953,624"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 87.

    Division No. 241.]

    AYES.

    [3.45 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

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

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Astor, Viscountess

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Atkey, A. R.

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

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Elvedon, Viscount

    Jellett, William Morgan

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Jesson, C.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon Fredk. George

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

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Forrest, Walter

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

    Roscawen, Rt. Hon, Sir A. Griffith-

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Gardiner, James

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Lorden, John William

    Briggs, Harold

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Grant, James Augustus

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

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Bruton, Sir James

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

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

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

    Hallwood, Augustine

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

    Casey, T. w.

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

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hall, Rt. Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

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

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

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hinds, John

    Mason, Robert

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Matthews, David

    Cope, Major William

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Middlebrook, Sir William

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

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

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Moles, Thomas

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Reid, D. D.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell(Maryhill)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Morrison, Hugh

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Rodger, A. K.

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

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

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Neal, Arthur

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

    Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    Seager, Sir William

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Windsor, Viscount

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

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

    Wise, Frederick

    Parker, James

    Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

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

    Pearce, Sir William

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Perring, William George

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Pllditch, Sir Philip

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Pratt, John William

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Taylor, J.

    McCurdy.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Grundy, T. W.

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hallas, Eldred

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Banton, George

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Sutton, John Edward

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Irving, Dan

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

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

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

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Cairns, John

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Waterson, A. E.

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

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

    Wignall, James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

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

    Finney, Samuel

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

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gillis, William

    Mills, John Edmund

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Myers, Thomas

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 242.]

    AYES.

    [10.5 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Forrestier-Walker, L.

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

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Forrest, Walter

    Manville, Edward

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

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Armitage, Robert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mason, Robert

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Matthews, David

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Atkey, A. R.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Moles, Thomas

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Gould, James C.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Morris, Richard

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Barrand, A. R.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Barrie. Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

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

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

    Murchison, C. K.

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

    Gregory, Holman

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nail, Major Joseph

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

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Neal, Arthur

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H,

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

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Hallwood, Augustine

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

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Hail, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

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

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Briggs, Harold

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hinds. John

    Parker, James

    Brown, Major D. C.

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

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Pearce, Sir William

    Bruton, Sir James

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

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Perring, William George

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

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

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Casey, T. W.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Pratt, John William

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Preston, Sir W. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

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

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Purchase, H. G.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H H. Spender

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Jesson, C.

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

    Cope, Major William

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

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor. (Barnstaple)

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

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Reid, D. D.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Remer, J. R.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Remnant, Sir James

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Klnc.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Renwick, Sir George

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

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

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

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Rodger, A. K.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Rounded, Colonel R. F.

    Denison-Pender, John C.

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

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lorden. John William

    Rutherford. Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Seager, Sir William

    Evans, Ernest

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Seddon, J. A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

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

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

    Fildes, Henry

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Fitz Roy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    594

    595

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Wallace, J.

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

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Windsor, Viscount.

    Stevens, Marshall

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Stewart, Gershom

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Winterton, Earl

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    Wise, Frederick

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

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

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

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge ft Hydt)

    Taylor, J.

    Waring, Major Walter

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Watson, Captain John Eertrand

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Thomson, sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Younger, Sir George

    Townley, Maximilian G

    Whitla, Sir William

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Vickers, Douglas

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

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    McCurdy.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon, Francis D.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Adamson, Rt- Hon. William

    Grundy, T. W.

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Ammon. Charles George

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

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Banton, George

    Hallas, Eldred

    Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hayward, Evan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Spencer, George A.

    Sowerman, Rt. Han. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Sutton, John Edward

    Briant, Frank

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Swan, J. E.

    Bromfield, William

    Irving, Dan

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

    Cairns, John

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

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

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Lunn, William

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Wignall, James

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Mills. John Edmund

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

    Finney, Samuel

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gillis, William

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,730,009, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1. House of Lords Offices

    27,983

    2. House of Commons

    216,829

    6. Foreign Office

    154,679

    7. Colonial Office (Supplementary sum)

    652,470

    9. Privy Council Office

    9,221

    10. Board of Trade

    729,545

    11. Department of Overseas Trade

    162,923

    12. Mercantile Marine Services

    247,415

    13. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    6

    15. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    984,804

    16. Forestry Commission

    19,000

    17. Ministry of Transport

    146,950

    18. Charity Commission

    29,552

    19. Government Chemist

    33,113

    £

    20. Civil Service Commission

    57,434

    21. Exchequer and Audit Department

    99,000

    23. Government Actuary

    24,321

    24. Board of Control, England

    279,075

    25. The Mint

    6

    26. National Debt Office

    12,873

    27. Public Record Office:

    26,473

    28. Public Works Loan Commission

    5

    29. Registrar-General's Office, England

    100,644

    30. State Management Districts

    60

    32. Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues

    23,796

    33. Office of Works and Public Buildings

    383,500

    34. Privy Seal Office

    4,025

    35. Secret Service

    120,000

    SCOTLAND.

    36. Secretary for Scotland's Office

    94,711

    38. Fishery Board for Scotland

    34,450

    39. General Board of Control

    38,572

    40. Registrar-General's Office

    15,688

    IRELAND.

    £

    41. Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland

    886

    £4,730,009"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 294, Noes, 94.

    Division No. 243.]

    AYES.

    [10.15 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

    Armitage, Robert

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick W.

    Forrest, Walter

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. p.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Ganzoni, sir John

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gardner, Ernest

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    McMlcking, Major Gilbert

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

    Barrand, A. R.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Golf, Sir R. Park

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

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

    Gould, James C.

    Manville, Edward

    8ellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon, Sir Edward A.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Grant, James Augustus

    Mason, Robert

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

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Matthews, David

    Setterton, Henry B.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

    Moles, Thomas

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Gregory, Holman

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

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

    Morris, Richard

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

    Morrison, Hugh

    Briggs, Harold

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

    Murchison. C. K.

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

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

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Bruton. Sir James

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Neal, Arthur

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

    Burgoyne. Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

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

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. II.

    Hinds, John

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Carr, W. Theodore

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

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Casey, T. W

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

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

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Parker, James

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hopkins, John W. W

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Home, Sir R. s. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Perring, William George

    Cope, Major William

    Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

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

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Philippe, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Jesson, C.

    Pratt, John William

    Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Preston, Sir W. R.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Purchase, H. G.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Hotherham)

    Rasburn, Sir William H.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Held, D. D.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Remnant, Sir James

    Evans, Ernest

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Renwick, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

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

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lorden, John William

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecciasall)

    Fildes, Henry

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Rodger, A. K.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Taylor, J.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Windsor, Viscount

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Seager, Sir William

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Winterton, Earl

    Seddon, J. A.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Wise, Frederick

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Tryon, Major George Clement

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

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Vickers, Douglas

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Wallace, J.

    Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

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

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Worsfold, T. cato

    Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

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

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Waring, Major Waiter

    Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stevens, Marshall

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Mr. McCurdy.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Ammon, Charles George

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Archer-Shee, Lleut.-Colonel Martin

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Banton, George

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday. Arthur

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Smith, W R. (Wellingborough)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

    Spencer, George A.

    Briant, Frank

    Irving, Dan

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, John Edward

    Cairns, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kiley, James Daniel

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lunn, William

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Wedgwood- Colonel Josiah C.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Mills, John Edmund

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

    Finney, Samuel

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Murray, Hon. A. C (Aberdeen)

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gillis, William

    Myers. Thomas

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,825,152, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1. Law Charges

    150,528

    2. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    40,395

    3. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    345,376

    4. Land Registry

    68,053

    5. Public Trustee

    5

    6. County Courts

    103,502

    £

    7. Police (England and Wales)

    3,142,025

    8. Prisons, England and Wales

    666,804

    9. Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales

    205,000

    10. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    53,147

    SCOTLAND.

    11. Law Charges and Courts of Law

    90,571

    12. Scottish Land Court

    7,478

    13. Register House, Edinburgh

    52,234

    14. Police

    336,700

    15. Prisons

    120,100

    16. Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    70,221

    IRELAND.

    £

    17. Supreme Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland

    31,739

    18. Irish Land Commission

    1,002,350

    Qüestion put.

    £

    22. Royal Irish Constabulary, etc.

    338,924

    £6,825,152"

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 75.

    Division No. 244.]

    AYES.

    [10.25 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Agg-Gardner, sir James Tynte

    Ednam, Viscount

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Elveden, Viscount

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

    Archer-shee, Lieut-Colonel Martin

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Armitage, Robert

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Evans, Ernest

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Atkey, A. R.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fildes, Henry

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Barrand, A. R.

    Forrest, Walter

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

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lorden, John William

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Lort-Williams, J.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Gould, James C.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Grant, James Augustus

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Briggs, Harold

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

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Gregory, Holman

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Bruton, Sir James

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Manville, Edward

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

    Mason, Robert

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Matthews, David

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Carr, W. Theodore

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

    Moles, Thomas

    Casey, T. W.

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Harmsworth, C. B, (Bedford, Luton)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Morris, Richard

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Morrison, Hugh

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Hennessy. Major J. R. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hinds, John

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

    Cope, Major William

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

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

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

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

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

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Neal, Arthur

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

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

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

    Hopkins John W. W.

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon Hugh

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. sir W. Hacket

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

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

    Parker, James

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Jesson, C.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Seager, Sir William

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Seddon, J. A.

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Polson, Sir Thomas A.

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Klimarnock)

    Weston, colonel John Wakefield

    Pratt, John William

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Preston, Sir w. R.

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

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Simms, Or. John M. (North Down)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Sprat, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

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

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

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

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

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

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Stevens, Marshall

    Windsor, Viscount

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Stewart, Gershom

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Winterton, Earl

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wise, Frederick

    Reid, D. D.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Taylor, J.

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

    Renwick, Sir George

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Younger, Sir George

    Rodger, A. K.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Roundell, Colonel R, F.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Vickers, Douglas

    Lieut-Colonel Sir J. Gilmour and

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    McCurdy.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis 0.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Banton, George

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

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayward, Evan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Spencer, George A.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sutton, John Edward

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Swan, J. E.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Holmes, J. Stanley

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

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

    Bromfield, William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Cairns, John

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawson, John James

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

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

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Finney, Samuel

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gillis, William

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    CLASS IV
    "That a sum, not exceeding £32,545,207, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1. Board of Education

    27,900,000

    2. British Museum

    181,505

    3. National Gallery

    18,002

    4. National Portrait Gallery

    6,009

    5. Wallace Collection

    8,438

    6. London Museum

    2,500

    7. Imperial War Museum

    10,700

    £

    8. Scientific Investigation etc.

    122,774

    9. Scientific and Industrial Research

    197,437

    10. Universities and Colleges Great Britain, and Intermediate Education Wales

    699,200

    SCOTLAND.

    11. Public Education (including a Supplementary sum of £79,060)

    3,392,374

    12. National Galleries

    6,268

    £32,545,207"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 96.

    Division No. 245.]

    AYES.

    [10.38 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Forrest, Walter

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

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

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

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

    Armitage, Robert

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Gilbert, James Daniel

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

    Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Manville, Edward

    Atkey, A. R.

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Baird, sir John Lawrence

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gould, James C.

    Mason, Robert

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Matthews, David

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Barrand, A. R.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moles, Thomas

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

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

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

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

    Gregory, Holman

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

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

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Morris, Richard

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Morrison, Hugh

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Murchison, C. K.

    Boscawen, PI. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

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

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

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

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

    Neal, Arthur

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

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

    Briggs, Harold

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hinds, John

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Pain, Brig-Gen, Sir W. Hacket

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

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

    Parker, James

    Butcher, Sir John George

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

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hope, J, D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Casey, T. W.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Pratt, John William

    Coats, Sir Stuart

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

    Preston, Sir W. R.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Cope, Major William

    Jesson, C.

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Reid, D. D.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Remer, J. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Renwick, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Doyle, N. Grattan

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Edgar, Clifford B,

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Rodger, A. K.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Evans, Ernest

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Guetave D

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Seager, Sir William

    FitzRoy. Captain Hon. Edward A.

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. p.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Mackinder, sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

    Townley, Maximilian G.

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

    Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Windsor, Viscount.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (North Dawn)

    Vickers, Douglas

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Wallace, J.

    Winterton, Earl

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Wise, Frederick

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

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

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

    Stephenson, Lieut-Colonel H. K.

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

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Waring, Major Walter

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, J.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    White. Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Younger, Sir George

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

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

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

    McCurdy.

    Tickler, Thomas George

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Gillis, William

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

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Amnion, Charles George

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Banton, George

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hayward, Evan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Spencer, George A.

    Bramsdon, sir Thomas

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Briant, Frank

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Sutton, John Edward

    Bromfield, William

    Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

    Swan, J. E.

    Cairns, John

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawson, John James

    Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wedgwood. Colonel Josiah C.

    Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Edwards. G. (Norfolk, South)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

    Finney, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Foot, Isaac

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    CLASS V.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,298,596, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    2. Colonial Services

    1,143,598

    4. Colonial Services

    6,100

    £

    5. League of Nations (including a Supplementary sum of £100,000)

    148,898

    £1,298,596"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 96.

    Division No. 246.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. sir A. Griffith-

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

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Barrand, A. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Armitage, Robert

    1 Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

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

    Briggs, Harold

    Atkey, A. R.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Bruton, Sir James

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

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

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

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

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Ramsdon, G. T.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Casey, T. W.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cautley, Henry Strother

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

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Reid, D. D.

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

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Jesson, C.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Johnstone, Joseph

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

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

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

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Cope, Major William

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Seager, Sir William

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. 0. (H'tlngd'n)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lorden, John William

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

    Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Ednam, Viscount

    M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Elvedon, Viscount

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Evans, Ernest

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Stewart, Gershom

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.

    Taylor, J.

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Manville, Edward

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Forrest, Walter

    Mason, Robert

    Thomson, Sir w. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Matthews, David

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Townley, Maximilian G

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mond, Rt. Hen. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton I

    Vickers, Douglas

    Glyn, Major Ralph

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

    Wallace, J.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Gould, James C.

    Morris, Richard

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

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Morrison, Hugh

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

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

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

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

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

    Neal, Arthur

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

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

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

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

    Whitla, Sir William

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

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

    Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

    Windsor, Viscount.

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

    Parker, James

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Winterton, Earl

    Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pearce, Sir William

    Wise, Frederick

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wood. Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Hennessy, Major J. R, G.

    Perring, William George

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

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hinds, John

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

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

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

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

    Pratt, John William

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Preston, Sir W. R.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Colonel Gibbs and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    610

    611

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Amman, Charles George

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Banton, George

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

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Remnant, Sir James

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hayward, Evan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bonn, 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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Briant, Frank

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bromfield, William

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Spencer, George A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cairns, John

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, John Edward

    Cape, Thomas

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kiley, James Daniel

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    M alone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Mills, John Edmund

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

    Finney, Samuel

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Foot, Isaac

    Murray, Hon. A, C. (Aberdeen)

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

    Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Gillis, William

    Nail, Major Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    CLASS VI.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £71,194,498, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:—

    £

    1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    1,092,472

    2. Old Age Pensions

    12,615,000

    3. Ministry of Pensions

    55,991,000

    4. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    304,664

    5. Miscellaneous Expenses

    7,960

    6. Royal Commissions, etc.

    30,000

    7. National Savings Committee

    59,247

    8. Imperial War Graves Commission

    256,701

    9. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    105,453

    10. Expenses under the Representation of the People Act

    192,000

    11. Government Hospitality Fund

    20,000

    12. Ex-Service Men (Ireland) Grant

    471,259

    £

    13. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

    48,742

    £71,194,498"

    CLASS VII
    "That a sum, not exceeding £25,831,796, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

    £

    1. Ministry of Health (National Health Insurance, Joint Committee)

    13,512,562

    3. Ministry of Labour (including a Supplementary sum of £3,552,844)

    12,010,604

    4. National Insurance, Audit Department

    123,180

    5. Friendly Societies' Deficiency

    5,450

    6. Grants 10 Voluntary Hospitals

    180,000

    £25,831,796"

    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 113.

    Division No. 247.]

    AYES.

    [11.2 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Armitage, Robert

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Agg-Gardner, sir James Tynte

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

    Atkey, A. R.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Barrand, A. R.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Hinds, John

    Pratt, John William

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

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Purchase, H. G.

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Rae, Sir Henry N.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F,

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

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- {Barnstaple)

    Briggs, Harold

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Reid, D. D.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Renwick, Sir George

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Jesson, C,

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

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Butcher, Sir John George

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

    Rodger, A. K.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Casey, T. W.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

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

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S,

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

    Seager, Sir William

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Seddon, J. A.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Cope, Major William

    Locker-Lampson, Com. 0. (H'tingd'n)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

    Lorden, John William

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

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Lort-Williams, J,

    Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.>

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    M Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    McLaren, Hon, H. D. (Leicester)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark. Northern]

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    McMlcking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, J.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

    Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Edgar, Clifford B.

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

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.

    Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)

    Ednam, Viscount

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Elveden, Viscount

    Manville, Edward

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Evans, Ernest

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Tryon. Major George Clement

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Botton M.

    Mason, Robert

    Vickers, Douglas

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Matthews, David

    Wallace, J.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram God fray

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

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

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

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

    Waring, Major Walter

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Forestler-Walker, L.

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

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Forrest, Walter

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Morrison, Hugh

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Murchison, C. K.

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

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Neal, Arthur

    Winterton, Earl

    Gould, James C.

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

    wise, Frederick

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

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

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

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

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

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Gregory, Holman

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

    Young, E. H (Norwich)

    Guthrie, Thomas Maule

    Parker, James

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry j

    Younger. Sir George

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Pearce, Sir William

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

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hamilton, Sir George C.

    Perring, William George

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

    Dudley Ward.

    614

    615

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Poison, Sir Thomas A.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Banton, George

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Remnant, Sir James

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayward, Evan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Briant, Frank

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Spencer, George A.

    Bromfield, William

    Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, John Edward

    Cairns, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

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

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    M alone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Moles, Thomas

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

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Mosley, Oswald

    Windsor, Viscount.

    Finney, Samuel

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Foot, Isaac

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

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

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Gillis, William

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Question put, and agreed to.

  ROAD GRANTS (UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,040,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 314 day of March, 1923, for Road Grants to relieve Unemployment."
  UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in the United Kingdom for assistance in carrying out approved Schemes of useful work to relieve Unemployment."
  RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £900,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1923, for Relief arising out of Unemployment."

  EXPORT CREDITS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
  616
  year ending on the 31st day of March. 1923, to provide for Advances in respect of Export of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom or guarantees in connection therewith."

  PROPERTY LOSSES (IRELAND) COMPENSATION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £27,010, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for ex gratia Grants in respect of Losses and Injuries sustained in the Rebellion in Ireland in 1916."
  CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) COMPENSATION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Compensation for Criminal Injuries and Medical and Nursing Expenses of Crown Employés who have been maliciously injured."

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRANT IN AID.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,750,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £2,750,000), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Grant in Aid

  617
  of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland"
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 71

  Division No. 248.]

  AYES.

  [11.15 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

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

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Forrest, Walter

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Armitage, Robert

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Gilbert, James Daniel

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James J.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. sir Frederick G.

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

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

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gould, James C.

  Manville, Edward

  Barrand, A. R.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

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

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Mason, Robert

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

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

  Matthews, David

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

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

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

  Gregory, Holman

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Moles, Thomas

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

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

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

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Briggs, Harold

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Neal, Arthur

  Bruton, Sir James

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

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

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Hinds, John

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

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

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

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

  Butcher, sir John George

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

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

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Carr, W. Theodore

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

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Casey, T. W.

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Parker, James

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Pearce, Sir William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Conway, Sir W, Martin

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Perring, William George

  Cope, Major William

  Jesson, C.

  Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)

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

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Cowan, sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

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

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Pratt, John William

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Purchase, H. G.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Denison-Pender, John C.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander Harry

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Reid, D. D.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Remer, J. R.

  Ednam, Viscount

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

  Remnant, Sir James

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Lorden, John William

  Renwick, Sir George

  Elveden, Viscount

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

  Rodger, A. K.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Taylor, J.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

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

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Windsor, Viscount.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Seddon, J. A.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Winterton, Earl

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Wise, Frederick

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Townley, Maximillan G

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

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

  Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

  Vickers, Douglas

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

  Wallace, J.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

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

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Steel, Major S. Strang

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Stevens, Marshall

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Stewart, Gershom

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  William Dudley Ward.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Banton, George

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Smith, w. R. (Wellingborough)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Spencer, George A.

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sutton, John Edward

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Swan, J. E.

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Holmes, J. Stanley

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

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Bromfield, William

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cairns, John

  Lawson, John James

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lunn, William

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Mills, John Edmund

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Mosley, Oswald

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Finney, Samuel

  Myers, Thomas

  Foot, Isaac

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gillis, William

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Mr. James Myles Hogge and Mr.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Thomas Kennedy.

  DISPOSAL AND LIQUIDATION COMMISSION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923,
  for the Salaries and Expenses of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 95.

  Division No. 249.]

  AYES.

  [11.35 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Cope, Major William

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Briggs, Harold

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Armitage, Robert

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Atkey, A. R.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Casey, T. W.

  Denison-Pender, John C.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

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

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

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

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

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Ednam, Viscount

  Bigland, Alfred

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Elveden, viscount

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Evans, Ernest

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

  Rodger, A. K.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F,

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey

  M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Forrest, Walter

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

  Gilbert, James Daniel

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

  Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Grant, James Augustus

  Mason, Robert

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Matthews, David

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

  Steel, Major S. Strang

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

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

  Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred Moritz

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gregory, Holman

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

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

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Taylor, J.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Hallwood, Augustine

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

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

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

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Neal, Arthur

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

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

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

  Townley, Maximillan G

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Hinds, John

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Vickers, Douglas

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

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Wallace, J.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

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

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

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Parker, James

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Pearce, Sir William

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Perring, William George

  Whitla, Sir William

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

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

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

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

  Pratt, John William

  Windsor, Viscount.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Winterton, Earl

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Purchase, H. G.

  Wise, Frederick

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Reid, D. D.

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Remer, J. R.

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

  Remnant, Sir James

  Younger, Sir George

  Lorden, John William

  Renwick, Sir George

  Lort-Williams, J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Mr. McCurdy and Lieut.-Colonel

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Sir John Gilmour.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Banton, George

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hogge, James Myles

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Kennedy, Thomas

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Foot, Isaac

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gillis, William

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Briant, Frank

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Bromfield, William

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Cairns, John

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

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

  Cape, Thomas

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Mills, John Edmund

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Hayward, Evan

  Mosley, Oswald

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Myers, Thomas

  622

  623

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Rose, Frank H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Waterson, A. E.

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Spencer, George A.

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stevens, Marshall

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Sutton, John Edward

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Swan, J. E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

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

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Mr. Walter Smith and Mr. Charles

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  White.

  SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,085,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923,
  for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 273, Noes, 77.

  Division No. 250.]

  AYES.

  [11.37 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Ednam, Viscount

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Armitage, Robert

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Elveden, Viscount

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

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Atkey, A R.

  Evans, Ernest

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Lorden, John William

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Forrest, Walter

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

  Fraser, Major sir Keith

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Goff, Sir R. Park

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

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Gould, James C.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Bawyor, Captain G. W. E.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Maitland, Sir Arthur O. Steel-

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

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

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Manville, Edward

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Briggs, Harold

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Gregory, Holman

  Mason, Robert

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Greig, Colonel sir James William

  Matthews, David

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

  Moles, Thomas

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Hallwood, Augustine

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

  Carr, W. Theodore

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

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Casey, T. W.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert.

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

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Murchison, C. K.

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

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Murray, Hon Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Hinds, John

  Neal, Arthur

  Coats, Sir Stuart

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

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

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

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

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

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

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Cope, Major William

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

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. sir John

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Pain, Brig-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Parker, James

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Pearce, Sir William

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Perring, William George

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

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

  Pollack, Rt. Han. Sir Ernest Murray

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

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

  Pratt, John William

  Simm, M. T. (Wallsend)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Purchase, H. G.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Whitla, Sir William

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Stevens, Marshall

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Reid, D. D.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Windsor, Viscount.

  Remer, J. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Remnant, Sir James

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Renwick, Sir George

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Wise, Frederick

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Taylor, J.

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

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

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

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Rodger, A. K.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Townley, Maximillan G.

  Younger, Sir George

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Vickers, Douglas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Wallace, J.

  Mr. McCurdy and Lieut.-Colonel

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Sir J. Gilmour.

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Banton, George

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Mayday, Arthur

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Spencer, George A.

  Bramsdon, sir Thomas

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Sutton, John Edward

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Swan, J. E.

  Bromfield, William

  Kennedy, Thomas

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

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cairns, John

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lawson, John James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Lunn, William

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Mosley, Oswald

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Myers, Thomas

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Foot, Isaac

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Gillis, William

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Mr. Walter Smith and Mr. Charles

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  White.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL (WAR) AGREEMENTS LIQUIDATION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £31,485,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to meet expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways and Canals in Great Britain and Ireland under The Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, Section 16, and Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 9 H, and payments to Railway Companies under The Railways Act, 1921, Section 11, and The Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921, Section 1."

  TREASURY SECURITIES DEPOSIT SCHEME.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will
  626
  come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Expenses connected with the Treasury Securities Deposit Scheme."

  COAL MINES DEFICIENCY.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, to provide for the Deficiency arising under The Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and for Payments under Section 7 (5) of The Coal Mines Emergency Act, 1920."

  PRIZE CLAIMS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum

  627
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Claims in respect of Ships or Cargoes condemned or detained as Naval Prize."

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY SUBVENTION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, as a Subvention in Aid of Wages in the Coal Mining Industry."
  GRANTS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY ENEMY ACTION.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Grants in respect of Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action."
  REFUGEES (IRELAND) GRANTS.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for grants to Refugees from Ireland for the relief of distress."

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
  "That a sum not exceeding £6,674,781, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—

  £

  1. Customs and Excise

  2,620,000

  2. Inland Revenue

  4,054,781

  £6,674,781"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 71.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £19,102,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—

  £

  3. Medical Establishments and Services

  427,000

  4. Civilians employed Fleet Services

  238,100

  5. Educational Services

  335,000

  6. Scientific Services

  363,500

  7. Royal Naval Reserves

  443,300

  8. Section 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel

  6,258,100

  £

  8. Section 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Matériel

  5,918,700

  8. Section 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. Contract Work

  2,717,500

  11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  1,557,900

  15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities

  843,100

  £19,102,200"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 62.

  Division No. 251]

  AYES.

  [11.51 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hinds, John

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hood, sir Joseph

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Armitage, Robert

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Elveden, Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

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

  Evans, Ernest

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Falcon, Captain Michael

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

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Forrest, Walter

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

  Briggs, Harold

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Lorden, John William

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gould, James C.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Grant, James Augustus

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

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

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

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Casey, T. W.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

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

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

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Manville, Edward

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Clough, Sir Robert

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

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Mason, Robert

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Matthews, David

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

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

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Moreing, Captain Algernce H

  Roes, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Remer, J. R.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Remnant, Sir James

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Renwick, Sir George

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

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

  Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Vickers, Douglas

  Neal, Arthur

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wallace, J.

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

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

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

  Rodger, A. K.

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

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J (Westminster)

  Roundell, Colonel H. F.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  White, Col. G. n. (Southport)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

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

  Parker, James

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

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

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

  Pearce, Sir William

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

  Windsor, Viscount

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Simms, Dr. John M. (North Down)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Winterton, Earl

  Perring, William George

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Wise, Frederick

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

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

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

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

  Pratt, John William

  Stevens, Marshall

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Younger, Sir George

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Taylor, J.

  Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Gibbs.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Banton, George

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hayward, Evan

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Spencer, George A.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Sutton, John Edward

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Chariot W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Swan, J. E.

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Briant, Frank

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cairns, John

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Cape, Thomas

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lawson, John James

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Lunn, William

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Finney, Samuel

  Myers, Thomas

  Foot, Isaac

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gillis, William

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Mr. Walter Smith and Mr. Charles

  Graham, D. M. {Lanark, Hamilton)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  White.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 252.]

  AYES.

  [12 m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Gould, James C.

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. sir W. Hacket

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Grant, James Augustus

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, w.)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

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

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

  Perring, William George

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Atkey, A. R.

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Baird, sir John Lawrence

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Pratt, John William

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Purchase, H. G.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Ramsden, G. T.

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

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Remer, J. R.

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Remnant, Sir James

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Renwick, Sir George

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Hopkins, John W. W.

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

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Howard, Major s. G.

  Robinson, Sir T (Lanes., Stretford)

  Bramsdon, sir Thomas

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. sir Aylmer

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Briggs, Harold

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

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

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Hon. Alex (Kilmarnock)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

  Casey, T. W.

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

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

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

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

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

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Clay. Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Lorden, John William

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Lowe. Sir Francis William

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Cope, Major William

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Thomson, Sir w. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

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

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

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

  Vickers, Douglas

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Wallace, J.

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

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

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Manville, Edward

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

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Waring, Major Walter

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Mason, Robert

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

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

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Moore, Major General Sir Newton J.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Elveden, Viscount

  Moreing. Captain Algernon. H.

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

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H

  Evans, Ernest

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Windsor, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Falcon, Captain Michael

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Wise, Frederick

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Nail, Major Joseph

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

  Foot, Isaac

  Neal, Arthur

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

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

  Forrest, Walter

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

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Younger, Sir George

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Parker.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Briant, Frank

  Ammon, Charles George

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Bromfield, William

  Banton, George

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Cairns, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Cape, Thomas.

  632

  633

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, George A.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Sutton, John Edward

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Swan, J. E.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Finney, Samuel

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Gillis, William

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

  Waterson, A. E.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mosley, Oswald

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Wintringham, Margaret

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

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Mr. Walter Smith and Mr.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Charles White.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £34,300,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges for Army Services, including Army (Ordnance Factories), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in respect of an esti-
  mated net total cost of £63,875,500, and of liabilities outstanding on the first day of the year."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 63.

  Division No. 253.]

  AYES.

  [12.12 a.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Edgar, Clifford B.

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

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

  Ednam, Viscount

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Atkey, A. R.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Evans, Ernest

  Lorden, John William

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. sir Frederick G.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

  Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

  Forrest, Walter

  M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gilbert, James Daniel

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

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

  Goff. Sir R. Park

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Manville, Edward

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

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

  Mason, Robert

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Briggs, Harold

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

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Brown, Major O. C.

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Bruton, Sir James

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

  Murchison, C. K.

  Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

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

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Neal, Arthur

  Casey, T. W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

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

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

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

  Hinds, John

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

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Cope, Major William

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Perring, William George

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Purchase, H. G.

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Waring, Major Walter

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  White, Col. G. O. (Southport)

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Remer, J. R.

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Steel, Major S. Strang

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

  Renwick, Sir George

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

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

  Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)

  Stewart, Gershom

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

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

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Windsor, Viscount

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Winterton, Earl

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Wise, Frederick

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

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

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Rodger, A. K.

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

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

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Younger, Sir George

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Vickers, Douglas

  Colonel Gibbs and Mr. Parker.

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Wallace, J.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Foot, Isaac

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gillis, William

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Banton, George

  Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

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

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Spencer, George A.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sutton, John Edward

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Swan, J. E.

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, G. H.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Bromfield, William

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)

  Cairns, John

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Cape, Thomas

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Waterson, A. E.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawson, John James

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Lunn, William

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

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Finney, Samuel

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Mr. Hogge and Mr. Walter Smith.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1922–23.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,463,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st (1.4y of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Force Services, namely:

  £

  5. Air Ministry

  680,000

  6. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  85,000

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

  157,000

  £

  8. Civil Aviation

  364,000

  9. Experimental and Research Services

  1,177,000

  £2,463,000"

  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 254.]

  AYES.

  [12.20 a.m.

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Bigland, Alfred

  Camplon, Lieut-Colonel W. R.

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

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Casey, T. W.

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon, Sir A. Griffith-

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Atkey, A. R.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

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

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Briggs. Harold

  Coats, Sir Stuart

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

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Cope, Major William

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Renwick, Sir George

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

  Rodger, A. K.

  Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

  Lorden, John William

  Rose, Frank H.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Rounded, Colonel R. F.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Ednam, Viscount

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Elveden, Viscount

  M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Ernest

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

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

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

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Manville, Edward

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Mason, Robert

  Starkey. Captain John Ralph

  Forrest, Walter

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

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester. W.)

  Murchison, C. K.

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

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

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

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

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

  Neal, Arthur

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Guthrie, Thomas Maule

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

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Hallwood, Augustine

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

  Vickers, Douglas

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

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Wallace, J

  Hamilton, Sir George C.

  Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

  Harmsworth, C, B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Waring, Major Walter

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Whitla, Sir William

  Hinds, John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

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

  Perring, William George

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

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

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

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pratt, John William

  Windsor, Viscount

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

  Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hunter, General sir A. (Lancaster)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Wise, Frederick

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rae, Sir Henry N.

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

  Inskip, Thomas walker H.

  Ramsden, G. T.

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

  Jameson, John Gordon

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Remer, J. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Mr. King and Mr. Parker.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Ammon, Charles George

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Banton, George

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Spencer, George A.

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sutton, John Edward

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Swan, J. E.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thornton, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Briant, Frank

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cape, Thomas

  Lawson, John James

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lunn, William

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

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

  Wilson. James (Dudley)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Mosley, Oswald

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Foot, Isaac

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Gillis, William

  Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Mr. Hogge and Mr. W. Smith.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £333,266,574 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Dr. JOHN MORROW SIMMS, C.B., C.M.G., for the County of Down (North Down).
BILLS PRESENTED.

  TEMPERANCE (ENGLAND) BILL,
  "to promote Temperance in England by conferring on the Parliamentary electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and to amend the Law relating to the sale of such liquors in licensed premises and clubs, with provision incidental thereto," presented by Mr. BROAD; supported by Lieut.-Colonel
  472
  Sir William Allen, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Briant, Mr. Gange, Mr. William Graham, Sir Robert Lister, Mr. Mallalieu, Sir George Croydon Marks, Sir William Middlebrook, Mr. John Murray, and Captain Tudor-Rees; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 216.]

  EXPIRING LAWS BILL,
  "to deal with certain Expiring Laws by making some of them permanent, repealing others, and continuing the remainder for a limited period," presented by Mr. HILTON YOUNG; supported by Sir Robert Horne; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Clare College, Cambridge (Blythe's Benefaction), Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the Third time.
Black Country Tramways and Light Railways Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

POST OFFICE (PARCELS) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
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 be taken into consideration To-morrow.

MILK AND DAIRIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
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 be printed. [Bill 212.]

RAILWAY AND CANAL COMMISSION (CONSENTS) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 160.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 160.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had
  474
  discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Captain Rankin; and had appointed in substitution (during the consideration of the Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords]): Sir Leslie Scott.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 161.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 162.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill, without Amendment.
Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Birmingham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CLASS II.

      TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £188,643, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."—[NOTE: £120,000 has been voted on account.]

    CLASS V.

      DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed.,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £751,943, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote, including certain special Grants."—[NOTE: £700,000 has been voted on account.]

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1920–21.
Resolution reported,
"Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Air Services, 1920–21, Voted.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

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

15,885

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

£2,292,261 13 0

Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. MALONE: I desire to have some explanation about this Resolution. Why is it that only at the end of 1922 we get this Resolution as to accounts ending on 31st March, 1921? Secondly, what is actually done with this surplus? Is this money going to be used for the Air Service? Thirdly, who takes credit for this item of £148,850 surplus on civil aviation, and will that money be in addition to the money provided this year?
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 hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Air Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

2,357,297

6

3

Total Deficits

64,335

13

3

Net Surplus

£2,292,961

13

0

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.
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The explanation is very simple. The accounts relate to the period of 1920–21 and the deficits amount to only £04,335, while the surpluses amount to £2,357,297. The latter mainly arise from under-spending in Votes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. As to the deficits. £17,677 is due to the transfer to a special sub-head set up, under Treasury direction, of expenditure incurred on behalf of various Russian Governments in previous years. The other item of £46,657 is money overspent, and arises out of the rapid demobilisation of officers and men, to debtor balances on non-

641
effective airmen's accounts, and in respect of barrack damages. In the deficit column the amounts are not very great, but the surpluses are very great. The surpluses are handed back to the Treasury, and this is the Parliamentary form to give permission to do so.
Captain W. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that he does not excuse deficits by drawing attention to surpluses. I would like information about these sums spent, he tells us, on various Russian Governments. We have been told no sums are being spent on Russian Governments.
Mr. HOLMES: The right hon. Gentleman was, apparently, apologetic with regard to the year being 1920–21. What does this item mean "Balances irrecoverable and claims abandoned, £46,657?" If they have been abandoned, why have they been abandoned, and what are they?
Captain GUEST: I passed rapidly over them. They are for over-issues of pay owing to the rapid demobilisation of officers and men. That is one of the main items of the £46,000. My hon. Friend will appreciate that when you demobilise 30,000 officers down to 3,000—which is the process which took place between 1918 and 1920—it is clear that a. certain number of payments Were made to officers and men leaving the force who were afterwards untraceable. There is no doubt there are occasions when the Government must sacrifice its legal right of trying to press for these outstanding debts. The second item is the deficit balance on non-effective airmen's accounts, which is quite simple. When a. man is on the effective list, he receives a certain rate of pay, but when, owing to casualty, sickness or otherwise, he drops in the scale, he is only entitled to a lesser rate. There have been occasions when the Government have thought it reasonable not to press outstanding claims against men who suffered in this way. The third item is in respect of barrack damages. That is a case where the Government have thought it reasonable to cut their losses. For the purpose of
bookkeeping the Treasury enforces upon us a system by which all losses are shown as well as surpluses. The surplus side I do not think needs explanation. They are on certain Votes and are handed back to the Treasury. That we have had the advantage of using these surpluses in the current year is not correct. As regards the Russian Governments, that goes back to a period in Air Ministry affairs with which I am not well acquainted. There must have been occasions when certain units were there engaged in handling situations with which the Air Ministry had been brought into touch. That is a subject with which I am unacquainted.
Mr. HOGGE: The Minister of Air has got up and explained to the House that he has no knowledge of the method in which certain sums of money were expended. It is a matter which has often been alluded to, and we have tried to find out by question and answer how far this country has been involved from time to time in the assistance given to the various people in Russia who were attempting to set up Governments. This is the first time I remember that across the Floor of the House a Minister has admitted that certain sums have been expended for this purpose. I do not want to delay the House for a single moment; it would not be fair at this time of night. We can divide upon it in order to show how we deplore the loose way in regard to these accounts. Either the Air Force did or did not assist in one or other of the adventures which sought to overthrow the Russian Government. The Minister for Air knows this House well. He is always willing to meet it, and he has been quite frank. I invite him, before we challenge a Division, and in order that we may not challenge a Division, to tell us precisely what this means.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions."
The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 18.

Division No. 255.]

AYES.

[12.43 a.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Barnston, Major Harry

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

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

Brings, Harold

Atkey, A. R.

Betterton, Henry B.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Brown, Major D. C.

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Bruton, Sir James

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hinds, John

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Hood, Sir Joseph

Pratt, John William

Casey, T. W.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

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

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

Remer, J. R.

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

Hunter, General Sir A, (Lancaster)

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Coats, Sir Stuart

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

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

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Jameson, John Gordon

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Cope, Major William

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Klnc.,

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

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

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Doyle, N. Grattan

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

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Lorden, John William

Steel, Major S. Strang

Ednam, Viscount

Lort-Williams, J.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Lowe, sir Francis William

Stewart, Gershom

Evans, Ernest

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

Sturrock, J. Leng

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Sutherland, Sir William

Falcon, Captain Michael

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

Forrest, Walter

Manville, Edward

Tryon, Major George Clement

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Mason, Robert

Vickers, Douglas

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Wallace, J.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

Waring, Major Walter

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Murchison, C. K.

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Gould, James C.

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

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

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

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

Guthrie, Thomas Maule

Nail, Major Joseph

Windsor, Viscount

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Neal, Arthur

Wise, Frederick

Hallwood, Augustine

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

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

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

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Hamilton, sir George C.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Parker, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

McCurdy.

NOES.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hirst, G. H.

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

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Hogge, James Myles

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

Waterson, A. E.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Mosley, Oswald

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Grundy, T. W.

Sitch, Charles H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Mr. Stanley Holmes and Mr. Foot.

Question put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Abolition of Women's Equalisation Fund.)
  "(2) This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."
  Lords Amendment:
  At end of Sub-section (2) insert the words
  "Provided that nothing in this Section shall render invalid any scheme or regulation duly made before the passing of this Act under the said Section two of the National
  644
  Health Insurance Act, 1918, and any scheme or regulation so made shall have full effect."
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The object of the Amendment is a drafting one to ensure certain Regulations relating to the Women's Equalisation Fund for the year 1920–21 not being invalidated.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Scotland, etc.)
  (1) In the applications of this Act to Scotland two shillings and nine pence shall be substituted for two shillings and four pence halfpenny, the Scottish Board of Health shall be substituted for the Minister of Health, and two pence halfpenny shall be substituted for three halfpence, and Section one of this Act shall have effect as if there were inserted after the word "benefits" in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) thereof the words" and the provision of a medical service for insured persons in such districts of Scotland (other

  645
  than the Highlands and Islands within the meaning of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913) as may be determined by the Scottish Board of Health to be necessitous."
  (2) In the application of this Act to Wales, two shillings and elevenpence halfpenny shall be substituted for two shillings and four pence halfpenny and twopence shall be substituted for three halfpence.
  Lords Amendment:
  In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "In the application of this Act to Scotland," and insert
  "This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications, that is to say."
  Sir A. MONO: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is moved in connection with the next Amendment. Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands provides the terms for England only. It has been found necessary that the Welsh and Scottish application Clauses should provide that the Bill is to apply to Wales and Scotland in addition to laying down modifications for those countries.
  Question put, and agreed to. Lords Amendment:
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the words, In the application of this Act to Wales," and insert
  "This Act shall apply to Wales subject to the following modifications, that is to say."
  Agreed to.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL [Lords].
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

REVISED TABLES OF LESSONS MEASURE, 1922.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I beg to move,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Revised
646
Tables of Lessons Measure, 1922, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
This is a Motion of a quite uncontroversial character. For some years past a great many learned men in the Convocations of Canterbury and York have been engaged in framing an alternative lectionary which may be used, at the choice of the minister, in place of the existing lectionary. It is not compulsory; it is provided that the lectionary may be used. The only restriction on the choice of the minister to use one or the other is that he must choose for one year. If he chooses the new lectionary he must continue with it for the remainder of the year. Otherwise, the choice is perfectly free. The difference between the old lectionary and the new is chiefly this: The old lectionary was framed principally on the calendar of months, day by day. The new lectionary is framed principally with regard to the various Christian feasts, which depend mainly upon the particular place of Easter in the year. The new lectionary is drawn up according to such and such a Sunday after Easter and such a Sunday after Trinity. In addition to that, a larger choice of lessons is given; there are two or three lessons provided for most Sundays instead of only one. I do not think there is likely to be any opposition to the details of this Measure.
Resolved,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Revised Tables of Lessons Measure, 1922, he presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th July.
Adjourned at Six Minutes before One o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  KIRKCALDY SEA WALL AND ESPLANADE.
  KIRKCALDY SEA WALL AND ESPLANADE.
  ERITH AND DARTFORD (UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT).
  ERITH AND DARTFORD (UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT).
  QUARRYMEN.
  QUARRYMEN.
  BENEFIT (MISS M. CONNOLLY, MANCHESTER).
  BENEFIT (MISS M. CONNOLLY, MANCHESTER).
  LABOUR GAZETTE, REPORTS AND STATISTICS.
  LABOUR GAZETTE, REPORTS AND STATISTICS.
  INTERNATIONAL TRADE CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL TRADE CONFERENCE.
  LAUNDRY TRADE (WAGES).
  LAUNDRY TRADE (WAGES).
  S.S. "ORIFLAMME" (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  S.S. "ORIFLAMME" (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RESERVISTS (CLOTHING).
  RESERVISTS (CLOTHING).
  SCOTS GREYS.
  SCOTS GREYS.
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES (MODEL BYE-LAWS).
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES (MODEL BYE-LAWS).
  SMOKE ABATEMENT (CONFERENCES).
  SMOKE ABATEMENT (CONFERENCES).
  EXPRESS DAIRY COMPANY.
  EXPRESS DAIRY COMPANY.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (APPOINTMENTS).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (APPOINTMENTS).
HOUSING.
  CASINO ESTATE, DULWICH (RENTS).
  CASINO ESTATE, DULWICH (RENTS).
  ASHFORD COMMON, MIDDLESEX.
  ASHFORD COMMON, MIDDLESEX.
POST OFFICE.
  RURAL POSTMEN.
  RURAL POSTMEN.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  SORTER TRACERS.
  SORTER TRACERS.
  DISTRESSED BRITISH SUBJECTS, TURKEY (RELIEF).
  DISTRESSED BRITISH SUBJECTS, TURKEY (RELIEF).
  LINCOLN ASSIZES (JURORS).
  LINCOLN ASSIZES (JURORS).
  LAND CULTIVATION, HAMPSHIRE (WEEDS).
  LAND CULTIVATION, HAMPSHIRE (WEEDS).
  GERMAN MARK.
  GERMAN MARK.
  GOVERNMENT STAFFS.
  GOVERNMENT STAFFS.
  ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  WAR COMPENSATION CLAIM (MRS. H. B. LIVINGSTONE).
  WAR COMPENSATION CLAIM (MRS. H. B. LIVINGSTONE).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  KENYA COLONY (LOAN CHARGES).
  KENYA COLONY (LOAN CHARGES).
  EXPORTS AND CAPITAL BORROW-INGS.
  EXPORTS AND CAPITAL BORROW-INGS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD BORWICK.
Sir Robert Hudson Borwick, Bart., J.P., having been created Baron BONWICK of Hawkshead, in the County of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Another Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in consequence of the absence of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in the Committee of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees through illness.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
TAW AND TORRIDGE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
TOWY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
HAMPSHIRE RIVERS FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendment proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Read a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Viscount Chaplin to resolve, "That this Rouse declines to remove what is wrongly described as 'the embargo,' on cattle which come to our shores from Canada or from other countries for the following reasons:
"1. The term itself is very misleading, and purports to be used because of its injurious effect on the price of meat. On the other hand, to abandon the policy of slaughter at the port would reopen the door at once to the risk of the ravages of pleuro-pneumonia from which we have suffered so severely in the past, and compels us to relinquish a safeguard which has given us absolute security against that pestilential disease for upwards of thirty years.
"2. There is no embargo on the importation of live cattle for slaughter from any country in the world, Canadian or otherwise, and they have been so imported bona Canada and other countries in thousands, and can be so imported now, provided they come from countries which are not suffering from any cattle disease.
"3. Pleuro-pneumonia, unlike many other cattle diseases, can only be conveyed by the immediate contact of one animal with another, therefore, so long as the provision for slaughter remains, and contact is impossible, we are safe;"
And on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of LINCOLNSHIRE to the foregoing Motion, namely, to leave out all the words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following words "it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, it may be convenient, as the Amendments which are on the Paper may result in a somewhat diffuse Parliamentary situation when I put the Question from the Woolsack, that I should explain the situation as I understand it. Lord Lincolnshire is in possession of the House, and therefore the first Question which I shall put will be on his Amendment, but if his Amendment were carried, that would

823
exclude the House from an opportunity of giving a decision on the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Long. I propose, therefore, in order to save Lord Long's Amendment, to put the Question on Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment in this form, that the words in Lord Chaplin's Motion, "this House," stand part. If that Question, that the words in Lord Chaplin's Motion, "this House," stand part, is carried in the affirmative, Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment will be defeated, and therefore, when I put that Question, every noble Lord who wishes that Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment should be defeated ought, of course, to vote "Content." That will allow Lord Long to move his Amendment. If, on the other hand, that Question is negatived, then Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment will be carried, and Lord Long's cannot be moved. Therefore, noble Lords who wish that Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment should be carried, and are not attracted by Lord Long's Amendment, have only to vote "Not-Content" when I put the Question in the way I have indicated, but noble Lords who wish to support Lord Long's Amendment ought to vote for the retention of the words "this House"—that is to say, they ought to vote "Content," and those who desire that Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment should prevail ought to vote "Not-Content."
LORD CAWLEY: I presume that we shall proceed now to debate the Question on Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The debate is at large.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I do not propose to go into the question of a pledge at length. That has been sufficiently debated, and we can come to no other conclusion, after hearing the noble Viscount and also Lord Ernle, than that a pledge, and a distinct pledge, was given. Anyway, the Prime Minister was under no illusion on that point. He said:
"The pledges given to Canada at the Imperial Conference in 1917 were definite pledges on behalf of the Cabinet."
That statement does away with the contention that Cabinet Ministers, in 1917, could not pledge the Cabinet.
The Imperial question is, perhaps, the one that ought to weigh with us most. The sole reason given for the Act of 1896—I was in the House of Commons at the time when the noble Viscount
824
Lord Long, introduced it—was that our flocks and herds must be protected from disease. After the Report of the Royal Commission and what we know has happened since, that reason cannot hold good to-day. In fact, that Act was passed under a mistake. There was disagreement about the diagnosis of one case that came from Canada, and it has been established now that it was not a case of pleuropneumonia. Canada says: "You passed the Act under a misapprehension, and although you did that you decline to let our cattle come in." Canada is very sore on this point, and I think she has reason to be sore. It is true that men like Sir Robert Borden speak with great care on the matter, though they have spoken strongly. The man in the street is not so careful. He characterises our conduct as a piece of gross hypocrisy and nothing else. He says, and I think truly: "If you want to protect your breeding industry, say so, but why all this subterfuge about it? It is not calculated to gain our respect, and, what is more, it is not true." I think the Canadian man in the street has a very good case.
We must remember that we hold our Dominions across the seas rather by ties of sentiment than by material ties. Into Canada of late years there has been a considerable influx of Americans as well as other foreigners. There is no sentiment about them, and our action with regard to these cattle has given these American and other emigrants a considerable handle to prove that the connection with this country is not always very desirable. In fact, it places a great weapon in their hands. I do not think that Canadians generally want to go in for reprisals. But America has put on a Tariff of thirty per cent. on store cattle coming from Canada into the United States. It is doubtful what this Duty has been put on for, but as Canada has for years sent a considerable quantity of stores into America, it is probable that America has imposed it with the view of bargaining. The bargaining will probably be that they will take off that thirty per cent. Duty if Canada will allow them to send their pedigree bulls into the Dominion.
If we do not accede to Canada's request and allow her store stock to come here a new Treaty may be made with the United States; the United States will take off the thirty per cent. Duty on the understanding that Canada places a Duty on our pedigree stock. Canada

825
would be quite within her rights in doing so. If we allow Canada to send her store stock here, and so improve her industry, I agree with the Duke of Devonshire that it is very likely she will take more of our pedigree stock. All pedigree stock does not run to thousands of pounds; those are the exceptions. There are a lot of young pedigree bulls of which it is difficult for pedigree breeders to get rid, and if we could get a market for these second-class bulls in Canada it would be an enormous advantage to the pedigree breeders of this country.
We must not run away with the idea that we have all the pedigree business, or that we are likely to run along without more severe competition. There is a great deal of competition from America already. The breeders of the United States have sent agents into South America and Canada, and are succeeding in selling a good deal of pedigree stock there. Americans know how to advertise. I had a large book sent me the other day full of illustrations of large pedigree herds in the United States, and I know from other sources that Americans are breeding a great deal of first-rate pedigree stock. We are not the only people in the pedigree cattle business.
This prohibition on store stock coming here from Canada is directly playing into the hands of advocates in the United States of reciprocity and even of union with the United States, and it is much against our interests to maintain the embargo. What Great Britain might lose by reprisals is nothing to the loss of confidence it will give Canada and our other Colonies in the word of England. Speaking of the Prime Minister of Canada the other day in this House the noble Viscount said—
"He pressed it upon me as a question of vital importance which might become very troublesome between this country and Canada."
Mr. Wade, the Minister for British Columbia, also wrote very strongly to the same effect in a letter to The Times. Are we to invite trouble with Canada? I think this country has suffered a good deal at times from not acceding to just requests in Imperial matters, and very often, unfortunately, we have had to give, in response to threats, what we failed to give in response to persuasion. I hope we are not going to continue along those lines.
I am in agreement with what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack
826
said, when he says he thought that the Prime Minister would have been more logical had he said that, having given the pledge, we are going to carry it out. The Prime Minister, however, did not take that view, but decided to appoint a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission was particularly well selected. A very eminent lawyer, an ex-Lord Chancellor, was its Chairman, and his four colleagues were chosen for their great capacity, and for the fact that they were quite unprejudiced, and would be certain to give an impartial judgment. I think they have given an impartial judgment. I think some complaint was made in a letter to The Times from the noble Marquess that there was nobody on the Commission who understood anything about the subject. I think that was the very virtue of the Commission. If you had had a breeder on the one hand and a feeder on the other, the consumer on one side and the exporter on the other, they would never have come to any impartial decision.
It was, however, an impartial Commission, and this impartial Commission came to the conclusion that there was no case, so far as disease was concerned, for keeping out Canadian cattle from this country. The Commission sat for twenty-five days and examined ninety-two witnesses. They heard everything that could be said, either on one side or the other, and I think that too little attention has been paid to their Report. They said that there was no substance in the apprehension that the admission of store stock would introduce disease into this country. That there is no appreciable risk, therefore, of diseased cattle coming across the border. That was always the great cry of people who wanted some reason for prohibiting cattle from coming into this country. The Commission declare that there is no reason for apprehension on that score.
They also refer to the increasing demand for home-fed beef. I think that more home-fed beef is needed. It is becoming the luxury of the well-to-do. Why should not the poorer classes have a chance of getting home-fed beef? They cannot get it under present conditions, because it is too dear. The Commission found that the importation of Canadian cattle would also increase the number of live stock, and would tend to the advantage of the milk supply. They quote with approval from the Report of Sir Robert Greig that

827
the removal of the embargo would give more and cheaper milk. Can you wonder that any urban constituency, having this Report before it, declines to return a candidate who is not ready to carry out these recommendations? If the Government decline to do away with the embargo, I do not think there is an urban constituency in England that will return a Member pledged to retain it. It is a palpable advantage to consumers that the embargo should be abolished. On the question of quarantine, which is to be raised this afternoon, I will say nothing beyond recalling that the Commission considered that quarantine was quite unnecessary. They went into the point very fully, and came to that conclusion.
I think this Report has done away with every argument, except one, against the free importation of store cattle from Canada. The exception is the argument that the breeding industry should be protected, as opposed to the feeder and the consumer. The whole opposition to lifting the embargo comes from those who want protection, and particularly from the Irish. There is nothing new about this claim. Every manufacturer would be glad to have protection for his own particular industry, and to leave every other industry unprotected. I do not think there is a manufacturer or trader in England who would not like protection for his own particular industry. Tariff Reformers would protect every industry. That is a very logical position to take up. I do not say whether Tariff Reform is right or wrong, but I do say that this particular protection is absurdly wrong, because it is prohibiting the importation of raw material into this country, and allowing the finished article to come in free.
I do not think anybody could defend such a state of affairs. It has never been defended in any other business, even by the wildest Tariff Reformers. But that is what we are doing, and we are doing it in the worst possible way, because we are prohibiting the entry of raw material from our own Dominions, and allowing foreign countries to send in the finished article without any Duty whatever. I think that makes the case very much worse, for whatever we have to pay for the finished article goes to foreign countries. If we allowed store cattle to come in, the price we pay would go to our own Colonies. I do not think the embargo can be defended logically on any ground whatever. Some people
828
approve of the fact that store cattle are being sent from Canada to America, although there is a 30 per cent. Duty. I cannot look with satisfaction upon the idea of Canada sending her store cattle into America, into the great corn belts there, and that Americans should be feeding these cattle, getting all the by-products, and sending us the finished article, from which we get no advantage.
This is quite contrary to the welfare of this country. You are actually promoting the industry of cattle breeding and the exportation of raw material to America, thus giving the great meat trusts a considerable advantage. In 1920 we imported 9,861,837 cwt. of fresh frozen and chilled beef, and of that nine million odd cwts., 8,151,860 came from foreign countries, which means, roughly, that we get the finished product of about 750,000 beasts. From these we get no by-products, and our money goes to foreign countries, whilst we decline to take 200,000 store cattle from our own Dominions from which we should get all the offal, the hides for our leather, the horns and the hoofs. Moreover, we should get the fresh offal, in the shape of liver, hearts and so on, which would be a very great thing for the poorer consumers. In addition we should get the manure, to increase the fertility of our soil. We get none of these advantages from dead meat. It is all the other way. There are also a good many collateral advantages that we should get by buying our store cattle and feeding them. The purveyors of foodstuffs would get something out of it. Altogether, I am convinced that we should get much more out of finding our supply of meat from store cattle, when they have been made fat, than from importing dead meat. At present the countries who supply this chilled and frozen meat get all these advantages and they get them at our expense.
I think it is a suicidal policy. Personally, although I profess to be a Free Trader, I would infinitely rather tax the finished article and put a tax on all the frozen and chilled meat which came into the country. It would be a much more sane policy than that of prohibiting store cattle. We should at least foster our feeding industry and do a good thing for our Dominions across the seas. I believe that if we could get sufficient stores there is land enough in this country to be cultivated and improved to supply nearly all our wants. As I have said before, this thing is aggravated by the

829
fact that we prohibit raw material from our own Dominions and take the finished article from the foreigner. I noticed a letter in The Times the other day from the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Crewe, in which he spoke of 750,000 small breeders producing our store stock. I very much question whether what you call the small breeders supply half the store stock in this country. There are many considerable breeders supplying store stock. Since the embargo a great many feeders have been obliged to become breeders. Instead a buying Canadian stores and giving them corn and cake, improving their own pastures, and turning their stores off in eight or ten weeks, they have gone in for breeding. They have gone into raising cattle, and anybody knows that breeding exhausts the land. When, however, they buy store stock from Canada they use cake and corn almost invariably, and improve the fertility of their land.
This policy of ours is in my opinion depreciating the quality of the land all over the kingdom, and I believe that thousands of acres are being used for breeding that ought to be cultivated and improved by feeding stock, instead of being impoverished by breeding. Then again, there is the question of intensive culture. It is admitted that the land of this country does not produce anything like what it ought to produce, and I believe that fact is very largely helped by trying to force people to go in for breeding as against feeding. It would be better for the country if our farmers went in more for intensive culture, and all the farmers who go in for intensive culture are against the embargo and want the store cattle to come in. It is the breeder who does not want them to be admitted. In the part of the country which I know it is generally a question of one cow and one calf (which is all that the farmer gets out of the cow in the year). It is a very easy and lazy kind of farming, but it is not one which should be encouraged.
I should like to say one word about Ireland. When Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom, everything applied to Ireland which applied to England, but things are on a different footing now. Ireland is now either a self-governing Dominion, or it is going to be either that or a Republic; I do not know which. What answer have we to Canada if Canada comes and says: "We have got the healthiest cattle in the world; there has been no case of disease, either foot-and-mouth or pleuropneumonia, for thirty years, and yet you
830
will not have our stock. We sent you half a million of troops to help you in your time of stress, and yet you prefer Irish stock." A noble Lord in this House recently said that 80 per cent. of the people of Ireland hated and detested this country. Are we to tell loyal Canada, which has the healthiest stock in the world, that we will not have her stock but that we will have stock from another Dominion, where there is often disease and 80 per cent, of the in-habitants of which hate and detest us? I think His Majesty's Government will be very much wiser if they get rid of this question as soon as they can, and, by admitting Canadian store cattle, do away with what will be a very troublesome question when it comes to Ireland versus Canada. By admitting Canadian store cattle we should, in my opinion, show the world that our wont is our bond, we should I strengthen the bonds of Empire instead of weakening them; and we should increase the fertility of our soil and grow infinitely more food of all sorts for our people.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I am sure that those of your Lordships who attended the debate about ten days ago must have been struck by the fact that almost the whole of the debate centred on the question of the pledge. That was quite right and proper, as two noble Lords who were present at the Conference and took a leading part in it naturally had to tell us what transpired there and what was the interpretation that they put on the proceedings at that Conference. It is not my intention this afternoon to go into that matter of the pledge, though I may refer to it briefly. I should rather like to speak from the point of view of the British agriculturist and farmer. I believe that on the last occasion there were only about three speakers who touched on this aspect of the question. One was the noble Marquess sitting opposite (Lord Crewe), another was the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, who opened the debate, and apart from them there was only one speaker, Lord Hastings, who confined himself to this point of view, which, after all, is one of the most important as affecting our vote on this question.
The noble Lord who has just addressed us said there are a certain number of intensive farmers in England and Scotland

831
who are in favour of raising the embargo. I freely admit it. I know their reasons, and it would be idle for me to say that the farmers of England and Scotland are absolutely unanimous in opposition to the lifting of the embargo. But what I do maintain is that a very large majority—in fact, the vast majority—of the men who in this country are responsible for producing food are opposed to the raising of the embargo, and their views should receive the sympathetic attention of Parliament.
I can understand the desire of the farmers of Western Canada that this embargo should be removed. I thoroughly appreciate their views. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given us one of the reasons why this has become a burning question in Canada now. I think it is only within the past year that the United States placed a thirty-three per cent. Duty on all cattle going from Canada into the United States, and consequently the trade in these cattle has been enormously hampered. It was undoubtedly this that was the cause of the agitation in Canada. The vote of the farmers in Western Canada is, I believe, a very considerable one in the Canadian Parliament, and naturally greater pressure than ever is being put upon politicians and statesmen in Canada to remove the embargo. Naturally also they are looking for fresh markets, and these circumstances must have intensified the demand for the raising of the embargo.
I do not think I am wrong in stating that the agricultural vote in Canada, especially in the West, is of far more importance in the Canadian Parliament than, unfortunately, the agricultural vote is in the United Kingdom. The vote of the farmers of the United Kingdom is a very negligible quantity. In spite of that, I appeal to your Lordships to give their case a sympathetic hearing. We are further hampered in this matter because, owing to the change in the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons, the supporters of this embargo have been handicapped by the loss of the votes of seventy Irish Nationalists, who always voted solidly for maintaining the embargo.
What is the case of the agriculturists to-day? Ever since 1870, when the big drop in prices began—owing to the absolute repeal of the Corn Laws some years before, the great decrease in freights from foreign countries and the fact that sea-borne traffic was becoming much cheaper, cheap
832
foreign labour, and favourable exchanges with many of the countries which produced corn—corn growing in this country has become less and less a profitable occupation. Just as we are always advised by the Free Trade leaders that when people found that sugar refining did not pay they turned their attention to jams and pickles, the farmers, when they found that corn growing did not pay, reduced their area of corn and took to raising live stock.
For many years our efforts to build up a healthy and sturdy stock, and to make livestock farming a profitable occupation were largely hampered owing to the frequent recurrence of most virulent diseases, and the first agricultural policy of this country was to deal with these diseases by the plan of slaughter. It was then pointed out that it was no use slaughtering, at great expense to the State, diseased animals and the animals which had come in contact with diseased animals, if you left the door perpetually open to fresh disease coming in from outside. In 1894, therefore, the importation of live animals, except for slaughter, was prohibited by Order, and it was, I think, in 1896 that this Order was converted into a permanent Act of Parliament, which prohibited the importation of live stock into this country except for slaughter.
I was farming in those days a good bit of land, and I will give my experience merely as an illustration of what, I know, is at the back of the minds of hundreds of thousands of farmers in this country. As soon as that Act was passed I recollect talking to some of my farming friends. I said: "Now, at last, we shall know what to go in for; we can breed cattle and be quite safe about it." And an enormous number of farmers did go in for breeding cattle, with very great success and with great profit to their country—I think perhaps more profit to their country than to themselves. At any rate, this became a most important industry. For this reason there are hundreds of thousands of these men who view with absolute consternation and alarm the proposed complete reversal of the settled policy of this country for the exclusion of store cattle.
The embargo had been an impenetrable barrier, because it was much more severe than high Protection; it was prohibitive. I present this argument to my Free Trade friends, because undoubtedly I am open to the reply that the moment you start

833
Protection in any form you set up vested interests, and there is always a great outcry when you knock them down. I am quite certain that in this ease there will be a great outcry. However, there is no doubt, that behind that impenetrable barrier we raised up in this country a very great breeding industry. And what has been the result of that policy? In my judgment it has been successful. There can be no doubt that at the present moment our flocks and herds in this country are second to none in the world. I go further, and say that there is not a single country in the world which, when it wants to replenish its herds and get in new blood, does not come here to England to buy sheep and bulls and rains and breeding stock in order to renovate and restore their own stock abroad.
There is another very important thing which I am sure those of you who go about to shows and are interested in agriculture know perfectly well—that there has been a marked advance during this period in the class of animals which we have bred in this country. Instead of getting hold of great flat-sided animals which take about four years to fatten and bring to maturity, which eat an appalling amount of food with very little result, we have now in this country a breed of cattle which, instead of reaching maturity at four years, reaches it at two-and-a-half years and can be fed (I will not go into figures) very much quicker than some of those great flat-sided animals we used to see in England about twenty-five or thirty years ago. Therefore the farmers, feeling safe behind what they believed to be the settled policy of this country, have built up a breeding industry which is second to none in the world, and is a great advantage to themselves and to the United Kingdom. I will not pursue that point further because I believe that my noble friend, the Duke of Atholl, will deal more especially with it later on, but there can be no doubt that a reversal of this policy—in fact, the Commission has said so—will certainly have a very considerable effect on many of the small breeders especially in the more mountainous parts of the country.
The last speaker referred, I think, to the great sacrifices that Canada made for the Empire during the war. That I fully admit. On the other hand, we must consider our own people a little and, though I am no soldier, I understand that
834
no Division in the whole of the Armies of the British Empire bore a better name and gave batter service to the country than the 51st which, I believe, was a Highland Division, recruited from these small crofters and people in the North, who, on the Report of this Commission, are very likely to be injuriously affected by the lifting of this embargo.
I have tried to place briefly before your Lordships what I believe to be the position of the main body of agriculturists. I recognise that the tide is flowing against us, that we may have to accept legislation later on. If there is a reversal of our policy I can only hope that the result of that reversal will not be so serious as some anticipate. Although I have placed one side of the question before your Lordships, I freely admit that to some of the larger farmers and man who require a great deal of manure—in fact, they tell me so themselves—the policy may not be a disadvantageous one. In dealing with this question, I hope that your Lordships will consider the opinion of the great majority of agriculturists in the country, and before you decide on legislation you, at all events, will give that opinion your sympathetic attention.
If there is to be any change in this policy I hope and trust that we shall maintain some system by which we can impose a quarantine when necessary, and that we shall at the same time invest our Minister of Agriculture with some powers to regulate the class of animal which is imported into this country. Speaking of quarantine brings me to the question of disease. I freely admit that Canada has been remarkably free from disease; I am the first to admit it, but, if I may say so, I consider that Canada has been extremely lucky. Canada is part of a continent, and in my opinion it is much harder to keep a continent free of cattle disease than it is to keep an island free of it. Although the United Kingdom is an island and has had this restriction on the importation of live animals for all these years, we have had some difficulty in keeping out disease. But an island has a better chance of keeping free from disease than a continent has. It would be absolutely foolhardy on our part to throw away any powers of quarantine, and not to maintain quarantine on animals coming into the country.
In the debate which took place some days ago in your Lordships' House one or two

835
noble Lords talked of a boys' school and the introduction of ringworm by an infected boy. I forget exactly what the argument was; but this is not the ease of a school from which boys go home for their holidays and return again, and where new boys arrive, or boys go to neighbouring schools to play cricket matches. They are always liable to infection, because, although the neighbouring school may say they have no cases of measles, there may be a boy who is incubating measles—you never can tell. This is more like the case of a monastery in which there are a large number of monks shut up who never go outside the monastery and never have a visitor or stranger inside, and so long as they keep that monastery in a proper state of sanitation the probability is that they will not catch disease. I maintain that if a party of monks travel to some neighbouring residence and stop there for two or three days, or introduce strangers or visitors inside their gates they lay themselves open to the chance of contracting disease. If I were in that condition and wanted to keep free of disease, I should take pretty good care that strangers had some period of quarantine so that I knew they would be quite safe before they were let in. I think it is only fair and right that whatever powers are decided upon should be left to the Minister of Agriculture to administer.
Let us take the case of Canada. It is true that they have not had foot-and-mouth disease over there for thirty years; on the other band, there was foot-and-mouth disease in the United States four years ago. Canada has a frontier of 3,000 miles. In exactly the same way for many years there was no foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland and there is only a very small frontier between England and Scotland, and yet I am sorry to say that in this last outbreak of foot-and-mouth the infection got over the frontier. Placed as we are on an island, it is only fair that if ever legislation is introduced on this question there certainly should be powers given to the Minister of Agriculture to impose such quarantine as he thinks necessary to guard our flocks and herds against disease. I do not think it is unreasonable that we should make that demand because, after all, there is not a single civilised country in the world which does not treat us in the same way. I think I am right in saying that every other country in the world puts a twenty or thirty days' quarantine on our cattle and sheep that go into it.
836
I will go a step further. I am not suggesting in any way that if we are to accept some measure for lifting this embargo, this quarantine should be of a prohibitive nature or take the form of trying to keep these cattle out of the country; but it is most essential that we should keep such powers for the sake of the health of our flocks and herds. If I may say so, in passing, I think there is one other person who perhaps commands a few more votes than agriculturists, and that is the taxpayer of the country. There is no doubt that when once you get disease into this country it is an expensive matter for the taxpayer. We found that out this year when it cost us the best part of a million pounds to get rid of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. To allow too big a latitude in this direction would, I am certain, mean, not the expenditure of some £9,000 per annum, which has been the cost of these Acts for the last thirty years, but an expenditure on a vastly greater scale.
There is another point regarding importation to which I should like to refer. If any importation is to take place I hope the Ministry of Agriculture will be left with power to say what class of animal is to be imported into this country. It would be a very grave mistake indeed, I am certain, to allow absolutely free importation, from Canada or elsewhere into this country, of bulls and heifers and other breeding stock. If we want stock from our Colonies or elsewhere to improve our own stock we have powers to get it now. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, said only a few months ago that we did import a considerable number of Friesian bulls and cows into this country with, however, a quarantine of about four months. We did that because we believed it to be a good thing to do in order to increase the milk supply of some of our own herds. But that is a very different thing from permitting absolutely free importation. It would be very great folly on the part of Parliament, and would inflict very great injustice upon our flock masters and breeders of cattle, if we were to admit into this country heifers and bulls of an entirely inferior quality. The effect of that would probably be to neutralise much of the good that has been done in the past in the way of improving our herds. It would also nullify the highly successful work of the Ministry and of the breeding societies, and of the milk recording and other measures which have been of

837
very great benefit to farmers and the public of this country generally.
I know perfectly well that many of your Lordships were much impressed by the speech which we heard ten days ago from the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who presided over that important Conference of Colonial statesmen. Your Lordships were also, no doubt, impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he gave his opinion that a pledge had been given. Two or three noble Lords have since come to me and said that they thought much as I do, that it would be a great pity to break through this barrier and to put doubts into the minds of the breeders of cattle in this country, but they recognised, after what had been said., that a pledge had been given, and they felt they were bound in honour to vote for the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire.
In conclusion, I would appeal to those noble Lords who feel that way to vote for Lord Chaplin's Motion in the first instance, so that they may have a second opportunity of voting for Lord Long's Amendment which includes that for which I appeal—namely, that power should be left to the Ministry of Agriculture. Circumstances have, of course, changed, even since our last debate. We cannot ignore the powerful speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, nor the statement of the learned Lord Chancellor in regard to the pledge; nor can we ignore the vote given the other night in the House of Commons, but I ask your Lordships, in voting on this occasion, to give an indication that it is your wish that the Ministry of Agriculture should have some power left in their hands which will enable them to deal with the questions of quarantine and the class of animals which are to be imported into this country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that if some eminent stranger had attended our debates to-day, and had been, as he undoubtedly would have been, an interested listener to the speech just made by the noble Earl, he would have found it very difficult indeed to conclude that the Speech had been delivered upon the Motion before this House couched in the following language: "That it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 to remove the embargo on Canadian cattle." He surely
838
would have said that this speech, with its convincing arguments, has been delivered five years too late, and he would have been the more astonished—indeed, I think he would have been alarmed—if he had been told that the noble Earl was, in fact, a member of the Government that was being called upon to carry out its pledge. I cannot very well understand why, at the conclusion of a speech like that which we have just heard, there was not an expression of regret that tin noble Earl was wholly unable to continue longer in Office under a Government that was bound by an obligation which he found himself utterly unable to honour.
The first question, it seems to me, that it is important to consider is: Was any such pledge given, and if so, what does it imply? That a pledge was given is now, of course, past all dispute, but I thoroughly agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, that the observations that he made at the time when that pledge was given were observations in which he suggested two conditions, the one a condition in relation to Ireland, and the other a condition in regard to the extent of cultivation of our arable land. It was with those reservations that he said he was perfectly willing to see the embargo removed. It surely must be striking to all that practically neither one nor the other of these considerations has been urged before your. Lordships this afternoon at all. The considerations that have been urged are certainly not those with which the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, attempted to guard himself at the time when this pledge was given. I think I can see what has happened.
It does not require great familiarity with the proceedings of such a Conference as this to realise that as the discussion went on feeling got stronger and stronger, until at last the Chairman saw that it was impossible to retain the original position, promised that the embargo should be removed, and concluded in these words: "Now the position is that the restriction is to be removed, and the Board of Agriculture will take such steps as are necessary for this purpose." There was the reservation that if tonnage was not available the animals could not arrive. There cannot be any question about the meaning of that.
What is the effect that has, first, upon the people to whom it was given, and,

839
secondly, upon us? The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said that the people to whom it was given went away and little knew us when they got that pledge. I am bound to say I have heard that statement with some feeling of resentment. The idea that people should attend an Imperial Conference, and go away with the promise of the English Government in their pocket, and that it should be said they little knew the people who were giving them the promise, upon which they were foolish enough to think they might rely; they little knew that it was not worth any reliance at all—on behalf of the English people I resent that imputation. But if by the word "us," the noble and learned Lord meant the Coalition Government, then I can understand that the people did not realise how utterly untrustworthy was the promise they had obtained.
But we are now face to face with that promise, and the question is: What are we going to do with it? I agree with the statement that has been made in this House and in the other House, that no promise by any man in this Kingdom can bind Parliament. That is quite plain. No Prime Minister can get up and say, "I am going to bind the House of Commons"; still less, I am thankful to think, can he say, "I am going to bind the House of Lords." But what he is bound to do, as I understand it, after he has made a promise like that, is to use the united power of the Government to carry out the promise he has given, or fail in the attempt. That is the meaning of that promise, and I am amazed when I see members of the Government who are bound by that promise, so far from undertaking to do anything of the kind, doing everything in their power to prevent the promise being implemented if by any chance the matter should arise either before this House or the other for discussion. That is a position which, I admit, is one I do not understand, and I say with all respect I do not think there is a single member of your Lordships' House who would have understood it six months ago.
What was the original Motion upon which the Amendment was moved? The original Motion was a striking one. It was a reasoned Motion by the noble Viscount asking that the embargo be maintained upon the very ground on winch every one now admits there is no reason for its maintenance: upon the ground that there will be risk of disease to our herds if the em-
840
bargo is relaxed. I do not wish to refer your Lordships to the statement made by Lord Ernle, but he stated quite plainly, followed by other noble Lords, that no such risk need he apprehended at all, and that contention, as a foundation for the preservation of this embargo, was wholly insecure. The noble Viscount made a speech which to me was full of the greatest interest. Through the texture of his argument there ran, like a skein of white thread, personal reminiscences which, I trust he will forgive me for saying, appeared to me some of the most attractive portions of his speech. It was very striking indeed to hear the noble Viscount refer to his visits to spots that are now vast and populous cities, which were then nothing but portions of the free and open spaces of the world, and to realise, as you can when a picture like that is placed before you, with what astonishing swiftness we are being carried along on the current of events.
It is not surprising that as all circumstances change so fast around us men's minds may change too, and I see no reason why anyone need be ashamed of expressing a change of opinion. It is far more discreditable to change your opinion and pretend you still retain it than to change your opinion and publicly state that you have changed it. But the noble Viscount has remained like a rock. He has not changed at all. Unfortunately, in this particular matter he appears to have been left alone. I really cannot find anyone who is prepared to join with him now and say that you must exclude Canadian cattle because if you let them in they will infect your herds with disease.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I never said that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That there would be risk.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Certainly risk. How did disease come before?
LORD BUCKMASTER: That I cannot answer. I only want to point out, and I am sure he will not think I am putting my ignorance against his information, a statement that is made by people whom I regard as experts. I always look upon Lord Ernle as an expert whose opinion I am very anxious to follow—I trust that I am not wrong in my view—and Lord Ernle says:
"We do not believe that there is now, or has been for a good many years, the slightest ground to exclude Canadian cattle on the score of disease."

841
When the Canadians themselves were protesting that the continuance of the embargo on the ground of disease did them a most unmerited wrong and upon that protest the promise was made that it should be removed, it seems to me quite impossible to argue that it ought to be retained on the ground that the very thing which did not exist was really the proper ground for its continuance. But on whatever ground your Lordships may decide I trust you will decide upon the expression of some other opinion. I can imagine nothing more fatal to the good feeling between this country and Canada than to repeat once more the very thing that has been withdrawn publicly at one of the Imperial Conferences by the man best qualified to speak on the subject at the time.
When this is out of the way, what remains? What remains is, of course, the opinion expressed by the noble Earl who has just spoken, and most unquestionably held by a very large number of your Lordships. That is, that the importation of these cattle will interfere with the stock breeding industry of this country. In other words, it is for the purpose of protecting the home industry. There is no reason why anybody need be ashamed of his opinions, and if that is the object, for goodness' sake let us say so. But I should like to know how you will be able to justify the maintenance of a frankly protective system, openly avowed as protective, against cattle and not against corn. What is the difference? The very argument the noble Earl has just used pointed out that the difficulties in which the farmers find themselves were due to the system of Free Trade. I have no doubt he is right, and if you once get rid of the whole question of the liability of disease this can only be excused on the ground which would justify the reimposition of a duty on corn, and I doubt if there is any one of your Lordships who would care to advocate such a view through the length and breadth of the Kingdom.
There is the position; and it certainly is surprising to see the variety of opinions which are produced. I received two days ago a long series of arguments—I say it without reproach—of an eminently protectionist character, and at the end I was amazed to find they bore the signature of my most respected leader, and one who I hope will still allow me to call him my noble friend—the Marquess of Crewe. He may
842
have seen the light while I remain in the darkness. Just as some of your Lordships are open and avowed Protectionists, I am an impenitent Free Trader, and I have never varied in my view, even to the extent of admitting the alluring advantages of Imperial Preference. On the very ground, therefore, that some of your Lordships might think a good reason for desiring to prevent these cattle from coining, I should desire to see them come. But it does not seem to me to depend upon that.
In the last resort, the real point seems to me to be this. Are we now, after the lapse of five year,, when we have made no protest, to refuse the performance of what purported to be a promise made on behalf of the country five years ago, during a crisis of the war? I sincerely hope that no noble Lord will suggest that, just because we were in the crisis of the war, we need not trouble about it, since our promises at that time were perhaps a little freely given. I do not care what were the conditions of the promise. The word of an English Government has been pledged, and, I care not how injurious it may be, we must carry out that pledge, unless the persons whom we have promised will release us from our bond. The Canadians will not release us from this bond. On the other hand, they insist on its being fulfilled, and the Prime Minister himself, as lately as 1921, has again promised that it shall be done. All that the Motion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, asks this House to do, is to say that it is incumbent upon this country to honour its word, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships, whatever your view may be about the merits of the question, will see your way to support that position.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have already addressed the House on this subject, and I believe I am in the same position as the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, in that I can again address you only with the indulgence of the House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I had not spoken.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I thought he had made some observation on a former occasion. My noble and learned friend very gracefully and pleasantly

843
twitted me with having departed from my Free Trade faith, in taking the view that I had, that the restriction upon the importation of foreign cattle ought to be maintained. I have never been one of those who believed that the admission of these store cattle would in any material degree affect the price of the product, and I have always admitted that if it did, if the mendacious observation which lost Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen his seat at Dudley—that the price of beef would fall 6d. a pound if these cattle were admitted —if that observation could have been proved to be substantial, I should agree with my noble and learned friend that the breeders case had very largely gone. It would be impossible to continue the breeding of cattle in this country at all, if it could be done only by increasing the price of the people's food, and this, I think, supplies the answer to my noble and learned friend's inquiry, "If you keep out cattle, why do you not keep out corn?" The cases are by no means on all fours. There seems to me, indeed, to be scarcely any analogy between them, and I pass, therefore, from that subject, as I hope, with a quiet conscience.
My noble and learned friend devoted himself, with his accustomed fire and eloquence, to the simple question of the pledge, raised by the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Lincolnshire. I agree with what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, that since we last discussed this matter the question has materially changed. We had, during the previous debate, the speech of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ernle, and the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, describing most clearly and fully what took place at that earlier meeting of the Imperial Conference. Since then we have also had a debate and a Division in another place, and in the discussion which there took place the governing consideration appeared to be the question whether a pledge had or had not been given, and, except in the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, the agricultural side of the question was but little discussed.
Assume that a pledge was given—qualified, as the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, maintains, or absolute, as my noble and learned friend has just indicated—the question then remains as to how that pledge is to be made good, and on that point my noble and learned friend, who tells us almost ostentatiously that he is not
844
learned in agricultural matters, offers us no advice, but merely desires your Lordships to say in general terms that Canadian cattle are to be admitted. Whether they are going to be admitted by repealing the Act of 1896, so far as regards Canada, and allowing Canadian cattle to be moved about in this country without leave from the Ministry of Agriculture, in a way in which Irish cattle or British cattle cannot be moved about, we are not told.
In considering, therefore, how the arrangement is to be carried out, I turn to the Amendment placed on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Long. That does impose, or, at any rate, suggest some restrictions upon the importation of Canadian cattle, absolute so far as regards the nature of the cattle to be imported—that is to say, only steers and not breeding animals could be introduced—and also indicating some possible regulation in the form of quarantine. What we want to know is whether admission on such terms would be regarded by Canada as a fulfilment of what Lord Ernle and Lord Long said at the Imperial Conference. If it is so regarded, even my noble and learned friend will admit that, not only is honour satisfied, but everybody is satisfied.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships of what occurred at the later Imperial Conference where this question was raised again. I wonder if I might have the attention of my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, because I think it is a point which will interest him? My point is that, at the later Imperial Conference, in 1921, the matter was raised again, when the Prime Minister was present, and Mr. Meighen, the Canadian Prime Minister, said this—
"The shipping conditions certainly are such that cattle can be transported now, and consequently there is no reason, I submit, why the promise should not be fulfilled."
It is undoubtedly true that all through the Canadian Statesmen have believed that a pledge, at any rate, was given by the noble Lord opposite. Mr. Meighen went on—
"From the beginning of this imposition until this day, the Canadian Government have spared no effort; it has consistently, under one Prime Minister and the next, pressed for the removal of it, on the ground not that we wish to interfere with any domestic regulations of the United Kingdom, but on the ground that this embargo constitutes a stigma which is unjust and injurious to Canadian stock, and to its reputation through-

845
out the world, and that it should be removed whether or not there be some other protective or other measure installed in its place."
From that one is entitled to believe that the Canadian Government never have asked, and do not now ask, for the unrestricted importation of all cattle, and it, is that fact, which I do not think can be disputed by anybody, which enables me to look with favour and hopefulness on the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, Lord Long.
If some such importation is admitted, and admitted with the consent of Canada, it is quite clear that everybody concerned will give up something. The Canadians would give up the absolutely free and unrestricted import of all kinds of cattle, which they have professed themselves, if I read Mr. Meighen's speech rightly, as willing to give up. The great majority of farmers here—I think one might say 90 per cent. of the farmers in England and probably more than 50 per cent., numerically at any rate, of the farmers in Scotland—would give up what they would like to see continue, namely, the complete exclusion of all live cattle from abroad. We, and in "We" I include not only my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, but also Lord Lincolnshire, and all Free Traders, also give up something, because we admit the principle of Imperial Preference, which is not a principle to which I have ever myself bowed down. We admit that, I believe, either way. We admit that if you give a special preference to Canada and to no other part of the world. We equally admit it if we adopt the proposal in Lord Long's Amendment—namely, that cattle, not from the Dominion of Canada alone but from all the Dominions, might be admitted as stores to Great Britain. Personally, I should be very glad, if immunity from disease can be proved in France or Holland, if stores could be admitted from those countries. I am not prepared to give up my Free Trade views on that point, but as matters stand, and as it is proposed by the noble Viscount opposite, I am bound to take what I can get, but I say myself, absolutely, that if you give it to Canada you must give it to the other Dominions.
I turn once more to that Conference of July, 1921, and I see that further on, when the Prime Minister had said that there was a sincere desire to encourage products from the Empire, and that everything would be done to facilitate their importation into this country, Mr. Hughes, the Australian Prime
846
Minister, who, as we know, is keenly and quite rightly determined that Australia should never be left out if there is any question of preference to anybody, observed—
"I do not want to take up your time, but now that Mr. Meighen has brought this matter up I am sure you are aware of the position of the Australian exporter. I only want to call your attention to the disabilities under which he is labouring now."
What applies to Australia applies even more to South Africa and other parts of the Empire, who would not sit still if special preference were given to Canada.
I wonder whether your Lordships may not be brought to agree that the solution proposed by Lord Long is the most reasonable one which in all the circumstances can be put forward. As I have tried to show, under it nobody quite gets the whole that they might conceivably get. But, on the other hand, those primarily concerned may well be satisfied, because I see no reason to suppose that such a very moderately restricted import of lean cattle in unlimited numbers would not satisfy Canada, and at the same time something will be done to remove the fears of the breeders in this country—fears which some noble Lords—Lord Cawley, for example (who wants to turn this country into a feeding rather than a breeding country)—may consider unreasonable, but which are entertained by a very large number of the small farmers engaged in the breeding industry. I should like to appeal to Lord Lincolnshire and ask whether, on reconsideration, he may not regard this as a reasonable solution of the question. Merely to say, in rather general terms, that the pledge has got to be carried out does not take you very much further. It is an extremely delicate and complicated question, affecting a large number of interests in all sorts of ways, and if, as I believe, the solution suggested by Lord Long is one which will generally be regarded as reasonable, I should hope that the House will see its way to adopt that rather than the more general Motion made by Lord Lincolnshire.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, it has been suggested to me that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were briefly to explain the grounds on which I have placed my Amendment on the Paper. I am aware that I have no right to intervene again, and I do not desire to do so, but if the suggestion

847
which has been made to me represents the view of your Lordships I need hardly say I should be very glad briefly to state what were the reasons which led me to put this Amendment on the Paper in its present form.
The Amendment, if adopted, would make the Resolution read in this way—
"That this House accepts the conclusions of the Royal Commission that the Dominion of Canada is free from cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, and is of opinion that steers from the Dominions might be admitted as store cattle to Great Britain, subject to precautions, by means of quarantine, being taken."
It has been suggested outside that this Amendment does not carry out the promise that I made to the Imperial Conference of 1917 on behalf of the Government, and that it is inconsistent with the remarks that I offered to your Lordships on a previous occasion. That statement is wholly incorrect.
It is true that this Amendment was not drawn up by me. It was the result of the suggestion made by my noble friend, Lord Harris, at the conclusion of our last debate, when he moved the adjournment in order that he might consider whether it would not be possible to propose a Resolution which would meet with, if not general acceptance, at all events wider acceptance than any of those then on the Paper. He found himself accidentally prevented from being here, having to fulfil a very important engagement in Kent, and he begged me to assure your Lordships on his behalf of his very great regret that he could not be here to take charge of his own Motion, and also that it is from no lack of courtesy to your Lordships' House that he was not present himself.
He asked me to take the Motion for him, and I very gladly undertook the task for this reason. This Amendment is based entirely upon Imperial grounds, and is drawn so that it shall be applicable not only to Canada but to the Empire as a whole. In its early part it sets out—what is necessary in fairness to Canada—that as a result of the Inquiry by the Royal Commission this House accepts the position that Canada is free from cattle diseases. That is a tribute to the condition of health of Canadian cattle to which the Canadians are entitled. Then it goes on to deal not only with Canada but with the Dominions as a whole.
848
I have no right, of course, to speak for the Canadian Government. I have not the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of the present Prime Minister, as I had of his two predecessors, but I have endeavoured to keep in touch with representatives of Canadian opinion, and I have every reason to believe that Canada will accept the proposal contained in my Amendment. And this is most unquestionably the fact, and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, will confirm what I say—you will find it, indeed, in the White Paper, and I think Lord Crewe has already quoted the words—Canada never desired to interfere in any way with our domestic policy, or to question our right to do what we think necessary in our own interests. The request she made was a twofold one—first, that we should admit that she is free from disease (which is a fact that can in no quarter be disputed), and, secondly, that, admitting that fact, we would not do ourselves the dishonour of maintaining a restriction based upon disease which we have already admitted did not exist in that country.
It is not a question of doing justice to Canada or to any other Dominion; it is a question of doing what is right by ourselves. If your Lordships are prepared to maintain that all the evidence which is forthcoming is of no value, and that disease still exists there, then you have the premiss which will justly lead you to the conclusion that on the score of disease you could exclude cattle. But, that being abandoned—and I submit confidently that it is abandoned in every quarter—the only course open to your Lordships, in my humble opinion, is to see in what way this promise can most properly be fulfilled, bearing in mind that Canada has never asked to interfere, and would, I am sure, indignantly repudiate the suggestion that she should interfere, with our own domestic affairs.
As the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, pointed out, there is no country in the world, so far as I know, which does not possess this power to regulate importation into its own country. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, proposing at least thirty days' quarantine. I could not accept that Amendment, or anything pointing in that direction, for this reason, that the period of quarantine is to be left, under the Amendment which stands in my name,

849
entirely to the Ministry of Agriculture of the day. What would be the position of the Ministry, however composed? They would have before them the Resolution of the House of Commons. They would have before them, I hope, a Resolution of your Lordships' House pointing in the direction in which they would have to go. If they were to attempt to take away with one hand what they gave with the other, by an excessive use of their power to make Regulations, I at all events feel certain that Parliament would very soon bring them to book, and would refuse to confirm or approve their action. Therefore, I am anxious that we should leave it to them to make such Regulations as they think necessary.
I am informed that in the case of Canadian cattle it takes about a fortnight fur them to reach this country, and that ten days of that period are spent on board ship. It may well be that the Department of the day may consider that they have ail the protection they want by reason of that voyage. That may be sufficient quarantine for their purpose. It may be that they will say that the mere fact of the voyage exposes the cattle to some risks, for which a period of quarantine of a few days on this side is necessary. I do not know. I am not a veterinary surgeon. I know nothing about the period of incubation of these diseases, or the power of detection in the live animal. All this is work for the veterinary advisers of the Ministry of Agriculture. They will know quite well what Parliament wants them to do, they will have the power to make such Regulations as are necessary, and the expression of your Lordships' opinion, if you do me the honour to adopt the Amendment which stands in my name, will make it perfectly clear that you are dealing with this question not as a local but as an Imperial one.
The noble and learned Lord at present on the Woolsack (Lord Buckmaster) in the brilliant and interesting speech which he made just now, and which made me think rather more of elections than of sedate debates in your Lordships' House, talked about Imperial Preference. I have never disguised the fact that I am a warm advocate of Imperial Preference. I did all I could when I was at the Colonial Office to secure its adoption, and I succeeded; and therefore, when the noble and learned Lord said that the speech of the noble Earl who preceded him was five years too late,
850
well, so is the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Imperial Preference was adopted at the very same Conference, and became the accepted policy not only of this country but of the whole Empire represented at that Conference.
Therefore, it is in conformity with what has been since 1917 the adopted policy of this country and of the whole Empire that I ask your Lordships to affirm, first, in answer to the request, or indeed, as one noble Lord rightly called it, the demand of Canada, that Canada is free from disease; and, secondly, that being so, the Department of Agriculture here shall be charged with the same power that every other Department of Agriculture has, including that of Canada, and shall admit store cattle from the Dominions in accordance with the Regulations which they will frame and for which they will be responsible.
It has been said that no promise made by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of the Government to which he belongs can be carried out without the approval of Parliament. That is a mere truism. Under our system, if any Minister made a promise which Parliament was not prepared to ratify that promise could not be carried out. So it is with the administration of a great public Department. If any attempt were made, by the exercise of those powers, to evade what Parliament will, as I hope, have laid down in both Houses—namely, its desire that there should be no restriction on this trade imposed on the ground of disease, that ground having been swept away, I am convinced that Parliament would never endorse the action of the Department. Therefore, it is with full confidence in our public Department and full reliance on the unceasing control of our two Houses of Parliament that, when the time conies, I shall ask leave of your Lordships to move the Amendment which now stands in say name.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. There are several things I should like to have said, but they have been put so clearly by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and by other speakers, that I feel it is only necessary for me to deal with some of the things that have been said rather than with those which had not been said until those speakers got up.
With all respect, I feel bound, first of all, to try to clear up some of the remarks that

851
were made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, in the earlier debate. In his first statement, he said that "Scotsmen as a whole, both as regards agriculturists and people who live in towns, are against this embargo." Will be give me his authority for that? He has none. I have authority; I live in that country. Has the noble Marquess entirely forgotten the existence of the crofters and small holders in Scotland, numbering something like 50,000, the great majority of whom keep a cow and a follower, and are bitterly opposed to the removal of the embargo? Has he forgotten all the small farmers who keep two or three cows—the "pair horse farms" I mean—from which they breed the calves that are eventually sent down to the feeders in the south? Will be tell me that they do not fear—I do not say whether rightly or wrongly—the removal of the embargo which may ruin them? Then, has the noble Marquess never heard of the existence of our shorthorn and Ayrshire herds? Does he really think that the owners of our Ayrshire dairy herds are anxious to see the re-importation of cattle from abroad? Those owners are terrified lest disease should attack those herds which, mark you, cannot be replaced. So much for Scotland.
Then, so far as England is concerned, the noble Marquess has conveniently remembered only the millions of "beef eaters" in the cities, as I think he called them. Naturally, both these and the people in our large centres in Scotland are out for what they think is the cheapest at the moment. I do not blame them; but are they the best judges of an agricultural matter? The noble Marquess has not mentioned the fact that in England and Wales alone, to take those two countries, there are something like 278,000 small holders, the very great majority of whom keep a cow, nor has he mentioned the fact that the finest herds of high class cattle in the world are to be found in England. That was all forgotten. Moreover, I think the noble Marquess can at least find in the Report of the Royal Commission, in which the alleged pledge appears, confirmation of the fact that the fears of the Highland crofters are not entirely groundless! This, however, he has, by accident, of course, omitted to quote, but I think he will admit that if the fears of the Highland crofters are not groundless, equally the fears of the small holders in England and Wales are not groundless. Then he proceeded to tell us, by inference of course,
852
that the Canadian embargo raised the price of meat. At the same time, he stated that he offered no personal opinion—I must be quite fair to him—but, still, the implication was there. That was added to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Cawley, who said that we were going to get cheaper meat if these Canadian cattle came in.
LORD CAWLEY: I think that was in the Report of the Commission.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: But I think it was the noble Lord's opinion, and that is why he mentioned it; otherwise, I do not think he would have stated it. That being so, he also told us that we ought to have a tax on frozen meat. Would that make meat cheaper?
LORD CAWLEY: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that rather than tax Canadian store cattle I would put a tax on the finished article. I meant of the two; but I did not advocate either.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Therefore, my Lords, the argument about cheaper meat disappears! But I would rather go to the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, and ask him what his views are on this matter. I have been improving my own education, and I do not think I could have gone to a better informant than a Lord Chamberlain. This is what I read the other day—
"Now as to the price of meat. From 1880 to 1892 the price of first quality meat was 5s. 3d. per stone of 8 lbs. From 1893 to 1905—"
when the embargo was on—
"the price was 4s. 7d."
Then underlined, so to speak—
"so that the price of food has not increased in consequence of the regulation, but has diminished to the extent of 8d. per stone"—
under the embargo! The noble Lord who made that statement may still be known to Lord Lincolnshire, for I have no doubt that the noble Marquess held him in some esteem. He was Lord Carrington, President of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to know, and perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me, which of those two views will form the substance of his next speech on a public platform. The noble Marquess then proceeded to twit the Unionist Party about what he termed their sole remaining "rotten plank"—the embargo on Canadian cattle. May I ask

853
him whether in the year 1906 he was not himself clinging to that same "rotten plank"?
THE MAEQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I must answer that at once. I was entirely in favour at that time when I was Minister of Agriculture of getting rid of the embargo. But owing to twenty years of resolute Unionist Government Agriculture had been brought to a deplorable state. I only quote a few words from one of the best of the many perorations in the magnificent speeches of my noble friend, Lord Chaplain. He said: "Agriculture is now within measurable distance of great, if not supreme, disaster." As that was the case, I thought at the time, and the Cabinet felt too, that to restore the confidence which the Tory Government has so grievously destroyed, it would be better to continue the embargo, and that when confidence had been restored to the British farmer then, and then only, would be the time to remove it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: In other words, the noble Marquess thought that when within measurable distance of disaster the thing to do was to turn to protection. Standing at this box he said—
"I think I have said enough to show what great responsibility there would be in any sudden change in this legislation. I think it is ray duty to state that as far as my own personal conviction is concerned, having examined the whole case with an open mind, and had the opportunity of receiving deputations from both sides, I think it would be undertaking a grave responsibility if the restrictions at present in force were suddenly, and without grave consideration, withdrawn."
Again, we find him in 1907 approving an official letter to the Dominion of Canada, the last sentence of which reads—
"Lord Carrington, therefore, suggests that the Dominion Government might be informed that His Majesty's Government regret that after the fullest consideration they are unable to propose to Parliament any amendment of the existing law on the subject."
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with quotations but I should like to quote what Lord Carrington said in answer to a deputation in 1909.
He said that he was personally responsible for the advice upon which the Government acted in this matter and that he was actuated by no desire to exclude foreign or Colonial cattle for any reason apart from the risk of disease. What has that to do with the deplorable state of which the noble Marquess told us just now? No greater
854
catastrophe, he added, could possibly happen to this country than an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Which took place.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: He asked them as practical business men, could they take the responsibility of advising the Government to run the risk. Voices acclaimed "Yes" and he concluded that he, as responsible Minister of the Crown could not do so. This was protection and he puts it down to the plea of disease. One can almost imagine hearing the noble Marquess gurgling: "Don't push me off that rotten plank." The noble Marquess, in his effort the other day, congratulated the noble Viscount, Lord Long, on performing a double somersault on the question. If so, the noble Viscount must logically have landed in exactly the same position as he was. Comment is unnecessary as regards the far more intricate feat of the noble Marquess in which, by a clever twist in the air, he himself faces exactly the opposite way from which he started. Lord Lincolnshire further told us the other day that, so strong were the feelings of the Liberal Party on the matter of Free Trade in 1906 that almost all the leaders publicly stated that they would have voted for any Bill for the removal of the embargo. Among others ho quoted Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith. He told us all were in favour of removing the embargo, and openly expressed their determination to vote in favour of a Bill if it were introduced into either House for the removal of this embargo. Let us see what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said in the House of Commons in 1906 in reply to the hon. member for Cork City—
LORD CARSON: Were there not eighty Irish Nationalists supporting the Government at that time and was not that the real reason the embargo was not taken off?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that was the fact, but I do not know, of course, if it was the reason. Well, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said:
"The hon. Member for Cork City said this legislation did not give any permanent exclusion of Canadian or other cattle, and it could be repealed if the circumstances justified it. I think my hon. friend on reflection will see that it is not easy to repeal an Act of Parliament even if the necessity of it has long passed away."

855
This reads suspiciously like a pledge to Ireland. Then we have Mr. Asquith, as reported in The Times of September, 1909, as saying he did not feel that the Government were in a position to recede from the policy which had been so long pursued, and he did not think there were any new facts which were altogether either unknown or had been only partially and perhaps distortedly presented hitherto, and he could not hold out any expectation that any further inquiry would bring to light facts which could affect their judgment. He was unable to hold out any hope of alteration in a policy which had been so long pursued.
Last Monday, however, Mr. Asquith appears to have emulated my noble friend in this sort of Muller exercise, because he is reported to have stated that—
"although he personally had for many years been firmly convinced that Canadian cattle might be and ought to be freely admitted into this country without any real danger to our herds, he had always been ready to agree that a very strong case could be made out for cither side."
Yet we found him saying exactly the opposite just before. Mr. Asquith also stated at that time that he was perfectly willing to accept the statement that they might go through Canada without discovering any trace of disease, but that it could not be disputed that in the vast neighbouring territory of the United States disease from time to time made its appearance with most disastrous results, and they could not put Canada and the United States into watertight, compartments for this purpose. That is the opinion of Mr. Asquith.
Lastly, if I may quote from my noble friend, he tells us that he desires the free importation of cattle from Canada without quarantine and without any of the safeguards. I understand that his case is that he is a Free Trader. If so, I take it the noble Lord would be prepared as a Free Trader to bring cattle from anywhere. He would, for instance, bring them from the Argentine or anywhere where there is no danger of disease, I do not really know if he would be prepared to do that, but that would be logical for a Free Trader. What in such a case would happen with regard to cattle from Canada?
To get, if I may, to the point about all this unfortunate business—for it is a very unfortunate one—I do not believe
856
that a pledge was intended, but undoubtedly whether due to outside influence or not, the farmers of Western Canada firmly believe that a pledge has been made, and if they believe that, it is I am quite certain one that ought to be honoured. The position of Canada is now very different from what it was before the war. We were good friends with Canada then, but during the war we became more than blood brothers. We cannot forget how they, at the first call of the trumpet, sprang to arms, and came to the rescue; how they held the same ideals as we did, and how they were prepared to make the same sacrifices. For that reason—and that reason alone—I feel that the cattle breeders in this country, and amongst them I number myself, should be prepared to go a long way to meet them.
I believe that the embargo must be removed as such, and that importation will have to be allowed, but surely under proper safeguards. The Canadian is sensitive— and rightly so—with regard to questions affecting his good name, or of that of his stock. That "slur" if it be such, can, and I feel will, be removed, but the Canadian is also a business man, and he has very little respect for anyone who is not, so I feel he would be the last person to resent our taking precautions—precautions that he takes himself—to prevent any disease attacking our herds and to maintain their purity. We can surely take up the matter in a spirit of reciprocity, remove the embargo, and leave the respective Ministries of Agriculture to settle the other details. Canada, at present, imposes a twenty-eight days' quarantine of our stock coming in; Australia puts a far longer time. It would be absurd and quixotic on our part to let cattle come from anywhere without a reasonable period of quarantine. I do not want to be dogmatic as to what the period should be; that could be left to experts and could be worked out by the two countries. But if we raise the embargo it should be on this understanding and we should see that it is understood.
It is absurd to think that Canada would ever export to this country the best of her breeding cattle, when she has only to walk them over the frontier and get a better price. Numbers of small holders in this country, if they continue to keep cattle at all, would be tempted to buy the heifers and bulls that were exported to Great

857
Britain for meat purposes, because they might prove cheaper. These animals would, I think, be found to be unfit for breeding either in Canada or America, and would probably be sent across here for beef. We want to protect ourselves against that because we nullify the whole efforts of our Ministry of Agriculture which has been doing everything it can to grade up our stocks for milk and meat supplies.
I would, therefore, earnestly beg your Lordships to add the proviso that all cattle brought into this country shall be brought in for the purpose of meat only, and therefore should all be steers—this for the sake not only of ourselves but for the sake of Canada, where we want to sell our best breeding stock. Given these two regulations, I personally would be prepared to vote for the embargo removal, and I think many of my noble friends would do the same. I would just say this to Canadians—that as the Canadian Government feels it has a duty and a responsibility to the western farmers, so have we in Scotland to our northern farmers, whoso forefathers were, almost more than any other, the forefathers of the Canadian farmers themselves. They are still poor and struggling in the north. Imperil their stocks either by disease or by flooding the market, and we shall sweep away their means of livelihood. Remember they are kith of your kin, and blood of your blood, and you get no better settlers than those we send you.
May I ask noble Lords to remember one other thing. During the last war we were lucky, we never lost command of the sea for a single moment. Next time we may not be so fortunate. It is all-important that during such a time we should have sufficient stock in this country to supply the needs of the people until that command is regained. We should, therefore, do everything we can to have as much Stock bred in this country as is possible, and we do not want our people to get the idea that it is not worth breeding our own meat because meat can be got from abroad in peace time.
I do not believe that under sensible and agreed Regulations the importation of cattle will do our fanners much harm. I cannot see how it can. I think the Canadian politicians on the other side are promising their farmers too much. They do not remind them that cattle will have about 2,000 miles of travel in their own
858
country and 3,000 miles across the Atlantic before they get here. They have to be fed the whole way, and there must be the usual percentage of loss, and delays on this side, quite apart from the freight. I cannot see how it can possibly pay as against chilled or frozen meat. A far greater competitor than Canadian cattle, so far as the meat supply is concerned, is to be found in the dead meat trade.
Canada has also to remember that for every beast she sends here she loses so much of her industry in hides, tallow, and offal, but, on the other hand, the great point is that the removal of the embargo will give Canada two markets instead of one, and at least gives her some lever with which to bargain elsewhere; and that is an important privilege. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, tells us that it is the evening and the morning of the sixth day and that it is all finished. I would only remind him that he was quoting from the book of Genesis; that sin and disease came in after the time of which he speaks; that the world is still struggling for existence against these handicaps, and that in spite of all the efforts of the noble Marquess on behalf of Agriculture we have not yet reached that happy time mentioned in the last Chapter but one of the Book of books, where we are promised a new Heaven and a new Earth.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to take up much of your time in arguing the merits of this subject in detail, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the object of his Amendment is to include Ireland within its scope. Ireland seems to me the great difficulty in any satisfactory decision on this matter. By far the largest number of store cattle imported into this country from abroad come from Ireland and we cannot dispense with them. Ireland is about to become a self-governing Dominion, and what applies to Canada must in future necessarily apply to Ireland.
LORD CARSON: Part of Ireland.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think that on this matter we can regard Ireland as consisting of two separate self-governing Dominions. It is quite evident, if the Amendment of the noble Viscount is intended to apply to Ireland, that the proposed quarantine regulations will have to be imposed on Irish cattle to the same extent as they will be imposed on cattle coming

859
from Canada. Of course the period of quarantine is a matter for the discretion of the Department in every case. If it were a practical thing to do I should gladly stand in the last ditch with the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, because I feel that in taking this step, which appears to be inevitable in the light of what is now acknowledged to be a pledge, we shall incur very serious risks so far as British husbandry is concerned.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it is since the embargo was imposed in 1896 that British livestock became the backbone and sheet anchor of British agriculture, and it was a protective system, which was intended, at the outset, to be a means of protection against disease, but has, in fact, afforded economic protection to the breeders throughout the Kingdom. The livestock of this country have been the source of some remaining prosperity to British farmers, and have come to be admittedly the finest livestock in the whole world. When my noble friend opposite, Lord Cawley, anticipates the possibility of Canada, by way of reprocity, courteously consenting to take second-class British pedigree bulls in preference to bulls coming from the United States, I can only say that I, for my part, believe, in the light of the history of the last thirty years, that British livestock have so established their position and their reputation throughout the whole world that they will always be preferred to those coming from the United States or any other country, and that no bargain is necessary.
I deplore very much, however, that this step has become necessary, at a time when the Government have decided to remove some small measure of protection from arable farming. The noble Lord, Lord Ernle, if I rightly understood his arguments some days ago, qualified, or intended to qualify, the pledge which was made in 1917 by the condition that it should depend upon the future of arable farming in the United Kingdom. He then, of course, anticipated definite Government stimulus or protection for the production of cereals. That has all fallen to the ground, and at the present time the arable farmer in this country has a very poor outlook indeed, and is thrown back again upon his livestock. Whatever may be said by noble Lords like Lord Cawley, who are eminent breeders, of pedigree cattle, it is the small breeders including those in the highlands, not merely of Scotland, but of Wales and of England, who
860
are going to be the chief sufferers when this embargo is removed. They are the men who cannot face the insecurity and uncertainty which will result from the possibility of our markets being flooded at any moment with store cattle from abroad. They are the men who, for the last twenty-five years, have recognised that there is an element of stability in their particular industry, because they have known that the market could not be unsettled by such imports from abroad.
Let us hope and pray that, in adopting this new policy, subject to these so-called safeguards, we are not really opening the door to those terrible diseases which we had in this country some thirty or forty years ago. Certainly, the older men amongst the farmers of the United Kingdom have terrible tales to tell of those disastrous days, and if such an occurrence does take place again as the result of the proposed change we certainly shall not be able to face the dangers of starvation in time of war, which my noble friend, Lord Devonport, and I, as his assistant, were able to face during the period of the greatest submarine risk, in 1917. This was mainly, if not solely, because, under the protection of this embargo, we had built up our live stock to such an extent that we were self-contained in our meat supply to the extent of 60 per cent of our requirements, a proportion which, a year later, in 1918, rose to 80 per cent., rendering it almost unnecessary for us to look to other countries for the provision of meat in times of emergency. I can only say that I deplore the decision that your Lordships are about to take, though I feel that, if there has been a pledge, we have to recognise that pledge. But may God grant that the troubled period through which British agriculture passed prior to the passage of the Act of 1896 may not recur, in consequence of what I believe to be an act of very serious improvidence!
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I rise only by way of striking a note of confidence in regard to the anticipated decision of the House. The Minister of Agriculture recently stated that if the embargo were removed it would destroy confidence amongst breeders, and that for every Canadian beast that came in, there would be one calf less in this country. I wish to give an example of how such a contingency may be met. I am alluding to the importation of Irish

861
cattle. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland arranged for the use of one thousand premium bulls throughout the whole of Ireland. What has been the result of that excellent, procedure, in which, it must be remembered, the enterprise and good sense of the Irish farmer was a very important element? One of the best known and most experienced cattle auctioneers in Scotland recently stated that the average value of Irish cattle had gone up by about £5 per head, and he attributed that great increase to this policy of securing the best kind of stock.
There is no reason why that principle should not be continued and extended, and I feel sure, from inquiries that have been made, that when the Irish Free State Government go fully into the matter, they will carry on that policy, and I am sure we can depend upon the Government of Northern Ireland to carry on this enlightened system, which has had such good effects in the past. I could add further figures, but I do not wish to enlarge upon the point. I am sure it will be found that, in this direction, there is a reassuring element, that some of the forebodings which the noble Lord has just, uttered will not be found to mature, and that a stimulus will be given to fresh security in the matter of producing pure bred stock, which will enable farmers in England, Ireland and Scotland, where some of the leading breeders are in favour of the removal of the embargo, to prevent the anticipated evils from arising.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I cordially agree with the conclusion arrived at by the noble Marquess opposite, for I feel that it would be an immense advantage if this very important question could be settled on the basis of Lord Long's Amendment. As a strong Free Trader, believing that system to work indisputably towards the prosperity of this country, and to be the system to which we owe our solvency, I am whole-heartedly in favour of unfettered private enterprise, of the abolition of all hindrances to the free exchange of commodities, and of all pretexts for Government interference or control of trade. The Protectionist policy is, no doubt, favoured in Canada, and, perhaps, living in a glass house herself, she has little right to throw stones at the Mother Country, if she stray at times into the path of common sense, or if she be apprehensive of a widespread outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
862
Moreover, the Government having adopted a bastard form of Protection in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it, is only natural that those who carry on the land industry in this country should ask why the greatest key industry of all, the industry of agriculture, should not be safeguarded from competition, as has been vouchsafed to fabric gloves and dolls' eyes; or home grown timber against Canadian and Norwegian imports, seeing it is also more in tie nature of a key industry than gas mantles. Undoubtedly, if a protective embargo on Canadian cattle was going to help the whole of our farming industry it would be difficult for the Government to explain why gloves, glass and enamel eyes are protected and agricultural products are not, but I do not believe that the restriction on store cattle is an advantage to the agricultural industry as a whole. Their beasts are to a certain extent the raw product of our industry, seeing that they require fattening after arrival. Moreover, land is going rapidly under grass, since arable farming has ceased to pay, for one reason among many others, owing to the cost of stores, the home supply of which is wholly inadequate. We have drawn large supplies from Ireland, but it is not advisable to be dependent upon one source of supply, more especially in view of the present condition and uncertain future of Ireland.
Undoubtedly, agricultural opinion is divided on this subject, and an enterprising minority of some of our best East Coast farmers approve the free import of stores. Subject to adequate veterinary supervision, such as is supposed to be exercised over Irish exports, it should not be more difficult to ensure security against disease from imports coming from Canada than from those coming from Ireland, whether as regards the period of observation or the liability to inspection. It is vital to the British stockbreeders, and consequently to the consuming public, that the supplies of store cattle should not violently fluctuate, whether such fluctuations be due to sudden changes in commercial policy or to the arrest of imports from exporting countries due to disease, for this would unsettle OUT unrivalled store feeding industry. It can best be secured against by having more than one source of supply. My view of the pledge is that the Government cannot too scrupulously avoid any appearance of bad faith. We are told by an Arab saying that "An Englishman is a rock, but the

863
British Government is a pile of loose stones," and I would ask your Lordships to apply a little cement to those loose stones by insisting that those utterances, that are read and understood as pledges, must be honoured by the nation.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I ask you to forgive me if I say one word before we go to a Division. The Lord Chancellor explained the procedure, but, as many noble Lords were not in the House at the time when the noble and learned Viscount made his statement, perhaps I may repeat what he said. When my Amendment is put those who vote for Lord Lincolnshire, that is for the pledge, will vote "Not-Content"—I do not understand why; it is on the lucus a non lucendo principle—and those who vote for my Motion will vote against it. Those who vote for Viscount Long will vote "Content." Now, I am not going to stand between the House and a Division for more than a single moment, but I want to make the position, so far as I am concerned, as clear as I can. My Motion is simply on the pledge—the pledge, the whole pledge, and nothing but the pledge; a pledge made five years ago by Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of this country, to Canada, which up to this moment he has not raised one finger to redeem.
There has been a very good debate, and interesting speeches have been made on both sides, but I venture to think that the gem of the debate was the speech made by the Duke of Devonshire, the late Governor-General of Canada. If I may be permitted to do so for one moment, I will refer to one sentence in that speech. It was an honest speech, and it was a practical speech. It was a modest and statesmanlike speech, and I think when the noble Duke sat down those who remembered Ms predecessor, his noble uncle, must have said, as I did, "By Jove, that is Hartington
over again." I venture to think that at this time old England could do with a few more Hartingtons and men of that stamp. The noble Duke said that when Sir Robert Borden and the Canadian representatives returned to Canada, after the Imperial Conference, they had not the slightest doubt in their minds that what was intended was a bona fide effort by the Government to bring forward the legislation which would be necessary to remove the restrictions operating against Canadian cattle, shell.
My Motion merely says that it is incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to carry out the pledge. What is the pledge? The pledge is to introduce legislation, and then, and then only, noble Lords and honourable Members will be able to vote according to their consciences and according to their convictions. It is of no use anticipating what is going to happen when a Bill comes before Parliament. All sorts of suggestions may be made by ex-Colonial Ministers and others, but the time for arguing the question will be when the Bill comes, as I hope it will come, before the country in the autumn recess, and not before. It seems to me, and this is my last word, unthinkable that after the vote which the House of Commons has given your Lordships' great hereditary House should be supposed to be ready to condone or approve, or still less to endorse, the action of the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, who for five years has been trying to wriggle out of the clear and unequivocal pledge—those are his own words—which he and his Cabinet have given to our Canadian brothers across the sea.
On Question, Whether the words "this House" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Denbigh, E.

Scarbrough, E.

Wellington, D.

Devon, E.

Selborne, E.

Eldon, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Crewe, M.

Lindsey, E.

Stamford, E.

Salisbury, M.

Lovelace, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Malmesbury, E.

Allendale, V.

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

Midleton, E.

Chaplin, V.

Morton, E.

De Vesci, V.

Ancaster, E.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Falmouth, V.

Bathurst, E.

Onslow, E.

Hood, V.

Bradford, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Long, V.

Chesterfield, E.

Plymouth, E.

Novar, V.

Chichester, E.

Powis, E.

Peel, V.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Montagu of Beaulicu, L.

Abinger, L.

Dynevor, L.

Mostyn, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Donington, L.

Newton, L.

Ampthill, L,

Ernle, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Annesley, L.(V. Valentia.)

Erskine, L.

Parmoor, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Queenborough, L.

Barrymore, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Riddell, L.

Bellew, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sempill, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Blythswood, L.

Hastings, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Brownlow, L.

Hindlip, L.

Stuart, of Wortley, L.

Carson, L.

Illingworth, L.

Sumner, L.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Kenyon, L.

Sydenham, L.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kinlore.)

Templemore, L.

Clinton, L. [Teller.]

Lamington, L.

Waleran, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Crawshaw, L.

Merthyr, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Desborough, L.

Methuen, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Anslow, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sutherland, D.

Askwith, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Beaverbrook, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Pentland, L.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Cawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Buxton, E.

Chalmers, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Clarendon, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sandys, L.

Grey, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Southwark, L.

Howe, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanmore, L.

Kimberley, E.

Faringdon, L.

Swaythling, L.

Lucan, E.

Farrer, L.

Tennyson, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Gainford, L.

Teynham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gorell, L.

Treowen, L.

Cave, V.

Hemphill, L.

Whitburgh, L.

Devonport, V.

Islington, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Goschen, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("accepts the conclusions of the Royal Commission that the Dominion of Canada is free from cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, and is of opinion that steers from the Dominions might be admitted as store cattle to Great Britain, subject to precautions, by means of quarantine, being taken").—(Viscount Long.)

EASTGATE BAPTIST CHAPEL AND PRO CEEDS OF SALE OF CONGREGATIONAL CHAPKL (LOUTH) CHARITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading lead.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a scheme of the
866
Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charities consisting of a Baptist chapel and the proceeds of sale of a former Congregational chapel in the parish of Louth, Lincolnshire. The object is to unite these chapels for the purpose of public worship. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committee to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH ORPHANAGES LOOTED.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether two orphanages in the County of Galway lm e recently been looted and burnt to the ground by Sinn Feiners; and whether the Admiralty sent ships which brought away to this country the staff and thirty-three boys and twenty-five girls; what has become of these children, and how they are to be provided for in the future.
After the very interesting and exciting debate in which your Lordships have

867
engaged during the afternoon. I am sorry to bring the House back to the humdrum, everyday life in Ireland, where outrages, slaughter, and every kind of criminality proceed apace. If I owe any apology at all for bringing this matter forward I think that I have as much right to draw your Lordships' attention to the importance of human beings as others of your Lordships have to draw attention to the importance of cattle.
The particular outrage that I have mentioned in the Question I have placed upon the Paper is one of the very worst of the many hundreds which have been brought to my notice within the past few months. There were two orphanages in the County of Galway which provided for some thirty-three poor boys and some twenty-five young girls. The orphanages were started during the famine in 1849 by a very well-known humanitarian, and have been carried on since by his family. Last month, if my information is correct—and that is what I am asking the Government to tell me—certain Sinn Feiners called at the orphanages and demanded possession of six of the boys in order that they might be "done in," as these Sinn Feiners termed it. There was a plucky matron there, and by various subterfuges she managed to get those six boys to this country and, eventually, to send them out of the country, through the kindness and help of many friends. That did not satisfy these Sinn Feiners.
A few days afterwards they went again to the orphanages and asked for a particular boy so that he might be brought out and shot. That was one of the boys who, fortunately, had been got away. They then went to the master, who was a cripple, and told him that he must clear out in half an hour. He refused to go. They left him and went into the dining room where the boys were getting ready for tea. They asked who was in charge and the eldest boy stood up. The boys were then paraded outside and certain boys who were working in the fields were rounded up with revolvers and bayonets. These poor orphan children! The boys and, I think, the master, were then taken to another part of the premises. But the matron, showing great courage, pleaded with these men to spare her father's life and the lives of the boys and to give her a guarantee
868
as to their safety. Then they told her she must clear out. This the matron refused to do.
When surrounded by these fully armed barbarians, she asked: "Why has all this been done?" The answer was: "The boys are being taught loyalty to England and the orphanage has sent many boys to the great war." That is an ordinary crime in Ireland! The whole place was looted and burned to the ground, and these thirty-three boys and twenty-five girls were left absolutely stranded with nothing but the clothes they had on. Fortunately, the founder's daughter was living in this country. She was communicated with by certain methods, and, as I understand it, she went to the Colonial Office. Eventually, the Admiralty had to send a destroyer to Galway to fetch away the staff, the thirty-three boys and the twenty-five girls. I am told they arrived in this country with absolutely nothing. I know they are grateful to the British Admiralty, and they are also grateful to the Church Army, who have lent their hostel for the boys temporarily, and a temporary home for the girls.
But I want to ask the Government one or two questions. In the first place, I want to ask them—and with this I am probably most concerned—what is to be the future of these children? Do the Government, who abandoned them, hold themselves responsible for the future of these children now that they have taken them over on these shores, or will they be treated like all the loyalists and Protestants of the south and west of Ireland, as outcasts? I want to ask further—because this is only one of hundreds of instances—how long is this to go on? Is there any limit to it? Does His Majesty's Government really mean to stand by until all the loyalists and Protestants of Ireland are wiped out? That is what is happening. Since I put this Question upon the Paper I have received information of even worse cases. This is the daily life in Ireland, and I want to know how long the patience of Great Britain will tolerate it.
I understand that an arrangement was come to with the Provisional Government, as it is called, that there was to be an Election, and, indeed, the papers reported that there was an Election. Why is the Parliament which was elected not called together? I am quite alive to the action

869
that is going on between two sections in Ireland, but that does not seem to me to be any reason why the representatives of the people should not be summoned to meet. If you had the House sitting there somebody might at all events have the courage and the humanity to get up and thrash out such oases, and endeavour to put a stop to them. What would the people of this country think if a similar stats of affairs to that existing in Ireland arose here? Would that be made an excuse for not having the House of Commons sitting? The Irish House of Commons has been elected, and it has put off its sittings from day to day, and so far as I know there is no way in Ireland of bringing forward cases of this kind.
This is not a case of one individual, but of thirty-three boys and twenty-five girls, and the whole staff of the organisation. This little charity is absolutely blotted out in that part of Ireland. Is the Government so helpless that nothing can be done? I see that in the House of Commons, day after day, Questions are asked about matters either as important as or less important than this, and the only answer that is given is: "We will bring it to the notice of the Provisional Government." But, nothing ever happens. Or you get an answer trying to bluff the thing through from the Colonial Secretary, in which he says he is more than satisfied with the way things are progressing in Ireland. Politicians are easily satisfied if they are satisfied with this kind of thing.
A man came to me to-day and told me he had in the past few days registered over seven hundred claims for compensation made by refugees for the burning down and ruining of their houses and businesses. All that is perfectly well known to the Government. I wish they would allow it to be published. Nothing is done. We passed a Resolution in this House the other day in which we called upon the Government to protect the lives of British subjects in Ireland. Has anything been done under that Resolution or is it, like most of the Resolutions of this House, flouted by the Government? Your Lordships may think that I am very persistent in bringing forward these cases. I am going to continue to bring them forward. Your Lordships are dealing with human lives, with the lives of thirty-three boys and twenty-five girls. I hope we shall get a satisfactory answer from the Government.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I very deeply regret to say that the statement briefly outlined in the Question on the Paper by the noble and learned Lord is correct. I can only amplify the facts, as he stated them, and I should like to do so. These orphanages are known as the Connemara Orphans Nurseries. They consisted of two houses at Clifden in County Galway, at which were accommodated thirty-three boys and twenty-five girls, together with the staff, all of them Protestants. At the beginning of July the boys' orphanage was attacked by the Irish Republican Army, and burned to the ground. It is not yet known whether the house in which the girls were accommodated was similarly destroyed. The boys were brought from Clifden to Queenstown by destroyer, and thence to London by the ordinary route. They are now accommodated in a hostel in West London, and they are being looked after by their own staff. On July 6 two of His Majesty's ships were sent to Clifden by Admiralty instructions to secure the removal of the girl orphans and the staff, and to bring them to Devon-port. Accommodation has been secured in that town through the courtesy of the trustees of the Lady Rogers Charity. The Irish Distress Committee is in constant communication with the honorary secretary and treasurer of the orphanages, and it is hoped that arrangements will be made regarding the future accommodation and welfare of these children at an early date. I am not in a position to make any statement beyond that, except that most active steps are being taken to look after the present and future welfare of these poor children. Meanwhile, necessary financial assistance is being given by the Irish Distress Committee.
THE MARQCESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is very difficult to speak with proper reserve in your Lordships' House when we are dealing with an outrage of this description. It is so contemptible an outrage, apart from its horror, that it really almost beggars language. That men should attack not armed men but poor orphans, boys and girls, purely because they are Protestants and friends of this country, reaches almost the depth of infamy even in Ireland.
What I rise particularly to ask is, what steps His Majesty's Government are taking with the Provisional Government to see

871
that these outrages are punished and compensated. His Majesty's Government have been very generous with the Provisional Government in supplying them with all sorts of means for suppressing the rebellion. I do not criticise that at the moment; this is not the opportunity for doing so. But surely in return for that compliance they ought to have exacted a binding pledge, in so far as any pledge can be binding on these gentlemen, that these outrages will be punished whenever they get an opportunity, and that the damage and injury done to individuals and property shall be compensated. I should like to ask whether the Government exacted such a pledge, and if not, whether they propose to exact such a pledge.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies may I ask whether they have considered one or two suggestions which I know have been made to them by those who have practical experience in the Government of Ireland. The first suggestion is that the Government should definitely inform Mr. Collins that the patience not only of this country and of Parliament but of the Government itself is exhausted, and that unless they do make definite proposals they must expect definite action on the part of the Government here. A second suggestion is that the Government should adopt in greater numbers the plan they have adopted elsewhere and send ships of war round the coast of Ireland; let them show the flag in the various ports and harbours. Many of us believe that this, in itself, would have a salutary effect, and it would be possible, as in the case of these unfortunate children, to remove some of those who are threatened with death and murder, and bring them here.
I am aware that if they are brought here the responsibility does not end there, but the good will and benevolence of the people of this country, highly taxed as it has been, is almost inexhaustible. If the Government would only surround Ireland with these small ships of war—there are plenty of them and they are now doing no special duty; they could easily be spared; they could go there in the course of their ordinary cruise—if they only showed in Irish waters it would do a great deal of good, apart from the fact that they might remove many of these people who are now in desperate straits. There is the case of the town of Mallaranny in County Mayo. The effect
872
there of a ship would be instantaneous, and there would be no difficulty at all in removing, under the protection of the blue-jackets, anyone who happened to be in danger.
Another suggestion made is that in addition to telling the Irish Government that our patience is exhausted they should ask them why they do not select two or three areas and restore order there. Ireland is a wonderful place. Information spreads like fire in dry heather, and it would soon become known amongst these scoundrels that the Government was coming down with a high hand in certain districts. It would bring more hope and comfort to the stricken hearts of these people who contemplate with horror and dismay the possibility that they may be exposed to absolute ruin, and probably death. Such steps as these would have an effect, and at all events they are worth trying. I ask the Government whether they have considered them and whether they will not take action on these lines.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I only desire to call your attention to one serious point in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. He asked how long the Government intended to allow certain things to go on. I do not know whether many of your Lordships were present yesterday when the noble Earl opposite told the House that it was proposed to adjourn Parliament on Friday week and resume on November 14. The one thing which everyone in this House must desire, is that the present Provisional Government in Ireland should be succeeded by a Constitutional Government responsible to Parliament, and I ask the noble Earl whether he really thinks it is wise to adjourn Parliament to a date which makes it impossible for this House, and this Parliament, to carry a constitutional measure for Ireland before the close of the year?
The prolongation of the present provisional state of affairs in Ireland is a most serious question. Whatever views your Lordships may take as to the situation we must, surely, be at one in desiring that the present condition should be replaced at the earliest possible moment by a Constitutional Government, and as far as I can see the arrangements made by His Majesty's Government for the prolongation of the Parliamentary recess will have the

873
effect of making it quite impossible to deal, before the expiry of the date of the Treaty, with those very provisions to which Parliament is already pledged.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, as I understand the answer of the noble Earl the victims of this outrage are to be left, so far as relief is concerned, entirely to private charity. I ask leave of the House to refer to a suggestion I made in the Motion I had the honour to introduce on the subject of refugees and sufferers in Southern Ireland, and to ask whether it is not possible that this relief should not be left to private charity but should be undertaken by the Government itself; that notice should be publicly given to all concerned that whatever that relief may cost it will be made an effective debit against the claims of Ireland in the financial arrangements we all know must succeed the setting up of ordinary government in Ireland. I suggest that we have that hold over Ireland and that it ought to be exercised.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Irish Distress Committee, to which I referred, is the Committee sitting under Sir Samuel Hoare, and the funds are the funds of the taxpayer as a whole. It is not a private fund.
LORD CARSON: There have been some private funds.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I pointed out that the girls in Devonport are living in buildings of the trustees of a certain local charity. To that extent, no doubt private assistance is being offered, but the Distress Committee, as such, is financed out of the Treasury. I feel that your Lordships will probably excuse me from making a statement on most aspects of the Irish Question in reply to the Question on the Paper. I really am not prepared to do so without very careful preparation of ray speech, not being directly concerned with that Department. But I can assure Lord Long that any proposal that is made which offers any exit from this difficulty will be not only welcomed, but most anxiously considered by the Government, in order to take every possible step to end this period of distress.
I should just answer two questions put to me by Lord Salisbury and one by my noble friend, Lord Stuart of Wortley, who
874
is under a misapprehension. Lord Salisbury asked what protest is made, what punishment is inflicted, and what compensation will be granted; and if pledges have been exacted on those three points. I cannot bear in my mind the terms of the correspondence which has been exchanged, and I do not know whether that correspondence shows that a pledge must be given that malefactors shall be punished. It is quite possible that such a tautology might have been omitted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why tautology?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It would not occur to me, if I were talking to somebody about compensation, to say that the murderer of the man whose widow, for instance, is to be compensated, should be punished. I confess that it would not occur to me to say that. I should have assumed it in the natural course of events.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In Ireland?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Well, perhaps I should, even in Ireland. But, as regards compensation, the exchange of correspondence, which I invite your Lordships to read, is perfectly clear and explicit and shows that the responsibility for compensation for these outrages is accepted by the Free State Government. I invite your Lordships to read that correspondence. I cannot say offhand whether Lord Long's proposal of a time limit would be as helpful as he hopes. One can see advantages in the proposal, but, on the other hand, if the time expired, and it was none the less obvious that the Free State Government was doing its utmost to restore order, what would the next course, be?
If I thought it would help, I would say offhand that my influence should be used towards doing it. But, in the present condition of Ireland, I do not know that the selection of a time limit of one month, or two or three months, whatever it might be, would help potential sufferers in Ireland, or, on the other hand, assist the. Provisional Government in doing what I believe and hope they are honestly trying to do, and that is, to put down disorder. I cannot say offhand if, apart from this particular case, the general policy of sending ships to the ports of Ireland has been considered. Lord Long suggested Mallaranny in par-

875
ticular. If it has been done once, there is no reason why it should not be done a second time, or on any future occasions, but, again, it is a matter upon which one would have to proceed with caution, and to make sure that such a policy on our part might not produce reactions which would be deplored.
The last question put by Lord Long was as to the restoration of order in particular districts. There again, it is very difficult to lay down a rule, but, from what I can gather, there are certain districts to-day, indeed large districts, where order is much more secure and better preserved than was the case a very few weeks ago. Certainly that must be the case as regards Dublin.
LORD CARSON: I wish it was.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At any rate the large extent of street fighting in Dublin has happily stopped, and I should have thought—I hope I may not be wrong in expressing this opinion—that order is being gradually improved, if not entirely restored, not only in Dublin but in other parts of the country also.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Earl if he will deal with my really vital question as regards time?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I forgot to take a note of Lord Midleton's question, and, in any case, I must ask for notice of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to ask a further question of the noble Earl. He said in his reply to me that he could not charge his memory—naturally enough; I do not complain of that—with the recollection as to whether or not any pledge had been asked for in respect of the punishment of these criminals, or other criminals,, in Ireland. I will venture to ask my noble friend to refresh his memory, and to allow me to address him again on that point. To me it certainly does seem that if the Provisional Government were bound to announce to these outrage-mongers that, if and when the Government were successful, they would surely be punished to the very last farthing for their wickedness, that would have a great effect.
LORD CARSON: Will your Lordships allow me to mention one matter that I had forgotten? It is a very small matter. As regards the reply of the noble Earl opposite,
876
it is the usual thing—hapless, hopeless and despairing, with nothing in it at all to create any glimmer of confidence or any ray of sunshine in any loyalist home in Ireland. In contrast, there is one very small matter for which I should like to acknowledge my gratitude. When these children had been conveyed by the British Admiralty from the burning orphanage at Clifden over to this country, the poor sailors on board collected a sum of money, to try to do something for them when they arrived in this country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I must not speak a third time, even with the leave of the House. Lord Salisbury's question is a very simple question of fact. The document is very short, it is on your Lordships' Table, and anybody can see it. I will look myself, to find out whether there is any mention of punishment or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the Table?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is a public document.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (RATS AND MICE DESTRUCTION TRANSFER OF POWERS) DRAFT ORDER, 1922.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW had given Notice, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection 3, of the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, to move to resolve, That this House approves the said Draft Order. The noble Earl said: This Motion is designed to remove the present system of overlapping.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
1.—(1) The Royal Irish Constabulary shall be disbanded on such day, not being later than the thirty-first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-two, as may be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant, and on or before that date every officer and constable of that force shall retire from the force as and when required by the Lord Lieutenant, and shall on his retirement be entitled to receive such compensation as may be awarded to him by the Treasury in accordance with the rules contained in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act and, in the event of his dying after a

877
compensation allowance has been awarded to him, the Treasury shall grant a pension or gratuities to his widow and children in accordance with the said rules as so amended and modified.
Provided that in awarding such pensions no deduction shall be made by reason of the fact that any compensation has been awarded in respect of injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties by such officer or constable.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out, "July" and insert "August." The noble Viscount said: This is merely a drafting Amendment, substituting "August" for "July." It is quite obvious that disbandment cannot be carried out this month, owing to the delay in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("July") and insert ("August").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My other Amendments in the proviso to subsection (1) are merely to carry out undertakings given that I would put the subsequent Amendments of Lord Carson into form, and carry out what he stated was his intention. I have done so.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("such pensions") and insert ("any such compensation allowance, pension, or gratuity")
Page 1, line 22, after ("awarded") insert ("to the officer or constable")
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("by such officer or constable").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed, to.
Clause 2:
Tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship.
2. For the purpose of dealing with questions arising in the administration of this Act there shall be appointed a tribunal with such powers and duties as appear in the Second and Third Schedules to this Act.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out "and duties." The noble Lord said: In drafting this and other Amendments on the Paper I have had some assistance. So far as I can judge, they raise no question of controversy, and I do not think there ought to be any difficulty in passing them. They cover some criticisms that were made in the course of the previous debate, and they correct certainly one mistake that occurs in the Third Schedule. They also put right, I
878
think, some other things that, if the Schedule stands, will enable it to work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("and duties").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I say, with regard to one and all of these Amendments, that although I do not of course accept the Amendments to which they are moved, I think it is just as well that they should go down to the other House as a matter of form.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My other Amendments are drafting Amendments, and I do not think there can be any opposition to them. They refer to Clause 3 and the Second and Third Schedules.
Clause 3 (Provisions as to disturbance allowance, &c.):
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("Constabulary") to ("and") in line 15, and insert ("to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act or who at the date fixed for the disbandment of the force is in receipt of a pension under the enactments relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
Second Schedule (Tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship):
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 20, leave out ("and duties")
Page 9, line 35, at end insert ("or otherwise").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
Third Schedule (A) Disturbance Allowance; (B) Free Railway Warrants: (C) Separation Allowance):
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 5, at end insert ("(in the case of an officer or man to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act)")
Page 10, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("the Deputy Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, Dublin Castle") and insert ("the Chief Secretary or the Colonial Office")
Page 10, line 38, after ("return") insert ("to") and leave out ("after having returned"), and at end insert ("the date of")
Page 11, line 2, leave out from ("use") to end of line 3.
Page 11, line 6, after ("after") insert ("the date of")
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")
Page 11, line 14, at end insert:

879
("In this Schedule the expression 'date of disbandment' means the date of discharge in the case of an officer or man to whom compensation is payable under section one of this Act, and the date fixed for the disbandment of the force in the ease of an officer or man in receipt of a pension").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the Third Reading of the Bill be taken to-morrow?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.

SMALL HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government when the Bill it undertook to introduce after Easter in order to enable the Scottish Board of Agriculture to continue to acquire land for small holdings will be placed before the House.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, owing to the pressure of Parliamentary business it has not been found possible to introduce legislation as was hoped at the date when the reply was given to the question put by the noble Viscount on April 11 last. In the meantime the powers of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to acquire land by compulsion under the provisions of Section 1 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, are continued until December 31, 1922, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It is regretted that the fact that these powers have been so continued was overlooked when a reply was given on April 11 last. Under the section referred to it is open to the landlord in the case of compulsory acquisition of his land to accept a feu duty. I think that meets the noble Viscount's point.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I will raise the Question again when Parliament, reassembles.

CELLULOID AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILM BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The, references are to Bill No. 97.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 38, after ("appeal") insert ("and of the grounds thereof")
Clause 1, page 3, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("upon the said premises")
Clause 1, line 6, after ("apparatus") insert ("upon any premises used for any purpose to which this Act applies").
Clause 2, page 4, line 1, after ("not") insert ("except in the cases referred to in paragraphs (c), (d) and(e) of subsection (1) of section one thereof")
Clause 2,line 3, leave out ("or") and insert ("and
(iii) the provisions of this Act shall not apply").
Clause 4, page 4, line 29, at end insert as a new subsection:
("(3) The occupier of premises in respect of which a statement is required to be furnished to the local authority shall pay to the local authority when furnishing such statement and on the first day of January of every year thereafter, so long as the premises are used for any purpose to which this Act applies, such fees as the Secretary of State may prescribe").
Clause 9, page 5, line 37, leave out ("including") and insert ("containing")
Clause 9,line 38, leave out ("and") and insert ("or") and after ("products") insert ("but does not include any substances which are explosives within the meaning of the Explosives Act, 1875")
Clause 9,line 39, after ("means") insert ("a")
Clause 9,line 41, at end insert ("and (b) celluloid scrap or waste").
In the First Schedule, page 9, line 7, at end insert:
("6. If electric light is used, all conductors and apparatus shall be so constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained as to prevent danger. Vacuum-type lamps only shall be used, and shall be in fixed positions and fitted with substantial outer protecting globes.")
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not know whether it is desired that I should explain the Amendments. They are not all drafting, but unless any noble Lord wishes for an explanation I propose to move their acceptance en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.