Sitting of 7 March 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Metropolitan Railway Bill.
Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill.
Bills committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Madras Railway Annuities Bill [Lords.]
Bill to be read a Second time.
Grampian Electricity Supply Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
London County Council (Tramways, Trolley Vehicles, and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
South Staffordshire Water Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that, in the case of any Order scheduled to the Bill whereby it is proposed that pilotage shall not be compulsory, the Committee have power, if there are Petitioners seeking to make pilotage compulsory in the district affected by the Order, to hear such Petitioners and any Petitioners against alterations who have presented Petitions within five clear days before the meeting of the Committee, and that if the Committee are of opinion that an Order should be made providing that pilotage shall be compulsory they shall mate a Special Report to the House to that effect.—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    REFORM SCHEME (COST).
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what is, approximately, the extra cost of the Government of India and the provincial establishments under the reform scheme in comparison with what it was before the reform scheme was introduced?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Government of India have informed me that the papers on this subject were to leave India by the mail of 23rd February.

    SAIL CANVAS (TENDERS).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Secretary of State for India if certain firms, including the Roperie and Sailcloth Company, of Bath Street, Leith, were recently invited to quote for the supply of goods to the India Office; if any of the offers sent in have been accepted; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of coming to an early decision on the offers sent in, in view of the great amount of unemployment in the industry concerned?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed by the High Commissioner for India, with whom the matter rests, that certain firms including the Edinburgh Roperie and Sailcloth Company, Limited, of Bath Street, Leith, were recently invited to tender for the supply of sail canvas, required by the Government of India, and that as a result the contracts were duly let on the 1st February last.

    FINANCE.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India what the deficit on the Indian Budget is estimated to be in 1921–22 and what deficit has to be met and provided for in 1922–23; whether the possibility has been considered of instituting Death Duties in India or of extending Income Tax to revenues arising from land; and whether he will suggest to the Joint Standing Committee the advisability of reporting on Indian finance in general and not upon Army strength and finance alone?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is about 34 crores of rupees. The answer to the second part 32 crores. As to the third part, under the rules regulating the distribution of revenues between the Central and Provincial Governments it is contemplated that taxes on succession and revenue from land in general should fall within the provincial sphere. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member is aware that it is in the power of the Joint Standing Committee to take into consideration any question which they may desire to consider.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that suggestion when he appears before the Joint Standing Committee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have not yet had any request to attend before that Committee.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You will.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for India whether a Resolution was unanimously passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly calling for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the expenditure of the Government of India; and what action is being taken to carry this Resolution into effect?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I learn that the Government of India has decided to appoint a Committee to consider Government expenditure, but its composition and scope are still under consideration.

    IMPERIAL PREFEREKCE.
    Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister whether India, through her representative at the Imperial Conference of 1917, became a party to the unanimous adoption of the principle of Imperial Preference; and whether provision has been made in the new Customs tariff of India for preference to goods from Great Britain and other parts of the Empire in respect of the duties now to be imposed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Government of India have appointed a fiscal Commission to advise among other things as to the desirability of adopting the principle of Imperial Preference and have declared their intention to defer any action until they have considered the report. The Commission has not yet reported.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    TURKEY.
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any evidence to show that Mustapher Kemal Pasha is the recognised leader of the Turkish people; whether he is aware that an agreement with Mustapha Kemal Pasha would be welcomed by Moslem interests in India and the East; and whether he will take steps to open negotiations with Mustapha Kemal Pasha at once?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harms-worth): The position of Mustapha Kemal Pasha in relation to the Nationalist section of the Turkish population is well-known. His Majesty's Government believe that Moslem interests in India and the East desire, as do His Majesty's Government, a general settlement with Turkey, embracing all Turkish territories and authorities. The Treaty of Peace must be concluded with the sovereign of the State, the Sultan. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 6th March
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman state what steps, if any, are being taken to conclude peace with Turkey?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. A meeting is to take place in Paris in the very near future when the whole question will be discussed.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Who will represent Turkey?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like notice of that question.

    MUNITIONS, GERMANY.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the results of the inquiries of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Germany with regard to the secret manufacture of Howitzers, the concealment of documents, and the fictitious leasing of administrative establishments alleged to be carried on by, or with the connivance of, the German authorities?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): These questions are all being investigated by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control. There is as yet, however, nothing that I can usefully add to previous answers.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: When is the hon. Baronet likely to be able to give information on these very important matters?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot say.

    SAAR VALLEY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the appeal made to the League of Nations, in a memorandum of December, 1921, by the leaders of all political parties in the Saar Valley, with the exception of the Communists, against the harsh treatment and injustices suffered by the civil population under the régime in force in the Saar; whether there is any British representative on the Government Commission in the Saar; if so, who is he; what are his instructions with regard to the treatment of the civil population; whether he has made any representations to His Majesty's Government on the conditions prevailing in the Saar basin; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps to see
    1046
    that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are carried out where they establish safeguards for the civil population of the Saar?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The members of the Governing Commission are, in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles (Annex to Section 4, Articles 16 and 17), chosen by the Council of the League of Nations, from which body they receive their instructions and to which they report. They are not national representatives. One of them is a Canadian, Mr. Waugh by name. He is neither responsible to nor in official communication with His Majesty's Government. The duty of seeing that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are carried out rests on the League of Nations, in which His Majesty's Government are represented.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is His Majesty's Government approaching the League of Nations asking for information on the subject?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. When I was at Geneva I met a deputation from the Saar Valley and came to the conclusion that the charges against the administration had no foundation whatever.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether some modification in the direction of a greater representation of the inhabitants of the Saar on the Governing Commission might be desirable?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will take occasion to bring the Noble Lord's opinion to the Secretary-General.

  BURMA (CONSTITUTION).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for India whether Sir Alexander Whyte's Committee, which was appointed to settle the details of the proposed constitution and reforms for Burma, has yet submitted its Report; and, if so, what is the nature of the recommendations made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Report has been submitted, and is now under the consideration of the Government of India. As soon as possible after I have received their

  1047
  recommendations, I intend to present the papers to Parliament, and until I am in a position to do that, it would be premature to indicate the nature of the Committee's proposals.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS CORPS.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State, for War (1) whether, although the Corps of Military Accountants is now responsible for the preparation of appropriation accounts, the Accounting Departments, on which this work formerly fell, are now, instead of being reduced in strength, actually more largely staffed than was the case when they did this work; what is the explanation of this increase;
    (2) whether the creation of the Corps of Military Accountants has led to a considerable duplication of work by its representatives in commands to that already done by command paymasters?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The strength of the Pay Department is being rapidly and continuously reduced, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend will see from the totals of Army Estimates, the volume of cash expenditure to be handled is still largely in excess of that of 1914. I am enquiring into the work of the Corps of Military Accountants with a view of eliminating any unnecessary or duplicate work.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether representatives of the Corps of Military Accountants are being still attached to fighting units such as brigades of cavalry, regiments of cavalry, etc.; whether it is found that their attachment leads to economies being effected; and, if so, in what direction?
    Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir. The cost accounts of fighting units are prepared by military accountant personnel attached to the units. I am informed that direct economies have been effected in certain directions, such as the closing of regimental workshops which were not paying their way, and in the supply of consumable stores. I am enquiring into the possibility of effecting economies in such parts of the accountancy as, are less likely to prove of value.

    RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel CAMPIONasked the Secretary of State for War the amount of money expended in recruiting advertisement during the current financial year, and the number of recruits obtained?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The amount spent up to the end of last month was £4,779. The number of recruits up to approximately the same date was 41,773.

    REGIMENTS (DISBANDMENT).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an undertaking that none of the regiments proposed to be disbanded shall be disbanded until the present disorder in India, Egypt, and Ireland have ceased and a final settlement of the Irish Question has been actually arrived at?
    Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir; I am not in a position to give my Noble Friend the undertaking which he desires.
    Viscount WOLMER: Does the hon. Baronet not think it extremely rash to disband a great number of regiments of the British Army when the whole Empire is seething with disorder?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the Government pursue a policy which will lead to disarmament?
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Dublin Fusiliers is one of the oldest regiments of the British Army, that although they have existed 250 years they have only been connected with Ireland 34 years, that the regiment has rendered distinguished service in all parts of the world and has great traditions, he will reconsider the proposal that it should be disbanded?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I much regret that this decision cannot be reconsidered. The recruiting area of the regiment has ceased to be available; moreover, the retention of this regiment would necessitate the disbandment, on grounds of economy, of some other, raised and maintained outside the area of the Irish Free State.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is not the true reason that we still have the right to enlist men in Ireland?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I could not say without looking at the Treaty.

    ROYAL MALTA MILITIA.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has been arrived at by the Army Council regarding the promotion, pay, and pensions of the officers of the Royal Malta Artillery?
    Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir; I am not yet in a position to announce a decision.

    M.I. 5 DEPARTMENT.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the M.I. 5 Department still exists; what is the annual cost for the same, including rent and staff; what is the number of its personnel, male and female; and what premises does it occupy?
    Sir R. SANDERS: It is not in the public interest to give this information.
    Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what useful public service this Department can be said to perform?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely we have a right to know the cost of this Department.
    Sir R. SANDERS: I suppose that the cost of this Department is given in the Estimates.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

    ARMY ESTIMATES.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the Estimates for 1922–23 have been framed in accordance with the Cabinet instruction of 1919 on the assumption that no great war is to be anticipated within the next 10 years;
    (2) whether he proposes to reduce the staff employed at Woolwich in respect of the education of cadets as recommended by the Geddes Committee;
    (3) whether it is still proposed to spend next year £2,710,000 in major new works?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 28th ultimo. I then stated that it was difficult for me at present to answer in detail questions on individual recommendations made by the Geddes Committee, and that the debate on next year's Army Estimates would afford a more convenient opportunity for dealing with them.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that the Cabinet instruction was that the War Office when preparing their Estimates were to proceed on the assumption that there was no great war to be anticipated within the next 10 years?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
    Captain BENN: Has the whole total of the Estimates been framed on that instruction from the Cabinet?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot say.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I shall put my question down again.

    ESTIMATES (EXPLANATORY NOTES).
    Sir R. CLOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of adding, when the various Estimates are submitted this year, an explanatory note in each case where any economy is due to the adoption of any specific recommendation of the Geddes Report?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I do not think it will be possible, without sensibly delaying the issue of the Estimates, to analyse the reductions in such a way as to attribute particular savings to particular causes.

  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have lent the sum of £14,730, secured by a mortgage, to the Schools and Services Supplies, Limited; and, if so, whether, since it appears that the business of financiers or moneylenders is to be added to the activities already undertaken by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, he will state the reason for this loan and how much money has been similarly lent by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes?
  Sir R. SANDERS: I understand that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, in selling a warehouse, have allowed part of the purchase money to remain on mortgage. Such an arrangement is obviously legitimate, and gives rise to no question of public interest or

  1051
  of policy. I am therefore not prepared to accede to my Noble Friend's desire that the matter should be further pursued.
  Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many other mortgages the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have on hand?
  Sir R. SANDERS: Obviously I could not answer that question without notice.
  Viscount WOLMER: The information is asked for at the end of my question, and surely we are entitled to have an answer.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the War Office representative on this Board when their accounts will be published?
  Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for notice of that question.

  TREATMENT OF CHILDREN, HONG KONG.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make an investigation as to whether, under the mui tsai system of Hong Kong, the mui tsai girls of any household do, upon the death of the owner, become the property of concubines in the household, and are disposed of by them for cash, with other elements in the estate of the deceased owner?
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the records of the Colonial Office show that mui tsai of Hong Kong, of quite tender years, are frequently compelled to labour over 12 hours a day, and that cases have been established in the open court where these children have been forced to work up to as long as 18 and 20 hours in one day?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I informed the hon. Member for Bedwellty on the 21st of February that I wished to exchange telegraphic correspondence with the Governor of Hong Kong on the subject. Unfortunately, as hon. Members are aware, a grave situation has developed in Hong Kong in connection with the strike there. The Governor's hands have been exceptionally full, and I learn that the Secretary for Chinese
  1052
  Affairs, who is particularly concerned with mui tsai, has been working night and day. The Governor has promised to answer my inquiries at the earliest possible moment, and in the meantime I must ask the hon. Members to allow me to defer any statement on the subject of mui tsai.

  IRELAND.

    MURDERS.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the murders of Lieutenant Genochio, Royal Engineers, Lieutenant Meade, Royal Army Service Corps, and Quartermaster-Sergeant Cunliffe; whether, in the latter case, these soldiers were armed; whether there is any news of the murderers; and whether the Irish Provisional Government have made any further communication with respect to these atrocities?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any further statement with regard to the case of Lieutenant Genochio except that the Provisional Government now suggest that case should be investigated by a Commission consisting of a British officer and a person nominated by them. Two persons have been arrested by the authority of the Provisional Government on suspicion in connection with the murders of Lieutenant Meade and Quartermaster-Sergeant Cunliffe, and further investigation as to their guilt will be proceeded with according to law. In regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply I gave him on Tuesday of last week.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman accede to the request of the Provisional Government to set up a Commission upon the death of Lieutenant Genochio? Is he aware that the Cork coroner's jury refused to attend at the barracks to hold an inquest on Lieutenant Genochio, and the inquest had to be held by the military instead?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite aware of that. I must ask for notice of the first part of the question.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will this proposed Commission have power to compel the

    1053
    attendance of witnesses and to administer the oath? Will it be a legal body? What legal foundation will it have?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given all the information I can on the subject, and I am not prepared to add to it.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to appoint a Commission. Surely I am entitled to ask if it will have any legal status.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say I was going to appoint a Commission. I said that the Provisional Government had suggested that course. I have not yet answered it.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he will appoint the Commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I could quite definitely, but at the present moment I am not prepared to make that statement.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the people arrested for the murders of Lieutenant Meade and Quartermaster-Sergeant Cunliffe be proceeded against according to law? What tribunal has power to try them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: For common criminals in Ireland the existing tribunals are working, and magistrates are to a large extent sitting. There are a number of persons in various prisons in Ireland arrested for various forms of crime, and they will be proceeded with according to law.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Will they be indicted before the Assizes as if they were ordinary murderers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly.

    SALE OF STORES, BIRR.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the sale of furniture and other stores at the military barracks at Birr, King's County, was suddenly stopped by order of the Government in the middle of the second day's sale, when good prices were being realised; and what is proposed to be done with the property in these barracks which is still unsold?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am making inquiries into this case.

    RAIDS AND LEVIES.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that wholesale raids and enforced levies have recently been made by the Irish Republican Army in County Tipperary; whether large numbers of motor cars and other property have been seized; and what action the British Government have taken to secure the safety of the property of individuals in this and other counties in Southern Ireland, seeing that the British Government are still responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The condition of affairs in parts of County Tipperary has been a source of anxiety to His Majesty's Government, and representations have been made on the subject to the Provisional Government, who I am assured, are giving the matter their earnest attention.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he has stated day after day that these matters are a cause of anxiety to the Government, yet meanwhile British subjects are being plundered? Does he not think it desirable to take some action to protect them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I might easily take action which would be unwise, and do more harm than good.
    Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Provisional Government is in a position to do anything in the County of Tipperary at the present moment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope they will be soon; I am supplying them with the means of asserting their authority, and that is their intention.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has His Majesty's Government any troops or police in this district who can aid in restoring order and protecting innocent people?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I think all the troops and police have been withdrawn.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a monstrous thing that the troops and police should have been withdrawn before order was restored?
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the

    1055
    number of rifles, machine guns, rounds of ammunition, revolvers, motors, etc., belonging to the British Government which have been illegally taken by the Irish Republican Army from the Clonmel Police Barracks; whether the property has now been recovered; and what punishment has been inflicted on the members of the Irish Republican Army concerned in the theft of British property?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the raid on the Clonmel Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks the following property was taken:—11 motor cars, 293 rifles and bayonets, 273 revolvers and pistols, three Lewis guns, 45 shot guns, 324,000 rounds of ammunition, 4,247 cartridges, and sundry small stores. Up to the present none of the property has been recovered and none of the raiders have yet been arrested. The matter is receiving the close attention of the Provisional Government.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some further assurance that in a case like this, where an enormous amount of Government property has been stolen, action will be taken?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have to answer a question on that point later.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Who can get back these stores except members of the Irish Republican Army, who, apparently have stolen them?
    Mr. STEWART: Would it not be better to destroy the arms and ammunition in these cases?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The policy of concentrating the forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary holding small positions in central barracks is now practically completed. In the case of Clonmel, it was delayed by a certain pause in the negotiations, but it is now practically finished, and I am assured that there is no danger of similar misfortunes occurring in other parts.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has any single member of the Royal Irish Constabulary yet been punished by the Provisional Government?
    Viscount CURZON: Yesterday, in answering a similar question, the right hon. Gentleman said police had been arrested in Dublin on a grave charge.
    1056
    Is there any ground for suggesting that in Clonmel similar suspicion attaches to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that question. Obviously it is vital to the Provisional Government not to allow themselves to be defied in public by lawless persons, and it is my duty to see that they have the means of dealing with such acts of defiance against Trish authority, and to provide them with such means. Then it will be up to them to take effective action, but until they have such resources I am bound to speak with circumspection.

    KIDNAPPINGS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the persons kidnapped from Northern Ireland have not yet been released; if so, for what reason; whether any of the Ulster special constabulary are still being illegally detained in Southern Ireland; and what steps His Majesty's Government are taking in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: When I replied to this question on Tuesday of last week, I understood from the Provisional Government that all the persons kidnapped by the Irish Republican Army during the recent border disturbances, with the exception of the special constables arrested in Clones Railway Station on the 11th ultimo, had been released. Orders for their release had been issued by the Provisional Government, who had been given to understand that they had been complied with in every case. It has since transpired, however, that two of the persons kidnapped have not yet returned to their homes, and the Provisional Government are now endeavouring to ascertain the place of their detention, and will take all necessary steps to secure their prompt release when found. I am not yet in a position to make any further statement in regard to the case of the special constables arrested at Clones Station, except to say that His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Provisional and Northern Governments on the subject of their continued detention.
    Viscount CURZON: If I put this question down a week to-day, has the right hon. Gentleman any hope that he will be able to answer it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall know exactly what my state of hope is a week from to-day.
    Mr. MOLES: Is it not the fact that on Thursday last I handed to the right hon. Gentleman a list of the names of three men who he had previously assured the House had been released, and who were not released, and that no communication has been received from those three men for two weeks; and can he give an assurance that it will not be their dead bodies that are released?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is necessary to draw such a sinister conclusion as that.
    Mr. MOLES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in every instance up to this moment in which correspondence has ceased with these detained men, it has transpired that they have been murdered?

    MUNITIONS AND STORES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the House can be informed of the total amount of stores and munitions of all kinds transferred ostensibly to the Irish Provisional Government from all sources up to the present time; if he can state what stores or munitions have been sold since the evacuation of the forces from Southern Ireland commenced; and whether an assurance can be given that no further transfer shall take place unless with the consent of Parliament?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I stated the other day that I did not think it in the public interest to give exact catalogues of the arms handed over to Northern Ireland, and I think I must observe a similar reticence about the Southern Government at the present time. But I shall be prepared at a later date to disclose all particulars to the House, and in the meanwhile I accept full responsibility for the action taken. No munitions have been handed over by the Army. No sales of police stores have taken place, but Army stores have been sold to the value of £20,614. With regard to the last part of the question, I must claim the usual discretion accorded to the Executive.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Have we been paid yet for any of these stores which have been handed over?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. It is understood that such payment will be brought into the general account on the settlement between Great Britain and Ireland.
    Mr. LYNN: Are any of these stores in Limerick?

    POSTAGE STAMPS.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is continuing to supply Ireland with postage stamps which the Irish Provisional Government is now defacing by blocking out the head of His Majesty by an inscription in Erse, it being quite practicable to insert such a surcharge without defacing the central type of the stamp; and, if so, will he stop any further supply?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. Member for South Kensington.
    Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Erse word, which is believed to mean "Provisional," and which is stamped across His Majesty's head is by a mistake in the dictionary a word which really means "preposterous"?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will not enter into a dispute with my hon. Friend on this point.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he has come to any arrangement with the Postmaster-General of Dail Eireann that the provisional postage stamps as issued under the authority of Dail Eireann shall be the legal tender in Great Britain for the payment of small accounts and vice versa?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The overprinted stamps to which the hon. Member refers have been issued for the prepayment of postage on correspondence posted in Southern Ireland. Neither these stamps nor any other stamps are legal tender.

  IMMIGRATION, PALESTINE.
  Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to set up a joint board, includ-

  1059
  ing Jews and Arabs, to control immigration into Palestine; and, if so, what are to be the constitution and functions of this board?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is under consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  KENYA COLONY (BRITISH IMMIGRATION).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any and, if so, what restrictions on the emigration of British working men into Kenya Crown Colony or into the Tanganyika mandated territory?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Any restrictions which exist in the territories mentioned are of general application. In Kenya, if an immigrant is without visible means of support or likely to become a pauper or a public charge, he is a "prohibited immigrant" and his entry is forbidden. If an immigrant appears to come within this description he may be required to deposit a sum of Fl.375, which is returned to him if within six months he can show that he is not a "prohibited immigrant." Immigrants may also be refused entry on the ground of insanity, dangerous disease, criminal or moral obliquity, and the like. The regulations in Tanganyika territory are very similar, except that no sum is specified as a deposit, and all Europeans are required at present to obtain a permit of entry from the Secretary to the Administration.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that this penalty on British working men entering into Kenya Colony is peculiar to that particular Crown Colony?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I really do not think that any of the categories which I have read out are to be taken as describing the British working man, and I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should have drawn such an inference. It seems to be a very offensive inference, and it is one with which I should certainly not associate myself The conditions of Kenya Colony are very exceptional and peculiar, and nothing could be worse than to have a large number of completely destitute persons wandering about that country and, no doubt, coming into collision with the local natives.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that British immigrants are allowed in Kenya Colony provided that they can put down this sum of money, that that is peculiar to Kenya Colony, and that it is imposed there in order to give an excuse for keeping Indians out of that country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that that is the reason at all, but it is obvious that Kenya Colony, of which nine-tenths of the population are natives requires to be treated in a special way. We do not want to have incursions of white immigrants who cannot maintain themselves, or of Indians in a similar condition, who will undoubtedly be thrown on the top of the natives of the Colony.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: By what right do you say that poor Englishmen shall not go to that Colony, but that rich men may?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That sounds a very fine sentiment, but all the great Dominions require certain assurances that persons immigrating into their domain will be able to get settled down and earn a livelihood, and not simply become a charge.

  COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a statement by an hon. Member of this House to the effect that he is prepared to prove that the Communist movement is receiving financial help for propagandist purposes from the Soviet Government of Russia; to what extent is he prepared to supplement such information with that in his possession; and if he is now prepared to protect the working classes of this country from being exploited in the interests of foreign revolutionaries?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have not seen the proofs referred to in the first part of the question, and therefore do not know how far I am in a position to supplement them. I have always been prepared to assist in any action necessary to prevent incitements to violence in contravention of the law, but I have no power to stop mere propaganda of opinions, however false and harmful, even when the propagandists are in receipt of pay from foreign sources.

  RENT RESTRICTION ACT.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the many hardships and difficulties which have arisen in the administration and working of the Rent Restriction Act; whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the Act; and whether there is any intention of renewing the Acts?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have been asked to reply to this question. My attention has been called to certain difficulties which have arisen under the Rent Restriction Act, and the matter is receiving consideration, but I cannot at present make any statement on the subject. The Act expires in June, 1923, and the question of its continuance or otherwise has not yet arisen.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries of County Court judges, who are chiefly concerned in the administration of these Acts as to the difficulties which they experience?
  Sir A. MOND: Yes, Sir, I have made a number of inquiries.

  ARMS, CHELSEA AND WINDSOR (THEFT).
  Sir C. YATEasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to say why it was that in the prosecution of Hogan and Cooley, sentenced for theft of machine guns and rifles from Chelsea and Windsor barracks, the evidence implicating Fitzgerald was not made available when the matter was before the stipendiary magistrate; and whether, in view of the remarks of the judge at the trial at the Central Criminal Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions will now proceed against Fitzgerald for his alleged share in the offence charged against the two men above mentioned?
  Mr. SHORTT: All evidence then available was put before the magistrates when Fitzgerald was charged, and, as I stated in this House on the 14th ultimo, no fresh evidence has been obtained, since Fitzgerald was discharged by the magistrate, of such a nature as to justify the renewal of proceedings against him. The judge before whom Hogan and Cooley were
  1062
  tried reconsidered the view he expressed in the first instance, and agreed that the proper course had been taken.
  Sir C. YATE: Considering that the Secretary of State for War on 15th December gave an assurance that all the evidence in the case would be brought out, why was not Sergeant Roche's second and complete statement brought forward with the original statement in the Police Court?
  Mr. SHORTT: All evidence was brought forward which is admissible as evidence in a Court of Justice. What the hon. Baronet refers to is not evidence.
  Sir C. YATE: Why is it not evidence? Was not the man's confession evidence?
  Mr. SHORTT: It was not Fitzgerald's confession.
  Sir C. YATE: No, it was Sergeant Roche's confession. Why was it not brought forward?

  WOMEN POLICE PATROL.
  Captain BENNasked the Home Secretary what witnesses appeared before the Geddes Committee to give an account of the work of the women patrol; and whether any members of the women's force were called?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Committee consulted the Commissioner of Police and myself. No witnesses from the force were called. It must be remembered that the question was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State in a time of extreme financial stringency.
  Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Committee was in a position to come to a fair decision when he himself would not permit members of the women patrol to give evidence?
  Mr. SHORTT: There is no ground or foundation for the suggestion that I would not permit it. The Committee did not require it; they had all the evidence that they required.
  Captain BENN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that after consultation with him it was decided that no members of the patrol should give evidence?
  Mr. SHORTT: No, I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the Committee consulted the Commissioner of Police and myself, but I never said that they had asked permission to consult anyone else.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether, on the disbandment of the women patrols division of the Metropolitan Police, the dismissed policewomen will be entitled to life pensions at the rate of two-thirds of their salaries; whether, in view of the acknowledged value of their preventive work, and of the doubtful economy of their disbandment, he will reconsider his decision; what is the total annual cost of this force; and what will be the total annual cost for pensions when it is disbanded?
  Mr. SHORTT: The women patrols will not be entitled to pensions on disbandment. The recommendation of the Geddes Committee is one which, as I have already explained, I feel bound to carry out, and I regret I do not see my way to depart from that decision. The present cost of the patrols is about £27,000 per annum. There will be no charge for pensions.

  CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Home Secretary whether, when preparing further legislation for lighting of road vehicles, he will favourably consider the possibility of securing adequate protection to the pedal cyclist by means of an improved reflector at the rear of the machine, in view of the great practical difficulties experienced by most cyclists in keeping a rear light burning, even when using the most modern lamps, owing to the close proximity of the lamp to the ground, which often is of a most uneven and bumpy character?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I stated on 15th February, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), legislation is under consideration dealing with the whole question of the lighting of road vehicles. The point raised by my hon. Friend was not overlooked by the Departmental Committee on Lights on
  1064
  Vehicles, whose Report, dated 11th February, 1920 (Command Paper 659), was unfavourable to its adoption.
  Mr. THOMSON: Could the hon. Gentleman, before coming to a decision, make a personal experiment himself to see the difficulties that arise in keeping in a rear light?
  Mr. NEAL: I am informed that, given the adoption of a suitable lamp, some of which were produced to the Committee, that difficulty is not nearly so great as my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman try?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Ave we to understand that any Regulation in connection with rear lights can be introduced without this House having a previous opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. NEAL: No, it would require legislation.

  UNEMPLOYED PROCESSION, KENNINGTON.
  Mr. NAYLORasked the Home Secretary for what reason a detachment of mounted police broke up a procession of unemployed in Kennington Road, S.E., on Thursday evening, 23rd February; whether he is aware that a woman with an infant in her arms was ridden down; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the mounted police are instructed to act with due restraint on such occasions?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that at the demonstration on 23rd February no procession was broken up, and no mounted men were even present.

  ALIENS.

    DEPORTATION ORDERS.
    Mr. HALLSasked the Home Secretary how many aliens are now in prison awaiting deportation; and how many have been in prison over three months?
    Mr. SHORTT: 104 aliens are now in prison awaiting deportation. 70 are serving sentences not yet expired. Of

    1065
    the remainder, five have been in custody not under sentence for more than three months.
    Viscount CURZON: Were any of those Mormons?
    Mr. HALLSasked the Home Secretary how many deportation orders were made during the year 1921 in cases where the only offence alleged was non-compliance with the Order of 1920; and whether, in deciding as to deportation orders, he can make a distinction between the undesirable criminal aliens who have been convicted of offences involving moral turpitude, and the harmless and industrious aliens who may have committed technical breaches of registration regulations?
    Mr. SHORTT: 456 aliens were deported in 1921. I cannot say in how many cases the only offence alleged was non-compliance with the Aliens Order; and it often happens that cases, in which that might appear to be the only offence, disclose other circumstances justifying deportation. The distinction suggested in the latter part of the question is made wherever the facts admit of it.

    REGISTRATION (EXEMPTION).
    Mr. HALLSasked the Home Secretary whether he has made any and, if so, what orders under Article 14 of the Aliens Order, 1920, giving exemption from registration to persons of alien origin; and how many persons are affected thereby?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have granted exemption from registration to the following classes of aliens:

    (1) Persons locally naturalised as British subjects in any British Possession.

    (2) Foreign Consular officers who are Consuls de Carrière.

    (3) Subjects of native States in India; and

    (4) Wives of the men falling in the above three classes.

    In proper eases individual exemptions are granted to British-born women, alien by marriage, who are widowed, divorced, or otherwise permanently separated from their husbands, and to persons holding official positions, such as members of the Secretariat of the League of Nations.
    I cannot say exactly how many persons are covered by these exemptions.

    ADMISSION APPLICATION (MR. S. OPPENHEIM).
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Home Secretary whether, in the case of the application made by the relatives of Mr. Solomon Oppenheim, a person of Polish nationality now resident at Kertch, Russia, that ho may have permission to visit England for a period of two months to see his mother, who is 62 years of age and is in feeble health, to attend a wedding of his niece, and to transact matters of private business in England, permission will be accorded provided that satisfactory guarantees can be given that he will not in any way become chargeable to the British authorities?
    Mr. SHORTT: This man returned to Russia in 1917 under the Military Convention in preference to joining the British Army. As a solicitor acting for him has already been informed by my Department, if he can satisfy a British Consul that he served in the Russian army or in some allied force, he will be granted facilities for the journey to this country. If he is unable to do this, I cannot agree to his return.

  LEGISLATION BY REFERENCE.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an expert committee, including some Members of both Houses of Parliament, to consider what can best be done to remedy or lessen the evils of legislation by reference in future Acts of Parliament?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see how a committee could help in the matter, but the Attorney-General will be glad to confer with the hon. Member if he has any suggestions to make upon the subject.

  GENOA CONFERENCE.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to invite representatives of organised labour to join the British delegation to the Genoa Conference; and whether representatives of commercial or financial interests will be invited to attend in any capacity?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the composition of the British Delegation to the

  1067
  Genoa Conference has not yet been settled, I am not in a position to answer the question definitely; but I may say that representatives of commercial and financial interests are already being consulted on the preparation of material for Genoa. I may add that I understand that the International Labour Office propose to send six representatives to Genoa.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Which International Labour Office?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The body in connection with the League of Nations.

  HOUSES (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the hardship which will be inflicted on thousands of ex-service men if the unrestricted sale of houses built by local authorities under the Government's housing schemes is permitted, seeing that the tenants of these houses do not enjoy the protection of the Rents Restriction Acts with regard to security of tenure and consequently they could be evicted when a change of ownership took place; and, under these circumstances, if he will see that before any sales are authorised the rights of existing tenants to continued occupancy at rents not exceeding present scales are guaranteed?
  Sir A. MOND: I have been asked to reply. In considering what further steps are practicable for encouraging the sale of houses the fullest consideration will of course be given to the position of existing tenants.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Baronet be able to make a definite pronouncement as this matter is giving considerable concern to a number of ex-service men who are at present occupying these houses?
  Sir A. MOND: I do not think I can go any further than I have said.

  OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. BIGLANDasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government anticipate that they will be able to introduce the Bill promised in the King's Speech on overseas settlements and Empire migration before the Easter Recess?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that it will be possible to introduce the Bill before Easter, but I can give no pledge at present.

  SCIENTIFIC PLANT (CUSTOMS DELAYS).
  Sir C. OMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to secure that such delays as eight weeks do not occur between the arrival of a parcel of scientific plant from Germany, unprocurable in England, and its delivery to a university laboratory, which paid at once all dues demanded by the office in London?
  Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unaware of any reason, so far as the Customs Department is concerned, why such a delay should occur, provided the official requirements are complied with; but if my hon. Friend will give him particulars of the case to which he refers, he will gladly have enquiry made and inform him of the result.
  Dr. MURRAY: Is not the delay due to the Act which the right hon. Gentleman supported?

  GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (REDEMPTION).
  Mr. NAYLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the amounts of Government securities that could be redeemed each year, up to and including 1927, if the necessary money for redemption were available; and what amount of interest per annum would be saved by such repayments?
  Mr. YOUNG: I would refer the hon. Member to the figures given in Command Paper 249 of this year. Owing to the existence of options to the holders of existing Bonds to convert into longer dated Government issues, it is not possible to give a categorical answer to the question asked. All I can say is that if £1,000,000,000 of this debt could be redeemed out of revenue and not out of new borrowings, the saving in interest charge would be approximately £50,000,000 per annum.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the aggregate numbers of the persons employed under the Customs authorities, and what were their aggregate salaries at the beginning of January in each of the following years, 1914, 1921, and 1922; and what is the estimated increase in both personnel and annual salaries in consequence of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921?
    Mr. YOUNG: Particulars of the number of persons employed in the Customs and Excise Department at the beginning of January, 1914, are not available, but the numbers in August, 1914, were 10,802; in January, 1921, 12,625; and in January, 1922, 12,407. The aggregate annual salaries were £1,817,000 in January, 1914; £5,002,000 in January, 1921; and £4,379,000 in January, 1922. The two latter figures are inclusive of bonus. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on the 20th February to a question by the hon. Member for Dunfermline.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Does the hon. Gentleman still say there is no increase whatever to the Chancellor of the Exchequer owing to the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    Mr. YOUNG: There has been no increase. Speaking from memory, there were seven temporary clerks. The duties falling under the Safeguarding of Industries Act were distributed amongst the general staff of the Customs.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Does this show the numbers in 1914? Why are they not available?
    Mr. YOUNG: They are not available for the month mentioned in the question.

    SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the overtime at the Savings Bank Department is caused by arrears of balancing the postmasters' accounts; whether this work was ever performed by men and, if so, by what grade of men; why the men are not assisting the women to overtake the arrears, seeing that they were caused by the loan of women clerks to the men's branches during the War; what grade of
    1070
    women are employed on the work; and to which of the new grades are the men formerly employed and the women now employed on balancing assimilated?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The overtime referred to is mainly due to arrears of balancing work. This work was, up to 1909, divided between second division clerks and women clerks. Since then it has been normally performed by women clerks; a certain number of male clerks have assisted on overtime to overtake the arrears. The second division clerks employed on the work before 1909 have, under the general reorganisation scheme, been assimilated to the executive grade; and the women clerks now employed on the work have been provisionally assimilated to the clerical grade.

  CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) ACT.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the sums paid, and to be paid, out of public moneys to the occupiers of land in respect of the wheat and oat crops of 1921 under Section 2 of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921; how much of it has been paid up to date; how much still remains payable; and whether the total amount of the latter has now been finally ascertained?
  Mr. YOUNG: The total is about £18,182,000, of which payments in England and Wales up to the 4th instant and in Scotland up to the 3rd instant amounted to £17,996,410, and the amount still to be paid is estimated at £186,000. A final figure cannot yet be given under the latter head.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
  Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the co-operative movement in Great Britain is contributing its fair proportion of the burden of taxation now borne by businesses that trade for profit; and, if not, is it his intention to deal with the matter in the forthcoming Finance Bill?
  Mr. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham.
  Colonel NEWMAN: If the whole trade of the country were in the hands of the co-operative movement, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to balance his Budget?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have hypothetical questions.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MINERS, CORNWALL.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount which has been expended in relief of the unemployed Cornish miners, both out of national and local funds; and whether he can state the amount which was asked by way of subvention for the purpose of keeping the mines working?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the available information does not readily admit of an accurate calculation being made as regards the first part of the question, but if the hon. Member will put down questions to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour, they will no doubt give what figures they can. As regards the last part of the question, various requests or suggestions of a general character have been made from time to time that some financial assistance should be given to the industry. But no request for subvention has been made by the mines as a whole, nor has any scheme involving any definite sum of money been suggested for the mines as a whole.
    Sir E. NICHOLL: To what extent are they willing to help the Cornish miners, in view of the fact that some 16,000 of them are out of work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The present Minister is not capable of answering that question.

    SICKNESS, INCREASE.
    Sir R. CLOUGHasked the Minister of Health whether the medical reports and statistics obtainable in connection with the National Health Insurance Scheme indicate that any increase of
    1072
    sickness, particularly among women, is due to the prevalence of restricted means of livelihood arising from unemployment?
    Sir A. MOND: The figures available as to the claims for sickness benefit amongst approved societies comprising about half the total number of insured persons, show that there was an increase in the number of weeks for which benefit was paid in 1921 as compared with the previous year of 1·4 per cent. in the case of men and 8·4 per cent. in the case of women. Many factors must, however, be borne in mind in making a comparison between the figures for the two years, and, in particular, the serious epidemic of influenza about the end of the year 1921. The material in the possession of the Ministry does not make it possible to state to what extent the increase may have been attributable to the cause referred to by the hon. Member.

    PAYMENT OF BENEFIT, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. HAILWOOD(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that no money was received last Friday in Manchester to pay out benefits under the National Insurance scheme; that the unemployed were advised in large crowds to visit the guardians' relief offices; that resentment is felt amongst the unemployed at this stoppage of their benefit without warning, and that in one case a brick has been thrown through the window of the Employment Exchange; and can he explain why this stoppage of payment has occurred, and what remedy he proposes?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have made inquiries into this case and the facts are as follows: There was no shortage of money for the payment of benefit at the Manchester Exchange on the day in question—in fact, over £8,000 was paid out in benefit on that day. It is a fact that a considerable number of applicants have not yet had their cases for the six weeks' extension reviewed by the local employment committee, who are, of course, confronted with a very heavy task. Every effort is being made to have these cases reviewed so that, in appropriate cases, payment may be made this week.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): Did the same thing occur in Sheffield where the men did not receive their benefit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It might very well be that the cases for the six weeks' extension had not been reviewed by the local Unemployment Committee. They have a very heavy task, and we are grateful for the services which they have rendered. If they have not gone through the whole of the cases it is not through any want of endeavour on their part.
    Mr. HAYDAY: In view of the long period during which these men have suffered unemployment, and the hardship created by the period that elapsed last year before this six weeks was eventually conceded, will the right hon. Gentleman make some special effort to see that no delay that can be prevented by commencing the inquiry prior to the period of exhaustion shall be allowed to take place?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Those cases are cases in which there is some doubt. Where there is a perfectly plain case there is no delay. The voluntary workers on these committees have got a stupendous task, and they are performing it with great expedition.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Would it not be advisable to have the unemployed notified that a change has taken place in order that they will not be misled?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that these people have been misled. I think that these people are only too conscious beforehand that their six weeks' period is coming to an end.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Could there not be some special effort to prevent delay, even by giving greater powers to the exchange authorising them to review the cases with greater rapidity?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We take every care. This category is limited to those as to whom we desire to ascertain whether they really are eligible. These cases require a certain amount of investigation. All avoidable delay shall be prevented. We are doing all we possibly can.

  SEIZURE OF PAPERS (MR. E. T. WHITEHEAD).
  Mr. MALONEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Edgar T. Whithead, a member of the
  1074
  Workers' International Famine Relief Committee, was stopped by instructions of the Home Department on his arrival at Southampton from America on board the s. s. "Olympic," on Saturday, 25th February, and that all his papers, newspapers, notebooks, etc., were taken from him; if he will say whether any or all of these documents were considered illegal; if not, for what reason was all this private property retained; and under what laws and since when are such articles as American newspapers prohibited from being brought into this country?
  Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. E. T. Whitehead, of the Workers' International Relief Committee, on his return from America recently, was met at Southampton by members of Scotland Yard's special branch and relieved of all his papers, notebooks, documents, and also of his passport and credentials; that none of these documents have been returned to him; whether this action on the part of the special branch had been authorised by him; and, if so, on what Act of Parliament was his authorization to annex the property of a private citizen based?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is the case that Mr. Whitehead on arrival at Southampton was required to give up a number of papers in his possession before landing. This was not specifically authorised by me, but it was done at the instance of an officer of the special branch, who had grounds for thinking that Mr. Whitehead might be in possession of documents which it would be unlawful to circulate in this country. Some of the documents will, I understand, be returned to him. Others which appear to be of a seditious character will be retained, but if Mr. Whitehead disputes the legality of the action of the police it is open to him to take legal proceedings for their recovery.

  WOMEN'S TRAVELLING CERTIFI- CATES.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary, in connection with the issue of certificates by the Metropolitan police to women travelling to Brazil, whether any such certificates have been withheld; and, if so, how many and on what grounds?
  Major HILLSasked the Home Secretary on what grounds the Metropolitan police grant or withhold the certificates which women travelling to Brazil are now required by that Government to produce; have any such certificates been withheld; and, if so, how many?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Brazilian authorities require two certificates, a certificate of conduct and a certificate of vaccination. The police object strongly to giving such certificates, as it is no part of English police practice, but in order to assist intending passengers they have given certificates of conduct. In no case has such a certificate been refused. It is quite impossible for the police to give certificates of vaccination and they have refused to attempt to do so.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: They have never refused to give certificates of conduct?
  Mr. SHORTT: No.

  MORMON PROPAGANDA.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether he can give approximately the number of Mormon missionaries at present carrying out an active campaign in this country?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is difficult to say, but to the best of my information the number is small.

  COUNTY COURTS (CHARGES).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether all the charges in the County Courts have recently been increased; can he state approximately how much; is he aware that these increased charges operate very harshly on small and poor clients who use these Courts; is it proposed to maintain the same at the present rates; and what is the expected increased annual revenue from the new charges?
  Mr. YOUNG: The only change which has been made in the scale of fees charged in the County Court has been in respect of the fee in possession cases, where, by reason of the operation of the Increase of Rent Acts, the character of the proceedings has completely altered. A new
  1076
  method of reckoning the fee has, therefore, been substituted for the old. It is difficult to compare the old fee with the new. All the fees in the Court, including the fee already referred to, are now under the consideration of a Committee. The Committee is instructed to have regard to the interests of poor litigants. Until the Committee report, I cannot answer the remaining questions put by my hon. Friend, except by saying that the revenue of the Courts having very greatly declined, and the expenses having very greatly increased, some addition to the fees generally is necessary.

  METROPOLITAN AND CITY POLICE.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary if there is any difference of powers for police purposes in London between the Metropolitan and the City Police Forces; are their powers equal in all parts of the Metropolitan area or are the powers of the City police purely limited to the. City Corporation area; and would they be inoperative outside in the case of any crime?
  Mr. SHORTT: The powers of the two Police Forces are similar, and in most points identical. Normally each Force acts within its own area; but each Force can execute warrants in the area of the other, and in an emergency each Force can be authorised to act for the maintenance of order in the area of the other. At all times the two Forces maintain close co-operation for the detection of crime.

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTAL CHARGES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the high postal charges in this country are inducing an increasing number of British firms to post their circulars in Germany and other countries, with the result that the British Post Office performs the work of distributing this postal matter without receiving any revenue whatever therefrom; and whether he will therefore reduce the inducement to post circulars abroad by reducing the postal rates in this country?
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware

    1077
    that, owing to the high cost of postage in this country, English firms are posting their trade circulars from Berlin and other places on the Continent to addresses in England and elsewhere; and whether he is able to state whether, and, if so, when, he will be able to reduce the existing postal rates?
    Mr. HANNONasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he is aware that it is cheaper to send trade circulars in bulk to Germany for distribution from there by post to this country than to post them in England; how much of the difference in expense is due to the depreciation of the German exchange and how much to the lower postal rates prevailing in Germany;
    (2) whether he is aware that a firm of seed specialists of St. Albans, Herts, have published a circular stating that the expense of printing and posting their annual price list in England exceeds the estimated cost of printing and posting in Germany by £12,000, principally on account of the high postage rates now prevailing in this country: whether he is aware that large numbers of firms are placing printing orders abroad so as to avoid the heavy postal charges at home, and that unemployment in the printing trade is thus increased; and whether, in view of these facts, he is prepared to recommend a reduction of postal rates in the coming financial year?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware of the facts referred to. It is not the case that the cost of postage is the only or the principal factor which has led certain British firms to post their circulars in Germany and other European countries where the currency is depreciated. Postage rates in Germany have been increased from 16 to 24 times the pre-War charges, but the actual cost of postage payable by a sender in this country depends entirely on the rate of exchange. The question of a reduction of British postal charges is under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received representations from various public bodies and trade organisations, including the Federation of British Industries and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, urging upon him the serious
    1078
    effects upon the manufacturing and commercial enterprises of this country of the existing postal charges for letters, postcards, and printed matter; and whether, with a view to the encouragement of a revival of trade, he will take steps to bring an immediate reduction of those charges?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have received numerous representations on this subject, and, as I have already stated, the question of the reduction of postal charges is under the present consideration of the Government.

    WIRELESS KECEIVING APPARATUS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the development of wireless telegraphy under private enterprise in the United States; whether he is aware that the number of wireless telephone receiving sets has increased in one year from 50,000 to 600,000, and the entire country has been plotted into circuits with a central station so that every rural and urban home may obtain, at a cost below that of an ordinary gramophone, weather forecasts and business information as to prices and market conditions as well as records of sermons, lectures, and entertainments; and whether he will endeavour to provide comparable facilities under the Post Office monopoly in this country?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware that there has been a considerable increase in the number of private wireless installations in the United States, but I have no definite information as to the number of such installations, or as regards the arrangements for providing the facilities described by the hon. Member. I understand, however, that in consequence of the danger of interference with Government and commercial communications, the United States Government are considering the restriction of the use of wireless telephone for other purposes. Permission to use wireless receiving apparatus for experimental purposes is granted with comparative freedom in this country, the number of installations authorised being at present 7,500. The provision of facilities for broadcasting messages by wireless is under consideration.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: How can you interfere with the Government wireless by means of a receiving set?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I can give one instance which occurred recently in the United States, where the Australian and New Zealand Governments have both complained that their communications were interfered with by an amateur in California trying to wireless a local concert.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: That was not an amateur receiving set.

    SUNDAY POST (LONDON AREA).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether in London and surburban London there are now postal collections varying from 10 p.m. to midnight on Sundays; whether letters collected at these times are delivered in the London postal area by the first delivery on Monday mornings; whether the postmen who make such collections, and the sorters who deal with the letters, are deemed to be doing Sunday labour; if so, what extra pay do they receive for their duties; and can he state, approximately, how many men are so employed on Sundays in the London postal area?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The answers to the first three parts of the question are in the affirmative, except as regards the sorters, who do not attend before midnight. Attendance on Sunday between midnight and midnight is paid for at rate and a half. The approximate number of postmen employed in making the collections is 1,100.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (AUXILIARY SORTERS).
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the result of his inquiry into the subject of ex-service men employed in his Department as part-time auxiliary sorters for three nights a week, amounting to 12 hours altogether, who are, by reason of the fact that they are employed on alternate nights, unable to qualify for unemployment insurance benefit, although they are compelled to pay insurance contributions; and whether, in view of the fact that the law provides for the payment of unemployment insurance benefit to part-time workers, he will now make the necessary arrangements to enable these men to qualify?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: A rearrangement of the duties has been authorised which will, I hope, have the result desired.

  FOREIGN EGGS (MARKING).
  Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to encourage egg-production as a home industry, he will consider the issue of regulations for the marking of foreign eggs?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. If foreign eggs are described as fresh or new laid, that description must, under the Regulations of the Sale of Food Order, 1921, also include the word "imported" or words disclosing the country of origin.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the approaching election, will the hon. Gentleman consider the dating of all eggs?

  HOME GROWN SUGAR, LIMITED.
  Mr. MOSLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether Home Grown Sugar, Limited, has ever paid any dividend cither on the capital advanced by the Government or on that subscribed by the public; whether any and, if so, what sums have been paid in interest by the Government under their guarantee to the company; and whether the Government is continuing to pay such interest?
  Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Home Grown Sugar, Limited, was incorporated on 13th February, 1920. The first accounts were made up to 31st March, 1921, and there being no profit available for distribution, the Government paid £9,186 8s. 6d. to Home Grown Sugar, Limited, in June last as interest on the shares subscribed by the public in accordance with their guarantee to the company. The Government will continue to pay such interest, if necessary, until 1930 unless the company ceases operations as sugar beet manufacturers or goes into liquidation.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount estimated required for compensation for animals slaughtered under the foot-and-mouth disease regulations; from what fund is the compensation drawn; and whether any portion of the compensation falls on the local rates?
  Major BARNSTON: The estimated amount of compensation for animals slaughtered in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the basis of the number of cases confirmed up to the present and deducting the estimated receipts from salvage is £599,100. Payment is made from the Cattle Pleuropneumonia Account for Great Britain, which is fed partly from Parliamentary grants and partly from drafts on the Local Taxation Accounts. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, the amount of the Parliamentary grant in respect of foot-and-mouth disease in any one year is limited to £100,000, but in view of the heavy cost of the present series of outbreaks and of the serious inroad which would have to be made on the Local Taxation Accounts the Government have decided to ask Parliament to authorise an increase in the grant from the Exchequer up to 50 per cent, of the net expenditure.

  POULTRY KEEPING.
  Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received complaints of the excessive assessment of land used for poultry breeding; and whether he can issue an Order that such land should be assessed on the lower scale as agricultural land?
  Sir A. MOND: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no power to issue such an Order as that suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of a concerted movement by local authorities to prevent poultry keeping in urban and semi-urban areas; and, as such action would seriously reduce home food production, whether he will issue Regulations to prevent undue interference by local authorities with poultry keeping?
  Sir A. MOND: I have no power to issue such Regulations, and I have no evidence of a concerted movement against poultry keeping among local authorities. In the past 18 months six specific complaints against local authorities have been received through the National Poultry Council or the Ministry of Agriculture, with both of whom my Department is in close touch in these matters.

  IMPORTS (DELAYS).
  Mr. KILEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the complaint concerning the delivery of a parcel addressed to Messrs. Stewart and M'Donald, Limited, Glasgow, which arrived in Grimsby on 5th November, 1921, and was advised by his Department to Stewart and M'Donald on 3rd February, 1922, in a communication dated 12th January; is he aware that Stewart and M'Donald refused to accept delivery of the goods, as they were for the Christmas trade of 1921; and, in view of the repeated allegations of delays occasioned by the holding up of goods for examination and collection of duties, is he now prepared to appoint a Committee, consisting of persons who are experienced in the export and import trade, so as to devise some method by which these delays can be reduced?
  Mr. YOUNG: My attention has been called to the case in question. It is not the case, as implied in the question, that no notice of arrival was sent to the addressee until last month, the usual notice having been despatched on the 12th November. The notice received on the 3rd February was a duplicate, which was forwarded on receipt of an inquiry from the addressee through the postal authorities. As regards the last part of the question, I have investigated a large-number of these complaints, and the proportion in which the responsibility for any undue delay rests with the Customs is extremely small. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to appoint the suggested Committee.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PLANT AND MATERIALS (PRICES).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary for Mines the difference in price of pit timber, iron rails, wagons, tubs, and

    1083
    pulleys, and the general plant connected with, the proper working of coal mines in Great Britain and Ireland at the present date and in June, 1914, respectively; what is the price now of pit oils, grease, and tallow, and in June, 1914, respectively; and what is the increase in the cost of a ton of coal between these two dates?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I have not the detailed information for which the hon. Member asks; the nearest approach that I can make to answering his question is to inform him that in the year 1914 the average cost of raising a ton of coal was 8s. 9½d., of which 2s. 1½d. represented costs other than wages and royalties; and that in the quarter ending 30th September, 1921, the latest period for which figures are available, the corresponding figures were 24s. 1d. and 6s. 7d. respectively.

    ROYALTIES, WAYLEAVES, AND FREIGHTS.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary for Mines if he can say what the royalty, rents, and wayleaves were in 1914 and now in the County of Northumberland; what were the ships' freights in June, 1914, and now; and what were the railway carriage rates in 1914 and now; and can he give the total royalties, wayleaves, carriage, and freights paid for the year 1921 in each district and for the country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no information as to the amount of the royalties, rents and wayleaves in Northumberland in 1914; in the quarter ended September, 1921, which is the latest period for which particulars are available, they amounted to 10½d. per ton for coal raised. I am advised that ships' freights from Blyth to London in June, 1914, were 2s. 9d. to 3s. per ton, as compared with 5s. to 5s. 6d. per ton now. The railway rate on coal from collieries in the neighbourhood of Newcastle-on-Tyne to London was 9s. 6d. per ton in June, 1914, and at present it is 13s. 6d. per ton. Particulars of the royalties, etc., paid in each district in the first nine months of 1921 will be found in the quarterly summaries published by the Mines Department. I have no similar information about carriage and freights.

    SAFETY SHOT-FIRING APPLIANCES.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that miners'
    1084
    organisations throughout the country, including the General Federation of the Colliery Firemen's Deputies and Examiners' Association, has at one time or another passed resolutions urging the Government to make compulsory the adoption of some approved safety shot-firing appliance; whether he is aware that there is in existence at least one safety shot-firing appliance, approved by the Government after exhaustive official trials and tests, which is specially devised to prevent accidents happening while handling and preparing the charge or ramming the hole, enabling the detonator to be inserted into the hole after ramming instead of before, enabling the detonator to be withdrawn in the event of a misfired shot, and in the event of conditions arising which render it advisable to postpone firing the shot to temporarily withdraw the detonator and reinsert same when the danger is past; and whether he will consider the advisability of making the use of this appliance compulsory?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir. There are two types of shot-firing appliances of this kind the use of which is permitted and their progress has been watched, but is disappointing. My information is that there are only about a dozen of these appliances now in use throughout the country, and this basis of experience is too narrow to enable my expert advisers to judge whether the claims made by the inventors of the appliances have been established in actual practice. I am considering whether it is not possible to broaden this basis of experience.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (IRELAND).
Mr. DEVLIN: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I sent a question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I forwarded a copy to you, stating that I proposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman to-day to give some explanation as to the condition of affairs in the city of Belfast under which attacks have been made upon innocent people, the hospital to which the wounded were brought has been attacked, and soldiers have been wounded. You sent the question back to me, Sir, and stated in your letter that you could not allow me to ask this question because it was a matter for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I want to know why

1085
it is that, although the Order Paper is covered each day with questions dealing with occurrences in Southern Ireland—although these questions are not only put down on the Order Paper, but are permitted by you to be asked in the House—I am denied the only right I have, and the only privilege I possess, as the representative of these people in Belfast, to put down similar questions to a Minister in this House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The reason why I did not accept the question sent to me by the hon. Member is this. By Statute, Parliament has transferred the responsibility for law and order in a certain part of Ireland to the Northern Parliament, and it is therefore in that Parliament that questions relating to that administration should be raised. In the ease of Southern Ireland, until the present Bill be passed we still hold a technical responsibility. I admit it appears at first sight anomalous, and I am glad the hon. Member has put this question to me. Until the present Bill be passed, although the Provisional Government may be in being, we hold a technical responsibility, and that is the reason why this apparently dissimilar treatment exists for a short time.
Lieut.-Colonel W. ASHLEY: On a point of Order. In view of the ruling you have just given, Sir, supposing someone domiciled in England felt himself aggrieved by anything that happened in Belfast, would there be a right to put a question in this House, seeing that the aggrieved person was domiciled in this country.
Mr. SPEAKER: That would depend entirely on whether it was a grievance as to which this Ministry had a responsibility. I could not give a general answer to the question, which is rather vague.
Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether, although the functions of the Northern Parliament are recognised by this Parliament, this House does not still retain its authority over the military in Belfast? One of the matters which I wanted to have investigated and clarified was with reference to the wounding of two soldiers of the Norfolk Regiment. In these circumstances is the Secretary for War not responsible for the conduct of military administration in Ireland, and would he not
1086
be entitled to deal with that particular portion of my question?
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before you answer that, Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that during the Debates in Committee, in reference to the Irish Free State Bill, a question was raised regarding the protection of the shores of Ulster, and an Amendment was proposed for the purpose of securing more adequate protection, as the Proposers thought, than could be got by leaving the matter undetermined. The Colonial Secretary, in answer to this suggestion, said that the Royal Navy remained the absolute master and the uncontrolled master—or some such terms as these—of the naval forces of the Crown, for the protection of the shores of Northern Ireland. I do not contest that statement, nor do I criticise it, but I ask whether, by parity of reasoning, where representatives of the military forces of the Empire are endangered and destroyed, the authority of the Imperial Government with regard to the conduct of military affairs in Belfast does not remain untouched.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that there is any relevancy to the present question in what the hon. Member has just told me. In any case, as I am not present at the Committee, I can say nothing about what proceedings have taken place in Committee of the House. With regard to the second question put to me by the hon. Member for Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), there is a distinction between responsibility for the military forces and responsibility, for the police and for general law and order in Ireland. The question, as he submitted it to me, was not addressed to the War Office, but to the Secretary for the Colonies. Even with regard to the military, the responsibility for calling in the military lies with the civil power in Northern Ireland, as in this country; and it is only when a question comes before me, for which the Secretary for War here can properly take responsibility, that I can admit such a question with regard to the military.
Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think you are aware of it, Sir, but I ought to inform you that last week, I put down a question dealing with the military administration in Ulster. I addressed the question

1087
to the Secretary for War, and I got a written communication from him two days afterwards, that I ought to address my question to the Secretary for the Colonies.
Mr. DONALD: Is it not a fact that when military were being murdered in Southern Ireland, not a solitary word of sympathy came from the hon. Member for Falls?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is the very kind of unpleasant controversy which leads to the questions now put to me. With regard to the question last week, I myself declined a question which was proposed to be put on the Order Paper by the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), for the same reason as I have just stated. I said then that it was only when there was a special responsibility on the part of the Secretary for War—I assumed it was not so in this case—that questions could be allowed in the House.
Mr. DEVLIN: I want to be perfectly clear on the matter. Do I understand that if I want to raise, in the form of a question, any of these matters of which I complain, with regard to military administration or military activities in Ulster, I am to put down my question to the Secretary for War and not to the Secretary for the Colonies, and, if so, whether such questions will be put upon the Paper? There is no use putting Members to the trouble of writing out questions, and preparing them, and then telling them a week afterwards that these questions cannot be asked.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will offer a question addressed to the Secretary for War on any question affecting that Minister's responsibility, I will, if it be a proper question, admit it to the Order Paper.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: This raises a very interesting and important question and, on a point of Order, may I ask whether there is any Standing Order or whether it has ever been specifically laid down, even with regard to the self-governing Dominions, that it is not open to Members of this House to put questions on the subject of the Dominions, for instance, of Canada or of Australia, to the Colonial Secretary and even on foreign countries to the Foreign Secretary?
1088
Is the purpose of questions in this House not to obtain information which may be of use to Members, and is the responsibility of the Secretary for the Colonies not such as to oblige him to give information to Members of this House even as to occurrences in the self-governing Dominions?
Mr. SPEAKER: It would be the very destruction of our system of responsible Government in the Empire were we to have questions put in this House about the administration of Ministers in the self-governing Dominions. I am quite sure my predecessor gave that ruling in my hearing very frequently, and it has been an established rule for a great many years.
Lord R. CECIL: This matter is so important that, perhaps, you will permit me to put a further question in order to elucidate the matter. I quite recognise and understand your ruling that it is impossible to discuss in this House, by question and answer, matters which come exclusively within the cognizance of Ministers of our Dominions; but where events take place in our Dominions which raise questions beyond mere internal order, questions which create difficulties with neighbouring States or difficulties, as in this ease, with Southern Ireland, surely, I would very respectfully submit, it would be right and proper for this House to take into consideration that aspect, at any rate, of the matter. May I suggest, very respectfully, that that is particularly true in the case of Northern Ireland, when we have the happiness of having Members in this House from that district. Even after the arrangements made by the Act of 1920 are complete, there will still be representatives of Northern Ireland in this House, who will sit here for all purposes and be able to ask any question they like about any matter of administration in this country.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord will see, I think, that whether or not a matter in the administration of a self-governing Dominion affects another part of the Empire or of the world is a question of personal opinion. There can scarcely be a matter on which some people might not hold that it will have such an effect. I think, therefore, if we followed that reasoning, we should be drawn into a dangerous position.
Mr. DEVLIN: May I respectfully point out that there is no analogy between the position of a self-governing colony and the position of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is represented in this House, and this House therefore has authority. The Northern Parliament having power in this House, this House ought to recognise, and it ought to have power over Northern Ireland. I want to know whether the Catholics of Belfast are to continue to be butchered in the fashion that they are now being butchered without our having power to defend them. There is no Ulster Parliament meeting. This Parliament is meeting now, and I want to have some redress in this matter.
Mr. HAILWOOD: Are we to take it that hon. Members from Ulster are here to interfere and criticise with regard to the rest of the British Empire, and that we are not to be able to ask questions about Ulster?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said A that by Statute we have provided for the transfer of responsibility for law and order to a Parliament sitting in Northern Ireland. Having done that, it is quite impossible for us to have questions and answers on a subject for which Ministers on this Bench do not hold responsibility. I cannot say more than that.
Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not further argue the question.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Bill,
Stirling Corporation (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Tees Conservancy Act, 1919." [Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords.]

TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PAWNBROKERS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 35.]
Bill, as Amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

CLINICAL THERMOMETERS BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.
  UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

    MISCELLANEOUS WAR SERVICES (FOREIGN OFFICE).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary gum, not exceeding £465,868, 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, 1922, for the Cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services."
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I think that some further explanation than that which appears on the printed Estimate itself is necessary in regard to the items comprised in this Vote. I can assure the Committee that it is not with any feelings of complete satisfaction that I introduce these items for their consideration. The Committee will have noticed that they are described as "Miscellaneous War Services," and I think it is possible to say that none of them, except perhaps one, comes within the ordinary routine of the Foreign Office. With one exception, every one of them may fairly be described as arising out of the War or out of warlike conditions, and I am glad to think that there are not many of them that are likely to be brought before the Committee again in the future. The Committee will remember, in respect of the first of the two items, under "(a) Advances to Persia," that at the time the Anglo-Persian Agreement was still in being, a military mission was sent to Teheran with a view to making elaborate arrangements for the formation of a uniform military force in Persia. That mission was sent, as many members of the Committee know, in advance of any immediate prospect of the acceptance of the Anglo - Persian Agreement. The mission was presided over by Brigadier-General Dickinson and he did a great deal of pioneer work, but, owing to the
    1112
    fact that the Anglo-Persian Agreement fell through, nothing has come of their labours. The Committee will notice that the item is one of £7,500, another moiety being paid by the Indian Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask a question with regard to the figures?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be very much obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will ask me questions afterwards
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Might I ask, for our guidance, whether we are going to have a general Debate on the first Vote, or what is going to happen? I only want to safeguard myself against losing the opportunity of criticising one of the items. The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a general speech on the whole thing.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is making a general statement. A subsequent Amendment might raise a point of Order as to what questions could be raised afterwards. Nothing but an explanation of the Supplementary Estimate is now being made.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to raise a point about these Estimates. I have here the original Estimates which show the amount as £225,000. In this Supplementary Estimate the sum is £299,000. There seems to be some mistake, and, as the hon. Gentleman declines to give way, I would like to know if you can give me any guidance.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the better course would be to hear first what the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has to say. If, after he has made his explanation, the Committee want any further information, they can then seek it, but it is quite irregular to interrupt a Minister who is giving information to the Committee with regard to a Vote. I do not see, until he has made his explanation, what further information I can give.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I submit that when there is an apparent discrepancy between the original and the Supplementary Estimate, and it is a question of figures and has nothing to do with policy, we should be able to ask for some enlightenment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. and gallant Member know that the Minister is not going to explain the figures?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is nothing to prevent my speaking again, and, if there be any further enlightenment that any hon. Member desires to have in regard to any one of these items, I shall be very glad to give such further information as is in my possession. With regard to the second item under the heading "A," there is a charge of £30,000. Those Members of the Committee who are familiar with recent events in Persia will not, I think, need much enlightenment as to what this item means. There was among the forces of the Persian Empire one known as the Cossack Division, a body of troops which had been in existence for some 30 or 40 years, consisting of Persian soldiers under Russian officers. When General Ironside took over the command of the British forces in Northern Persia at the end of 1920, he formed the opinion that this body of Persian Cossacks was doubtful in its allegiance and a possible danger to the British forces in Persia. He therefore entirely concurred in the action taken by the Shah when he proposed to disband that force. It was necessary, however, that these Russian officers and their families should be removed from Persia. Accordingly, they were taken in the first instance to Bagdad and were subsequently dispersed, mainly to Vladivostok, others to Constantinople, some to America, and some to South Africa. The expenditure to which this charge relates was incurred during their stay in Iraq and in transporting them to their several destinations. The War Office defrayed the charge in the first instance, and now the Foreign Office is called upon to reimburse the War Office.
    I come now to the second item "B," which is one of far greater interest to the Members of the Committee. I am sorry that I have once more to come to the Committee for money in this connection. I have, on more than one occasion, explained how His Majesty's Government came to incur this grave and expensive obligation. It was at the time when General Denikin's movement in South Russia was failing The British High Commissioner in the Black Sea gave an undertaking, as to the wisdom of which I will say nothing to-day, that
    1114
    His Majesty's Government would become responsible for the officers and families of General Denikin's force, then undoubtedly in imminent danger of destruction if captured by the Bolshevist forces.
    Mr. G. MURRAY: Who was the British High Commissioner?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder). Originally we were responsible for 10,000 people, and after being kept for some time in the Prinkipo Islands and elsewhere they were transferred to permanent camps in Egypt, Cyprus, and Malta, There were, I say, 10,000 of them at first, but they now number some 5,000, a great proportion of them having left our charge, on account of having, I understand, joined Wrangel's movement before the subsequent failure of that movement. The annual cost—I do not want to hide any one of these unpalatable considerations from the Committee—is at the rate of £145,000 at the present time, and altogether His Majesty's Government will have spent, if the Committee grant the sum in the Estimate to-day, a sum of £1,100,000.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On Wrangel's refugees?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Denikin's.
    Captain W. BENN: Backed up by Churchill!
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the Committee sanctions the grant to-day it will be £1,100,000. I need not assure the Committee that this matter has been one of the most earnest and most urgent consideration to the Foreign Office and myself ever since we found ourselves saddled with it, and the Committee does not need, I am sure, any assurance from me that we have turned over in our minds and explored every possible expedient for bringing an end to this grave obligation. It has been felt by His Majesty's Government—and this view, I think, will commend itself to the Committee—that it was impossible abruptly and without consideration to rid ourselves of this obligation. Here are 5,000 people in camps in Egypt, Cyprus, and Serbia, people of all ages and of both sexes, and it is impossible to say that at a certain moment, on and after such and such a

    1115
    day, we will not pay another penny in support of these refugees. Having accepted the obligation, my view has always been, and the view of the Government has always been, that we must honourably discharge ourselves, of it, and in a practical and businesslike way. An arrangement was concluded—I am not sure of the actual date; a year and a half ago, I think—with the Serbian Government, by which that Government undertook to receive some 2,000 of these refugees on payment, and these refugees are now costing us—I can give the complete figures later—6s. a week each. That is a very low charge, but the Committee is aware how advantageous the exchange is to us in Serbia. We had hoped that the Serbian Government would have seen its way to taking the whole of these refugees, but unhappily—I am sorry there is not a bright spot in any part of the picture—when we looked forward with some confidence to a completion of that transference, although it would not rid us of the whole of our financial liability, there came the collapse of that other Russian general, General Wrangel, and immediately, as Members of the Committee are aware, the whole of Eastern Europe became inundated with what I may call Wrangel refugees. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Where are they now?"] Many of them are in the Balkan States, but I should say this—and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) will bear me out—that General Wrangel has been instrumental in disposing of a great number of these people and has laboured unceasingly to that end, and that it is largely on account of the difficulty of accommodating this vast number of Wrangel refugees, and it is because of the inundation of possible outlets by Wrangel refugees, that our difficulties have been so greatly increased.
    We explored the expedient of seeking for these unhappy people an amnesty from the Soviet Government. There was some correspondence, and the Soviet Government in the end said they would send a Commission to these various camps, and they indicated that they would pick and choose amongst the refugees those whom they would receive back into Russia. That scheme did not commend itself to the Government. It did not promise much in the way of
    1116
    limiting our liability, and, as a matter of fact, it never took concrete shape or form at all, because at the end of the correspondence M. Tchitcherin informed our agent in Moscow, Mr. Hodgson, that they had in no circumstances any intention of taking back any of our refugees in Egypt, Cyprus or Serbia. There is a further provision which is at present under the consideration of the League of Nations. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea would like to speak, and if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, he is in a much better position than. I am to describe exactly what this proposal is. It would be of the greatest advantage if the League of Nations could see its way, receiving, of course, adequate financial support from the countries interested, to take in hand the whole of this problem—not only our 5,000 refugees, who are but a small proportion of the number of Russian refugees in different parts of Europe—and by a comprehensive scheme put them out, among those Balkan countries, chiefly, which are in need of population and which are sympathetic to the people of the Slav race. We are asking for £300,000, and, as I say, I deeply regret having to come to the Committee to ask for this sum. I cannot promise the Committee that this is the last occasion on which a Minister standing at this box will make a similar request, but if we could conclude an arrangement with the Serbian Government under which they would take the whole of our refugees on payment of a lump sum—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who are "our" refugees?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I say that for the purpose of convenience.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Churchill's refugees.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Winston's children.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: If, under one of these arrangements or the other, we could discharge ourselves of the whole liability, and do it honourably, I think it would be a most satisfactory conclusion to a chapter in our financial history which I am unable to regard with much satisfaction. I pass from that question—and I must apologise to the Committee for the discursive nature of my remarks; they must be discursive, because the Estimate itself is

    1117
    discursive—to a very small item in relation to some of the others, namely, Item J, and I will only say, in regard to that, that when the Armenian Republic, now so unhappily extinguished, seemed to have some prospect of maintaining itself against the forces attacking it both by sea and land, and at a time when many Members of this House were urging His Majesty's Government to render every kind of assistance to the Armenians, they were furnished by His Majesty's Navy with a large quantity of oil fuel, the cost of which, as the Committee observes, is estimated at £16,368. That sum has been discharged, of course, by the Admiralty, and we are now asked to reimburse the Admiralty. At the end of the note in the printed Estimate it says:
    "The claim has been noted for presentation to any future stable Government of Armenia—"
    but I cannot confidently advise the Committee to look forward in the near future to a repayment of this sum.
    Mr. FRANCE: What did they do with the oil fuel?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: It was for the purposes of transport. I now come to Subhead L, "Turks in Malta." In 1919 there were in Constantinople some 120 Turks who were in custody on account of alleged cruelties to British prisoners and on account of massacres during the War. The cases relating to these prisoners dragged in the Constantinople courts, as other cases have dragged in other courts, and there seemed to be no prospect of justice, and a pretty certain prospect of the prisoners being released or escaping. They were, therefore, removed to Malta. Later on, in the early part of last year, took place, as the Committee will remember, the London Conference, at which Bekir Sami Bey was the Kemalist envoy. Unfortunately, the Kemalists held at that time some 30 British prisoners, and negotiations were entered into with Bekir Sami Bey with a view to a partial exchange, or rather, I should say, to an exchange of all British prisoners for a certain number of Turkish prisoners, and it was, indeed, agreed by the Kemalist envoy that, in return for the release of 64 of the Turkish prisoners in Malta, all the British prisoners in Anatolia should be released, and His Majesty's Government proceeded to im-
    1118
    plement the bargain by immediately releasing 40 of the Turkish prisoners in Malta.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Including the worst butchers of the Armenians.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not quite sure of that, but when Bekir Sami Bey returned to Anatolia, the Kemalist Assembly repudiated the contract altogether. Concurrently with all this, we were receiving a serious account of the hardships that were being endured by the British prisoners in Kemalist hands. Members of the Committee will probably remember the accounts that appeared at that time in the Press and the questions which at that time were asked in this House. To cut this story short, His Majesty's Government agreed in the end to return all the Turkish prisoners from Malta, no matter what the charges were hanging over their heads, in exchange for the 30 British prisoners, and there can be no doubt, in this Assembly at least, that we got the best of the bargain.
    I come to Item M—Repatriation of Turks from the Yemen. I see in the Committee several Members who are very familiar with the extremely tangled politics of Arabia. Next door to the Protectorate of Aden is the territory of the Imam of Sana'a, one of those picturesque potentates whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has described, and made familiar in the House of Commons. This dignitary was animated by hostility to the Entente and to this country throughout the War, and continued his hostility long after the Armistice. Indeed, as recently as the spring of 1920, he invaded the Aden Protectorate. The cause of his hostility was attributed chiefly to the fact that he had with him all this time the late Turkish Vali, or Governor, and a large number of Turkish officials and soldiers, and it was considered that the influence of these people on the Imam was entirely disadvantageous to him, and certainly disadvantageous to us. So, at the very pressing request—the repeated request—of the Resident at Aden, it was decided to repatriate these troublesome Turkish elements, and that is the reason why I am inviting the Committee to furnish the sum of £10,000.
    I do not think I need dwell on Item N—Liquidation of the Restriction of Enemy Supplies Department. It is a satisfactory

    1119
    item. The reason why the liquidation of the Restriction of Enemy Supplies Department has only just ceased to exist was because certain States, and notably Norway, were late in presenting final accounts. It is satisfactory to note that, although the cost of this liquidation is £2,000, during the time of the liquidation the Department was successful in bringing into the Exchequer a sum of £40,000.
    The next item, "Relief in Russia," is a rather misleading title, as one might associate with it something quite different, and of vastly greater import than the matter to which this item relates. The Committee will be aware that, prior to the return of the British colony there, as the result of what are known as the O'Grady-Litvinoff conversations, the Rev. Mr. North, Chaplain in Moscow, and other ladies and gentlemen, devoted themselves whole-heartedly to succouring and helping the British colony. In doing so, they were obliged to borrow money on their note of hand alone, and they borrowed this money of British subjects in Russia, and more largely of foreign subjects in Russia. I have already presented the Committee with Estimates amounting to £95,000 for the reimbursement of these sums, and I am now asking for a further sum of £15,000. Here, again, I will be perfectly frank with the Committee. I am not able to state that this item will never come up again for consideration in this House, because some of the accounts relating to this matter have not yet been presented.
    I have only one other subject to mention to the Committee. It is that described as "Advances to Bessarabian Co-operative Societies." The Committee will realise that their astonishment was nothing like equal to mine when this item of expenditure was presented to my consideration. I do not think I can do better, and I am sure I might do very much worse, than, with your indulgence and with that of the Committee, read, or at least consult, the statement in my notes on this difficult matter. In the winter of 1917–18 Rumania had been forced to sign an armistice with the Central Powers. The Russian army was non-existent. The Allied representatives at Jassy were practically cut off from the world, and even telegraphic communication with their Governments became precarious. They
    1120
    were in such a position that they could only hope to minimise the advantages which the enemy might obtain from the situation in that part of the world. Early in 1918 a proposal was made to the French and British Ministers to advance money for the purpose of purchasing foodstuffs in Bessarabia and the Ukraine, where large hidden stocks existed which might at any moment have fallen into the hands of the enemy. The Ministers wired to their Governments for authority to advance a sum of 3,000,000 lei for this purpose, but the telegram never arrived. Being forced to take a decision, they agreed to authorise the expenditure, the British Legation advancing the funds, as the French had none available at that moment. The two Governments were, however, jointly responsible for the money.
    The 3,000,000 lei were employed as follows: (1) 1,100,000 lei were advanced to the Bessarabian Co-operative Societies, partly to enable them to assist in the purchase of food-stuffs, etc, and partly to prevent their appealing to the Central Powers for assistance. Half this sum has been repaid, but the financial position of the societies was so shaken by the fall of the rouble, that it was considered advisable to accord them a longer period for the payment of the remainder. (2) Roughly, 1,000,000 lei were used to purchase 500,000 roubles, which were then handed over to the Rumanian Red Cross, for the purchase of surgical instruments, medical stores, etc., which would otherwise have fallen into the hands of the enemy. This advance has been repaid. (3) The remaining 900,000 lei were expended for similar purposes through different channels, and nearly half this has been repaid. The position, therefore, is, that of the original advance of 3,000,000 lei guaranteed by the two Governments, more than two-thirds have been repaid, and it is hoped that it may be found possible to recover nearly half the amount still owing. I will add that I have good reason to believe that the French Government will reimburse us as to one-half of the £60,000 appearing on the Paper.
    Captain BENN: If it be a joint guarantee, why has not the French Government paid one-half?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have said that I have every reason to hope, and good

    1121
    reason to believe, that she will pay. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend need be under any misapprehension.
    Mr. J. WALLACE: It was three and a half years ago.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: When one is dealing with an item of this kind, one can only wish that it had disappeared with many other well-intentioned War efforts under the form of Votes of Credit in the old days when this House disbursed immense sums of money, and was not very particular as to what the expenditure was upon. Far be it from me to criticise, as, indeed, I do not, any action His Majesty's representatives took on this occasion. Many such steps had to be taken, as my Noble Friend opposite well knows, during the War, well-intentioned, sometimes brilliantly successful, often without result at all. Therefore, I would invite the Committee to regard this last item merely as a War item, and one in regard to which it is impossible to apply the ordinary canons of prudent finance. I have gone over these items as it seemed to me necessary, but I have by no means developed each and every one of them as some Members of the Committee might wish. I have, in regard to all of them, except the minor ones, dealt, as I suppose, sufficiently for the moment. Following the discussion, I shall be glad to expand any explanation which I have given on any point, if desired to do so by any Member of the Committee.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: We can agree, I think, as to the commendable brevity of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. In regard to the last item which he mentioned, I cannot pretend to any clear recollection of it at this distance of time. If, as my hon. Friend said, it was one of the many measures taken as part of the blockade operations, then there was a sub-Department of the Ministry whose business, if my memory serves me rightly, was to hinder the purchase of valuable supplies by the enemy by purchasing them over the heads of the enemy, and this no doubt is one of the transactions of the time. A commercial transaction carried out under those conditions is not always very successful from the point of view of the profit to be made, but I think those who were concerned with these transactions may say without any exaggeration that of all the operations of the
    1122
    War, operations of this kind were the cheapest for the military results produced of any of the military operations carried out in any quarter. On the whole, I have no criticism as to this particular item, nor have I anything to say about the three Items near—M, N and O. I do not propose to make any lengthy observations on the other items, but they do constitute a somewhat melancholy story taken together. Let me take them in the order of my hon. Friend.
    In the first place there is A, Advances to Persia. There is £37,500 additional required, part of amount of the revised Estimate here of £337,000, which money has been absolutely thrown away as much as if we had pitched it into the sea. We have no kind of result of that payment so far as I know. This £37,000 is part of the price of the abortive agreement with Persia. It would not be in order for me to go into the policy of that agreement, and I shall not do so, but this Vote raises it in a secondary way. In one sentence, however, one may say that no diplomatic transaction was ever more lightly undertaken without the least hope of ultimate success or more unfortunately carried through than the transaction with which this item is concerned. I pass that, and come to Item B—the Maintenance of Russian Refugees. Here, again, is a melancholy story. I should be the last to say anything to indicate any want of appreciation of the terrible sufferings which these refugees have undergone. They had to leave their country with no prospect of immediate return, or perhaps for many years. Their condition must have been a terrible one. Still, I cannot think the Government have come very well out of the transaction. My hon. Friend tells us that there already has been spent £1,100,000, including this £300,000 additional sum required. Now he is asking leave to spend another £300,000. I understand that these refugees have been just dumped down in camps, some in Egypt, some in Cyprus, and the remainder in Serbia. It would appear that very few of these refugees have been put to work, even now. What steps have the Government taken from the very outset to arrive at a permanent settlement of this question? It is really no kindness to the refugees themselves merely to put them down into a camp and keep them there paying them only

    1123
    enough to keep them alive. It is an extremely harsh life and destructive of morale to keep these people doing absolutely nothing, and crowded together in a camp, and paying them just enough, as I say, to keep them alive in that condition.
    What steps, I would like to ask the Government, have they really taken, or have they attempted to take to provide some kind of permanent settlement for these people? Have they considered the question whether they could not be settled on some land. There are, unfortunately, many deserted or semi-deserted lands in that part of Europe. Have they considered it? The camps alone are a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with this matter. Some of us are wondering whether this was not a mistake in the early policy of the Government in relation to these thousands of people. I should like to ask how many have been put to profitable employment during all these years they have been under the charge of the Government? My hon. Friend says he hopes the League of Nations will undertake this matter and that later a complete and world-wide settlement of the refugees will take place. Nobody will welcome that more than I if it can be done, but it is a very large job indeed. I am not going to deal with it. I trust my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) will enlighten us on this matter.
    I do, however, venture respectfully to protest against the attitude our Government take up with regard to these matters in relation to the League of Nations. They seem to regard the League of Nations as a kind of entity altogether apart from themselves. That really is not right. You cannot make the system of the League of Nations work along those lines. The League of Nations is a league of nations of which this nation is one, and this Government is responsible to this House for action they take in the League of Nations; unless they can show that the action taken by the League is contrary to their wish and against their protest, they are responsible to this House for the action which the League itself is taking. I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it is not enough merely to say: "We propose to hand this matter over to the League," with the
    1124
    hope that they will find out some system under which it can be dealt with. I say it is part of their duty to have a plan which they will press upon the League and be prepared to back it up with finance and diplomatic assistance so as to enable the League to carry out the policy which it has been suggested they should carry out.
    It is perfectly foolish, as has been done more than once with regard to important matters, to pass a Resolution handing over some troublesome matter to the League of Nations and then to say: "Now we have got rid of that and we can go on with some other matter." That is no use at all. The League does not exist except in so far as the States composing it are prepared to give it the means of life. I ask the right hon. Gentleman some time or other to tell us more in detail what he thinks the League ought to do, and what assistance the Government propose to give it to enable it to do its work. Item J—Oil for Armenia—brings up painful memories to those Members of the Committee who have looked into the subject. This is part of the sum of money which was spent in sending material to assist the Armenians in their struggle for national existence against the Kemalist Turks.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am not sure whether it was not against the Bolshevists.
    5.0 P.M.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think the money was sent for that purpose, but in this matter, whoever it may have been they were fighting, it is not a question of whether you have more sympathy with the Turks than with the Armenians; this is a question of what we have done to discharge an obligation of honour which we undertook during the War on behalf of the Armenians. There is no doubt about that at all. It is as clear as possible. These people were told officially and unofficially by us and the French—for the French are quite as much in it as we are—they were told in effect: "If you will assist us in our war against the Turks, we will take care that you will have your national independence, and be protected." I must honestly say, partly from one cause and another, partly because we did not appreciate the importance of that obligation at the time when we really could have effectively discharged it, we have, in fact, done almost nothing.

    1125
    It is quite true that this sum and other sums have been sent to Armenia. We also supplied the Armenians with a number of Ross rifles without the slightest instruction to them how to use them, nor were they furnished with an instructor or instructors. These weapons, I understand, are not very easy to use, though they are very good when you know how to manage them. I confess that this item of £16,000 will bring some unhappy memories of one of the most discreditable and unfortunate chapters in our recent history. I will not say very much on the last item—that referring to the maintenance of Turks at Malta. It appears to me an extraordinary series of transactions. First, in a somewhat high-handed way, 120 Turks are taken from Constantinople. I daresay many deserved to be carried off. However, we seem to have held them there and even seem to have made an agreement with an envoy—who apparently had no power given by his principals—and allowed 40 of them to go, for which we got nothing at all. Then we had another shot. Why we let them go without providing for an exchange in some neutral place, or one of the many devices usually adopted in exchanging prisoners with an enemy or ex-enemy, I do not know, but apparently, we did that, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to give further explanations. But ultimately the Turks, by simply holding out, succeeded in getting the release of the whole of the 120, many of them charged with the most appalling kind of crimes, to which the Germans appeared to be saints and angels, and those men were released and returned to their homes, no doubt loaded with honours and wealth—and we have got absolutely nothing out of this. I must say these four items taken together—advances to Persia, the Russian refugees, the Armenians, and the Turks at Malta, are reminders of diplomatic and administrative failure which are really not creditable to the British Government. I do not propose to move a reduction myself at this stage. I think they are matters which require some later stage of discussion and ampler defence than my hon. Friend has been able to give. He has shown a very wise discretion in dealing with the matters in the way he did.
    Sir S. HOARE: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that these Votes are very depressing indeed. If they had been brought before the Committee in normal times, I can imagine every kind of criticism being legitimately urged against them. But they are war obligations. I think, in every case, we are carrying out obligations which are the direct result of the War, or the events immediately following the War, and however much we may object to paying the bill to-day, we have got to pay it, because we entered into definite obligations on each of these questions. I could criticise several of them. I could criticise, for instance, the last item, which concerns the purchase of corn in Rumania. I was in Rumania at the time that the corn was being purchased, and it was obvious to me that we were not getting our money's worth. We were buying corn at a fantastic price. We were not getting delivery of it, and eventually practically all the corn for which we had paid at this exorbitant price got into the hands of the Germans. At any ordinary times I can imagine a Committee of this House raising a unanimous opposition to a Vote of that kind, but the answer is the answer given just now by the Noble Lord. It was one of those actions that we had to take at a most critical moment—perhaps the most critical moment of all during the War. It was a failure, but even though it was a failure, even though I criticised it at the time very strongly, I say now that we have to pay the bill and to accept it as one of the unsuccessful things that we did at a very difficult moment in the country's history.
    I come to another item upon which I wish to say a word or two—the question of Russian refugees. It so happens that for the last three or four months I have been engaged in a mission of the League of Nations with reference to the Russian refugees in Eastern Europe, and I have had an opportunity of seeing the problem at first hand. It is one of the most depressing problems of the moment in the whole world—the fact that there should be in Europe these hundreds of thousands of men and women driven from their own country, torn up from their own surroundings and dumped down in all kinds of unsuitable places. The refugees about whom we are talking in Malta and Cyprus and Egypt are one part of the

    1127
    great problem of refugees in Eastern and Central Europe. It cannot be isolated from the big general problem. These particular Russians we undertook to take away from Russia as the result of an undertaking made by an hon. Member of this House. I do not say that that undertaking was a wise or unwise one, but we did make it, and we have to carry it out. It means that we are responsible for some ten thousand Russians now living in Malta, Cyprus and Egypt. The question for this Committee to consider is not whether we were wise in undertaking this obligation, but how best to carry it out. The Vote has been before the Committee before, and the Committee has had an opportunity of discussing the general question as to whether or not the obligation was right.
    The only question before the Committee to-day is how best to carry it out. Let me give the Committee one or two suggestions drawn from the experience I have gained in examining the refugee problem in Constantinople and the Balkans. As I say, first of all, what one hopes will eventually happen, is that a large number of these refugees will return to Russia. The problem can only really be solved by their eventual return. But I am afraid that it is idle to talk, at the moment, of any possibility of repatriation on a large scale. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already pointed out, the Bolshevik Government has, for some reason or another, given us no encouragement, when we discussed with them the possibility of repatriating those of the refugees who wish to return to Russia. I say, "Those who wish to return to Russia," because there can be no question of making any of those men return to Russia against their will. So far, for some reason or another, the Bolshevik Government have obstructed even the repatriation of those refugees who wish to return. I do not know whether it is for political or what reasons, but the fact is so. Moreover, the Committee should also remember that, quite apart from political considerations, it is an almost hopeless moment now to repatriate many thousands of refugees when Russia is in the throes of the terrible famine.
    In dealing with this question to-day you must put from your minds the possibility
    1128
    of an immediate return to Russia of the refugees in any considerable numbers, but I should like to say in this connection that I think the Foreign Office would be well advised to bring this question before the Genoa Conference. It is a question that they should discuss with the representatives of the Bolshevik Government. They should find out from the Bolshevist Government whether they are prepared now to admit back any of the refugees who wish to go, and, if so, on what terms; and, if they are prepared to admit them back, what safeguards they are prepared to give to ensure their proper treatment when they return. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he speaks further on this question, will be able to tell the Committee that this is one of the questions which will be discussed at the instigation of the British Government at the Genoa Conference. Let me pass from that to a side of the question which, for the moment, is even more important. The Noble Lord just now asked certain very pertinent questions as to what had been the policy of the British Government towards these refugees since they had been under our care. He asked, very rightly, whether we had attempted to obtain work for them, and what steps we had taken to put them into conditions where they could be self-supporting. That should be a very important and urgent question. My chief experience has been gained from an examination of the refugee problem in the Balkans, but I know something of the problem in Cyprus and Egypt and Malta as well, and I am inclined to think that we have not done so much as we could in that respect. We have taken these thousands of refugees and dumped them down altogether into certain concentration camps and have attempted to transfer them in big amorphous blocks into other countries. I do not believe you can deal with the problem in that way at all. First of all, you have got to divide the refugees into a number of categories. You will never get a Balkan country, or any other country, at the present moment, to accept from Egypt, Cyprus or Malta any big, indeterminate block of refugees. You have first to divide them into categories, and you will then have a chance, when you negotiate with the Governments, of being able to take in a certain class, for instance, agricultural labourers, or students, or doctors.

    1129
    Looking back, it seems to me that the Government have not been active enough in that respect. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that there has been a census taken of these people. By the policy we are pursuing we shall be making things worse, because every month these people become more and more dependent upon charity, and they are becoming demoralised. I saw that result in Constantinople, where I met thousands of Russians who were dependent upon charity, and side by side with them were a number of other Russians doling out charity of the most demoralising kind. It is most important that these refugees should be moved out of Malta, Cyprus and Egypt, where they are now dumped together, and they should be sent to countries where they are no longer dependent upon private charity, and where, at any rate, they have some chance of finding work.
    I know that it is a very difficult thing at this moment to get any country to accept refugees of any kind. I know that the Balkan countries have accepted a large number; Serbia has more than 100,000 of these refugees at the present time, and in Bulgaria there are something like 50,000; in Czecho-Slovakia there are also several thousand, and I think we ought to be grateful to those countries for what they have done in this respect, because they have done a great deal. I know it is a great thing to ask them to do more, especially at a moment when their financies are in a bad way, and whore with some of them we know there is a good deal of unemployment. In view of the obvious difficulty of getting these countries to accept a further number of refugees, I have come to the conclusion that the only possibility of success is to bring together all the various Governments concerned in the problem at a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, in order to see whether the problem could not be liquidated by each of these Governments undertaking to deal with some limited and definite share of the problem.
    That means, first of all, that the British Government should press for an immediate meeting of the Council of the League. It means also that the British Government should persist in its offer to make over its obligation in regard to the
    1130
    Denikin refugees to the League of Nations upon a satisfactory payment. Having done that, I believe that if the Council came together, and it was shown that by each of the Balkan Governments taking over certain categories of refugees, and putting up a limited amount of money at the same time, by this common effort being made, not in the distant future, but immediately, these 10,000 British-aided refugees, together with a larger number of other refugees in Constantinople, could be settled in the various Slav countries. There they would have a Slav atmosphere; the Russians learn the various Slav languages very quickly in two or three weeks, and they find themselves in more or less familiar surroundings. What is more, they are there in large units, and although obviously they would be much happier if they could live peacefully in Russia, those in Serbia and Bulgaria are living under respectable conditions. That is a great thing, for they are not for the most part dependent upon charity.
    In view of that fact, I should feel much happier over this Vote which we are about to pass, because it is a war obligation, if the Under-Secretary could tell us before the end of the Debate that he accepts this suggestion which I venture to make, that the British Government should press for a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at which the whole of this problem should be considered as a whole. Let me remind the Committee that it would be a very natural thing to do, because the League has undertaken an obligation to the Russian refugees. A year ago it formed a department to deal with the Russian refugees and appointed Dr. Nansen as High Commissioner. Therefore you have an obligation on the part of the League to deal with this problem. I want the Council of the League to meet, and I wish the representatives of the various Governments to have the situation put before them quite definitely and clearly. I know that a certain amount of money will have to be found, but if the Great Powers are not prepared to find the money, and if the Slav Governments are not prepared to help, I say that it would be much better that the League should clearly say that owing to the want of support from the various Governments, it cannot continue this obligation. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, I know, be taking most

    1131
    useful action if he could bring the weight of our Foreign Office to bear in favour of having an immediate meeting of the Council for this purpose. If the Council meets, we shall then know whether this problem can be liquidated or not. I believe that it can be liquidated and if that is so, then this Committee will be spared the constant recurrence of a Vote of this kind all the more unsatisfactory from the fact that we know that the longer the question is allowed to drift, the more difficult becomes its solution and the more demoralised the refugees become.
    Let me summarise what I suggest to the hon. Gentleman. First of all he should carry through the negotiations with the League under which the League should take over upon a fixed payment the obligation of the Denikin refugees. More important than that, he should press for a meeting of the Council of the League at which all the countries concerned should be put in a position of having this question set definitely and clearly before them. We shall then be taking a really valuable step towards liquidating a problem in relation to which at the present moment every kind of objection can be raised.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to reduce Item A (Advances to Persia) by £10.
    I do not propose now to deal with the question which is at present exercising the minds of the Members of the Committee, and I shall not go into the interesting details and ramifications of the White Internationale because we can consider that question later. I am moving this Amendment in order to indicate the attitude of the Opposition towards the Persian Vote.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, if a reduction proposed in this form will confine the discussion to this particular item. If so, may I suggest, in the interests of a general Debate, that the purpose of the hon. and gallant Member would be served by removing a reduction of the whole Vote?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: With all due deference, I think we had better dispose of the Persian question first, and get a Division upon it in order to indicate our position, and then we can move a further
    1132
    Amendment on Item B which is the question which has been discussed here to-day. We can move a second reduction on that Vote, and I am sure we shall not take very long in settling the Persian question.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is it not essential that a reduction should be moved of the whole Vote, and not of any one particular item?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is in order to move a reduction of a Sub-head.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wish to indicate what we think in relation to this squandering of money in Persia.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is quite in order in moving his Amendment. I called upon him because I saw that he had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce another Vote by £100, and I thought he was going to move that Amendment. He is, however, quite in order in moving this Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to get a definite vote on this particular item. The Committee want to feel that this is the winding-up of the squandering of our money in Persia. Before we take a vote on it we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the sum total that has been spent in Persia. Our Persian policy has been par excellence the policy of the Foreign Office in connection with the Anglo-Persian Agreement, which anyone who knew Persia would have been well aware that Persia would never agree to. They sent a Mission to Teheran before the Agreement was signed and in advance of any need for such a Mission. They spent money on the gigantic road to Meshed. They spent money on making roads in various parts of Persia, and I should imagine that this Persian adventure has cost us over £100,000,000 from first to last. We had the occupation of Erivan and the expedition to Baku, and all this has been the result of miscalculation on the part of our Foreign Office.
    What has that miscalculation cost us altogether? What have the Foreign Office to say as to the complete collapse of the plans which they proposed? We know that one result, unaccountable from the Foreign Office point of view, has been that Persia has suddenly turned round and is preferring the Bolsheviks to the British. That was brought about by the

    1133
    policy which we are now bewailing from a financial point of view. That policy was not only bad for our pockets but it was ruinous for our prestige in Persia and to the general interest of the British Empire. By that policy you set the Persians against us, and threw them into the arms of the Bolsheviks. You wasted unknown millions of money upon it and have probably spent £20,000,000 sterling on it since the War ended. What return have we got? What is the position we see in Persia to-day? The English people are suspected at a time when the English prestige is at its nadir, and we are in a worse position in Persia than we were before the War. We on these Benches suspected that the Foreign Office under the rulership of Lord Curzon wished to bring in Persia as one of the protected States within the British Empire. We suspected that policy just as the Persians suspected it. The gamble was not worth it. It has resulted in the loss of our money and of our reputation in the East, and our prestige and position are now far lower than they were before the policy was undertaken.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to ask a question on the figures which are rather bewildering. On this Item A the original Estimate shows a sum of £225,000, but the Supplementary Estimate brings it up to £299,599. There has apparently been an extra expenditure of £72,599, of which I cannot find any account. There has been no Supplementary Vote, and I cannot trace the sum in any Estimate. Is the figure a misprint? I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote should be in a position to give information on this point. At any rate, I do not intend to let this matter of £75,000 rest at this stage of the proceedings. I want to get some explanation in regard to it. I also want to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has just said. This Vote represents the wreckage of one of the most disastrous shipwrecks of British policy which we have had the misfortune to deal with. We have been refused opportunity to discuss in this House the Persian problem; we have been deprived of explanations of what has been done, and the veil of censorship has been drawn over the Persian landscape. The democracy of this country has been hoodwinked
    1134
    and robbed, and now we are paying the cost. Hon. Members will observe that we are now Voting a total of over £300,000. Last year we were forced to vote under the guillotine no less than £1,590,000.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not in order in discussing the original Vote, or the Vote of last year. At the present time the Committee has before it a Vote of £7,500 for expenditure incurred in connection with the Anglo-Persian Military Commission and a sum of £30,000 for expenditure incurred in connection with the maintenance of ex-members of the Cossack Division and the transporting them to Siberia. On those two items a reduction of £10 has been moved and that is the only question now before the Committee.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought I would be in order in drawing attention to the fact that there have been big Votes previously to this one, but I do not wish to pursue that subject. The sum we are now asked for, £7,500, is a relic, apparently, of the policy of attempting to absorb an independent Asiatic people against their will, and secondly, of the policy of continually trying to extend the strategic defences of India. We have got a good frontier in India, but the strategists of the War Office and of the Foreign Office want to take in Persia. The next demand is to take in the Caucasus, and that has been part of a deliberate Foreign Office policy. There was a Treaty signed, as I understand, between ourselves and our French Allies under the terms of which we were to have the Caucasus and they were to have the Ukraine. I quite expect that the hon. Gentleman will deny that.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that I would deny a statement of fact?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, that was not my meaning. The hon. Member may not have known of this secret Treaty, but it is whispered to-day in Europe that such a Treaty exists, and I myself believe there is something in it. I do know this, that when we were negotiating the Trade Agreement with the Russian Government, one of our spheres of influence which we asked the Russians not to interfere with was the Caucasus, which never belonged to us, but which was for so many years a part of the

    1135
    Russian Empire. All this, as I have said, is a part of the insane and hopeless policy of continually extending our strategic frontier. Before I leave this item may I make one further remark. In connection with this strategic political policy, if I may so describe it, running right through is the slimy parti-coloured trail of oil. First of all it was said we wanted oil for our Navy, and therefore we were to develop the oilfields in Southern Persia. Then it was proposed to take over other oilfields further on. The Persian oilfields were to be fully exploited by Engish capitalists, but the expropriation of them was to be paid for by the British taxpayer instead of by the dividend receivers who surely could have made financial arrangements with the Persian sheiks and the Persian Government. I think we may consider that in that matter we have been let off lightly in not being let in for a first-class war.
    My hon. and gallant Friend did not refer to the second portion of this Item A, but, as I presume the whole Debate will be disposed of on this Amendment, it will be difficult to return to it later on, and, therefore, I should like to ask for information about the expenditure incurred in connection with the maintenance of ex-members of the Cossack division, and to meet the cost of transporting them and their families to Siberia. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) mentioned this as a solution of the refugee problem, and I want to get some information as to the transportation of these fighting men to Siberia. The Government picked out the active and fighting members of the refugees and sent them to Vladivostok, where they were disembarked and placed under the orders of the Government set up there by the Japanese. In answer to the questions which have been addressed to them, the Government have said that these men were sent to Vladivostok in our ships and at our expense, but they did not take any arms with them. Possibly that was a wise provision. I would not like to have had them on my ship had they been armed. I would have kept the arms under my own eye. When they got there they were incorporated in the White Revolutionary Army, a pin-pricking army, and as great an irritant to Russia as the armies of Wrangel and Denikin, and other fleeting adventurers who marched across
    1136
    the stage with bloodstained steps. This army in which they are being incorporated is being clothed and provided with motor transport by the Japanese, who are holding on to that province for purposes which have never been explained, which are very obscure, and which I doubt not are reprehensible. We are lending ourselves to this policy by sending ex-officers of the Cossack division to Vladivostok, and we are supplying material for this Japanese policy of encroaching on Siberia. We shall no doubt have to pay for it in years to come, as we have had to pay for other failures of policy, and I am afraid we are not going to succeed in our treatment of Siberia which, when it is strong enough, will overthrow, no doubt, the results of the Anglo-Japanese policy there.
    I wish to ask a question on this expenditure of £30,000. Have we any assurance that these ex-members of the Cossack division will settle down peaceably out there, or are they going to join the counter-revolutionary army? Have we any guarantees for their good behaviour? The Russian Bolshevist Government asked for guarantees that the refugees sent from Constantinople to the Crimea should not take part in any uprisings. That was quite reasonable. Did we ask for any sort of undertaking, either from the Japanese Government or from the Government in Vladivostock, that these ex-officers would not be used for fighting the Russian people, with whom we have just concluded a Trade Agreement? Secondly, are these the last of the Russian Cossacks that we are going to transport to Vladivostock? Is this the last expenditure for transporting these people all the way round to Eastern Siberia—a very expensive matter? The next thing that will happen will be that, if Japanese support is finally withdrawn—and there is a continual agitation on the part of the Japanese democrats for the withdrawal of these troops—they will become refugees once more, and it will be said that, as the English sent these men and their families to Siberia, they must send ships and take them away and pay for them. Then the whole trouble will be on our hands once more, and some future Government—in the near future, I hope—will be faced with an obligation to pay out further money for these ex-officers. I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman will reply to some of

    1137
    my more caustic remarks as to the policy in Persia, for which I certainly do not hold him responsible, although I do hold the Government responsible, but I hope that hon. Members who have any regard for British prestige in the East will join with my hon. Friends of the Labour party in voting for this modest reduction. I remember that years ago, when I was in the Persian Gulf, Englishmen stood the highest among all nations in Persian opinion, and the respect, and almost reverence, in which the English were held, was something of which we might be proud. To-day, however, an Englishman can hardly show his face in Persia. That also affects our position in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and we lose trade, and unemployment is caused in this country. The Government is responsible for that state of affairs, and it is for them to remedy it.
    Colonel L. WARD: I do not know if I shall be in order, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give us any idea of the number of people in Europe and Asia whom the taxpayers of this country are at present supporting. There are some half-dozen cases in which we are keeping a large proportion of the population of this or that part of the world, and finding them a livelihood. To begin with, we have this £30,000 which is to be voted for this Cossack division. A little further on in the Estimate we find another item of £300,000 for maintenance of Russian refugees. Later there is> £25,000 for maintenance of Turks at Malta, and another £10,000 for the repatriation of Turks from the Yemen. Then there is £15,000 for relief in Russia, including relief to neutral subjects, and there is also an item of £60,000 for advances to Bessarabian co-operative societies. All of these items are on this particular Vote. In addition, we are making enormous grants to Austria, £12,000,000 having already been given. I should like, therefore, to ask if the hon. Gentleman can give us any idea of the number of these pensioners whom this country is at present supporting. It is important that we should know that before we vote this particular sum of £30,000.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the item of £30,000 in connection with the maintenance of ex-members of the Cossack Division. I think it is a proper item, and
    1138
    I am glad that the Government have agreed to carry out the movement of the members of this division. On the other hand, I am strongly against the spending of money on military expeditions in Persia. We have quite enough to do to look after ourselves at home, without going into Persia. My idea is that we should hold on to what we have got, and not try to get things that we have not got. It appears to me, however, that the Government are doing the exact contrary. I am rather in a difficulty as to how to vote in this matter. I should like to vote with the Government on the one part, and against them on the other. As it is all on one Vote, and as I hold very strong opinions against the waste of money in these foreign military expeditions, I think that, in the circumstances, I shall have to vote against the Government; but it must be understood that I am in no way against the provision of the money for the cost of the maintenance of ex members of the Cossack division.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I find myself in a somewhat similar position to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) Consistently, ever since the War, I have spoken and voted in the House of Commons against the Persian policy of the Government. I believe that this item of £7,500 does not really arise out of the War, but out of the post-war policy of the present Foreign Secretary in Persia. I believe, and always have believed, that that policy was based upon the Foreign Secretary's personal knowledge of Persia 25 years ago, and upon a complete misapprehension of the change that has come over public opinion and public feeling in Persia during the interval. I am sure that the whole Anglo-Persian Agreement, as it is called, has done us irreparable damage in Persia.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow the discussion to proceed along that line. The hon. Member was referring to the item of £7,500, but he is going now a good deal beyond that.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This £7,500 is the third or fourth Vote that we had to give in connection with this Anglo-Persian business, and I profoundly hope that it is the last money that we are going to throw away on that policy. Every penny of it is good money thrown after

    1139
    bad. I should not have taken part in the Debate but for the fact that the Under-Secretary did not reply on that point, and has not told us frankly how far we are still committed in Persia for items like this. I agree with the right hon. Baronet that the £30,000 for the Russian Cossack division, which we advised should be disbanded in pursuit of our policy in Persia, is in a somewhat different category, but when items like this £7,500 come up here again and again it does seem to me to call for the strongest possible protest on the part of all Members who are interested in the Middle East, The whole story has been most unfortunate, as the Foreign Secretary is bound to admit in another place. Therefore, if I am called upon to give a vote on that individual item of £7,500, I shall continue to vote, as I have done in the past, against the expenditure of any such money in Persia.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There are two questions that I should like to ask the Under-Secretary. If I understand this Vote aright, the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), as to the Government's policy in Persia, has really nothing to do with this item of £7,500, which is for the maintenance of some military Mission in Persia. I take it that it was a sort of post of observation for the time being, largely for military purposes, and that it has nothing whatever to do with the actual policy of this country in Persia. If that be the case, I should most certainly vote for it, and I think that everyone would be in favour of doing so. Immediately after the War, this frontier was in an extremely disturbed state, and if any collection of hostile forces had taken place there, and there had been no military representative or Commission of ours to watch developments, the House of Commons would have been entitled to censure both the Military authorities and the Foreign Office for neglecting our interests in such a regard. Now that the policy of this country with reference to Persia has become more settled, I think the Committee would be neglecting one of its duties if it refused to vote this money.
    6.0 P.M.
    With reference to the expenditure in connection with the maintenance of ex-members of the Cossack Division, and
    1140
    their transport with their families to. Siberia, if it is the maintenance that has accrued as the result of our request to them during the time they have been in Persia, and during their transportation from Persia to Vladivostok, I should also vote in favour of it, and I think the Committee is entitled to do so. Therefore, I would ask whether this Vote has anything to do with the maintenance of the Cossack Division and their families after their arrival at Vladivostock. That would be undertaking a responsibility which, in the first place, I do not think the country ought to undertake, and for which, secondly, there is no necessity, seeing that it is to Siberia that they are going. The Committee may take it for granted that Siberia is a great centre of Cossack power, and that neither the Bolshevists nor the Far Eastern Republic has had the slightest effect upon them. Nobody has attempted to nationalise their land or steal their horses, because anyone who did so would very soon lose their heads, whether they were Bolshevist Commissars or anyone else. It is only the poor isolated peasant of Siberia who has had his farm robbed by Bolshevist Commissars> and who has suffered by the ordinary Bolshevist regime. The Cossack has never been interfered with; he reigns supreme, as he did under the Czars. His lands are inviolate, for the simple reason that probably even the whole Soviet Army would not be able to dispossess him of his property. Therefore, the Soviet rule and Communism and all that sort of stuff does not at all affect the Cossacks in Siberia. The moment these Cossacks arrive there, no matter to what part of the country they may belong, or how many there are of them, they will be immediately absorbed in the circles to which they belong, and there will be no difficulty as to their maintenance afterwards. Therefore, I am sure that, if a farthing of this money were being spent for, their maintenance—and I have the honour to be one of them, by-the-by—it would be money uselessly spent, because the land is illimitable. The Cossack farms have never been interfered with. Not a single Cossack child has died as the result of starvation, because they have tilled their own land and prevented the Soviets from stealing—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. As we have been told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that the money

    1141
    was simply for maintaining them while in Persia and sending them to Vladivostok, is it in order to discuss at this length the possibility of having money spent on them after they have been there when we know that such money has not been spent upon them?
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: On that point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) referred to what these Cossacks were going to do when they got to Vladivostok.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is addressing me on a point of Order. Had he not better let me, rule, and then get on? I think the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is partly right and the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) is partly right and partly wrong. He is transgressing slightly. If he will keep to the question of transporting the Cossack Division to Siberia, he will be more in order than in dealing with what they are going to do when they get there.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I was only following what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The result of allowing one hon. Member to trespass is that others claim the right to trespass as well. It may be the fault of the Chair for not calling Members to order sooner.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: It was suggested really that what the Government were doing in transporting these Cossacks to Vladivostok is that they should be absorbed into the Cossack community in Siberia, that they were really a sort of White Army and that the Government were really transferring them there for that purpose. There is no necessity to suggest anything of the kind. I am sure that could not be. The Cossack has not fought much, except in some cases like Denikin and one or two others, in the south. They have not fought much against the Bolsheviks because they have not been interfered with, and there is no prospect that they will take up the position that is suggested when they arrive at Vladivostok. They will not interfere in any way, so far as I know, and I am in constant communication with
    1142
    the authorities at Vladivostok and also in Central Siberia. I am sure these men will be welcomed there. They will not stop in Vladivostok and become the tools of the Japanese, as has been suggested, and therefore the money should be voted for their transport.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy) asked me to explain the Estimate as it is printed on the Paper. The original Estimate for 1921–22 was £225,000, and we had a Supplementary Estimate last July for £74,599. We are now asking for £37,500, and that makes up the total of £337,099. If this were the right occasion I should be disposed to take very serious exception to some of the criticisms which have been passed on the Persian policy of the Government. It is the habit of some Members of the House to treat the policy of the Secretary of State as if it were his particular private policy, based on information somewhat out of date. The policy in Persia has been the policy of this country for at least 100 years under some of the most illustrious Secretaries of State this country has ever had. The suggestion made by one hon. Member, that there was a trail of oil over the policy of the Secretary of State, is perfectly ludicrous. Every hon. Member of the House knows that nothing could possibly be further from the character of the Secretary of State or of the Government than to pursue a policy in a foreign country merely in the interests of oil kings or any other magnates. As regards the Cossacks, who have been sent mainly to Vladivostok, the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) is anxious lest we should be spending money needlessly on their maintenance in Eastern Siberia. I understand that we are not spending any more on them, and that our obligations ceased when they landed at Vladivostok and elsewhere. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is anxious to know whether we had any guarantee from these Cossacks that they would behave like good boys when they got to Vladivostok.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, I did not say that.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: He asked if we had any guarantee of their good behaviour.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite as fair as he usually is. I asked whether we had any guarantee that they would not engage in counter-revolutionary adventures and try to upset the Russian Government.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is just a paraphrase. Our object was to find some part of Russian soil to which presumably certain people could be sent with any safety to their lives, and Eastern Siberia happened to be the only place within our knowledge where the Cossacks could be sent with any prospect of their surviving the adventure. The other point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke was as to the Military Mission in Persia. We have no Military outposts in Persia now. I mentioned in my opening remarks that this Military Mission was sent to Persia, in anticipation of the passing of the Anglo-Persian Agreement, in order to prepare the ground for a larger and more permanent mission.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman answer my question whether this is the last expenditure in connection with the Persian policy in Persia and what the total expenditure in connection with that policy has been?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot give the figure. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is it more than the sum mentioned in the Estimate?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for the total amount of money which has been spent in recent times. That involves the very large military operations which were going on in Persia at one time.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this the last?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope I may say with confidence that these are the last payments to be made in respect of these two matters, that is to say, the Anglo-Persian Military Mission and the transport of the Cossacks. I shall be very happy, if the figures are forthcoming, to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman something like an approximate estimate of all our expenditure in Persia in recent years.
    Question put, "That Item A be reduced by £10."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 249.

    Division No. 37.]

    AYES.

    [6.12 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Gillis, William

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Myers, Thomas

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E,)

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Halls, Walter

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hancock, John George

    Robertson, John

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Briant, Frank

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bromfield, William

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Spencer, George A.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sutton, John Edward

    Cairns, John

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Swan, J. E.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

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

    Irving, Dan

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lunn, William

    Wignall, James

    Donald, Thompson

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

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

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Finney, Samuel

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Foot, Isaac

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mosley, Oswald

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

    Grant, James Augustus

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Parker, James

    Atkey, A. R.

    Greer, Sir Harry

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Pearce, Sir William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

    Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Barrand, A. R.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pratt, John William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

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

    Haslam, Lewis

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Rae, H. Norman

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ramsden, G. T.

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

    Hinds, John

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Reid, D. D.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

    Remnant, Sir James

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rodger, A. K.

    Brittain, sir Harry

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bruton, Sir James

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

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

    Jesson, C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

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

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Seager, Sir William

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Casey, T. W.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

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

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

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

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

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

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

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Clay, Lieut. Colonel H. H. Spender

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Clough, Sir Robert

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

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lorden, John William

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Cope, Major William

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Taylor, J.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    M'Connell, Thomas Edward

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Tickler, Thomas George

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

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

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Waddington, R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

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

    Waring, Major Walter

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Manville, Edward

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Moles, Thomas

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Windsor, Viscount

    Forrest, Walter

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

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morris, Richard

    Wise, Frederick

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Morrison, Hugh

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

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

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gardiner, James

    Neal, Arthur

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Gee, Captain Robert

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

    Young, W, (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    Younger, Sir George

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel sir John

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Original Question again proposed.
    Captain W. BENN: I beg to move to reduce Item "B" (Maintenance of Russian Refugees) by £50.
    This is one of the residuary obligations, not the last, that we have to meet on account of what may be called the Churchill policy in Russia. It is very significant that the Secretary for the Colonies, whose policy has let us in for this money, and for the enormous increase of the original Estimate of £165,000 to £300,000, put in only a furtive appearance in the Debate, and then beat a hasty retreat. It seems hardly fair to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he, who was only a consenting party in a minor way to the policy of 1919–20, should have alone in this House to defend one of the heavy and continuing obligations which that policy involved. That often happens in this House. The great men make mistakes, and others are put up to defend the debris when that policy, as most policies of the Government do, comes to a failure. The Committee should be reminded of what we were told when this policy was initiated, and compare those statements with the facts as we know them to-day. This enterprise, for the pitiable remnants of which we are now asked to pay—everybody sympathises with the poor victims of this enterprise—was commended to the House at the time by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary. It is fair to remind the Committee that on one occasion the Prime Minister told us, with great pride, that General Denikin had swept the Bolshevist armies from all these fertile regions.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I would remind the hon. Member that this is a Supplementary Estimate. The only question that can be debated is whether these sums ought to have been spent on these refugees. It is out of order to discuss the original policy.
    Captain BENN: I will put myself in order by pointing out that these sums are being paid in consideration of an undertaking which was given by a Commissioner sent out by the Government to Russia. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not speak for the wisdom of the undertaking given by our Commissioner. What I urge is that, in view of the honourable obligations entered into by
    1148
    the Government, it was very difficult for the hon. Member for Camlachie (Sir Holford Mackinder), when he went to Southern Russia, to do otherwise than give the undertaking. I do not suggest whether it was wise or not to give that undertaking, but when a man finds himself in a district with a defeated army, retreating, and with all the horrors of defeat around them—
    The CHAIRMAN: Obviously, the hon. Member is out of order. It may have been in order to discuss this on the original Estimate, but the point now is what are the causes of the Supplementary Estimate, and why was the former sum underestimated. The Debate must be confined to the question why the original Estimate fell short of what is now asked for, and what are the causes. It has been ruled over and over again on Supplementary Estimates that the original policy cannot be discussed.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I submit that in the case of Supplementary Estimates, where the sum is not very large in comparison with the original sum, obviously you are limited to the reasons for the additional sum asked for, but where the new sum asked for is of such large dimensions as to justify a challenge of the original policy, then the original policy is open, within limits, of course, to discussion in Committee. If I am right in my submission so far, I would point out that the original sum asked for was £160,000, and the sum now asked for is no less than £300,000, That, I respectfully submit, does not limit us strictly to debating the reason for the additional sum. So large is the sum involved that some reference to the policy on which the sum was originally asked for should be allowed.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is in order to criticise statements made by the Government last year on the Estimate put forward last year, in view of the fact that a very large additional sum is required, but it is certainly not in order to discuss the circumstances under which the hon. Member for Camlachie, long before the beginning of this financial year, gave a certain undertaking.
    Captain BENN: I was under the impression that the reference to his undertaking would most likely commend itself to you as being strictly within your ruling, because it had been referred to by the

    1149
    Under-Secretary in opening the Debate. I will make no further reference to his undertaking, but merely direct attention to the fact that the original Estimate was for nine months, which we understood would conclude the whole item, so that although not in terms, but certainly in spirit, to ask for that new supply really comes within the category of a new service. I will deal briefly with some of the undertakings with which we as a Committee have to deal. The Colonial Secretary said:
    "Do not let us have a lot of exaggerated talk about pouring out the blood of this country and draining away its treasure on vague and wild Russian expeditions. What we are doing has been most carefully and precisely limited and has been definitely explained to the House."
    I was under the impression that the Estimates put forward in connection with this enterprise in accordance with the undertaking of the Colonial Secretary was, "Definitely explained, and precisely limited," instead of which we find ourselves with a Supplementary Estimate this year exceeding by almost 100 per cent, the original Estimate, and we find from the statement by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is the soul of candour, that he cannot pretend that this is the last sum he will ask for on this account. When are we to see the end of the financial commitments to which this unfortunate and universally unsuccessful warrior has committed this country? He always backs the wrong horse. He said on one occasion:
    "We hope that Russia will become self-supporting before the end of the year."
    On another occasion he spoke of the unfortunate General, whose refugees we now have to support, as being on the eve of success. Repeatedly we were told that from the Government Benches, and from the beginning of 1919, from the election of this House, we on this side protested vigorously against what was in fact a new war.
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot possibly go into the question of original policy on this Supplementary Estimate.
    Captain BENN: I realise how difficult it is to deal with a sum, which is a continuing sum, of which this is not the last amount, which does arise from causes outside the present financial year. I do not
    1150
    know whether I shall be more in order in referring to the case of the position of General Wrangel. He was a later edition of these adventures.
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The hon. Member can discuss why the original Estimate has been exceeded, and comment on why the amount of increase is so great, and ask the Government the reason for it.
    Captain BENN: I suggest that one of the reasons is the fourth expedition of this same General Wrangel. I see that money is being taken for sending these refugees to Serbia. General Wrangel is in Serbia, I understand, at Belgrade. The Under-Secretary said that he thought he was in Constantinople, but there was a telegram in the newspapers a few days ago saying he was in Serbia. From other sources, on which I would not like to found a definite conviction, but, at any rate, they are sources on information, it was stated that a new offensive was to be organised by General Wrangel. Is there any risk of any of this money being used for the sending back of the Russian White Army into Serbia to be organised in any way for a second offensive?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is not the remotest prospect of that happening. This money is merely for the maintenance of 5,000 refugees in Serbia, Egypt and elsewhere, followers of Denikin, and has nothing whatever to do with General Wrangel.
    Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to our intelligence. He says that they are followers of General Denikin. Did not General Wrangel take them from Denikin? Was he not his successor after Denikin had failed? He says that 5,000 men are to be sent to Serbia.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, but men, women and children.
    Captain BENN: In view of the statement that this money is to cover the expense of the removal of these people to Serbia, and that it was announced in the Press on 3rd March that
    "General Wrangel arrived in Belgrad last night from Constantinople,"
    and in view of the information of credible papers, including the "Daily News," whose correspondent in Nish states—I am

    1151
    not committing myself to this statement, but am taking it from a leading organ of public news—
    "The idea is to mobilise an army under General Wrangel. The men behind this project are confident of the project. There is a loan—"
    we are justified in asking for information. The Under-Secretary says that he knows nothing of this, but this has been the history of all these ill-starred expeditions. I can only refer inferentially to the others because I must stick to the Estimate, but we were told the same about all the other expeditions. It was always denied from that Bench that we were supporting General Denikin, and yet we find we have an honourable obligation to his refugees. Is there the least likelihood of these men who are being sent from their refuge in Egypt, Cyprus and elsewhere, to Serbia, where their General is, being used in any way for another unfortunate and fore-doomed-to-failure attack upon the established Government in Russia? These are questions, etc., which I ask for information, and before the Vote is passed we might have from the Under-Secretary a categorical statement, because we know that there are two influences working with the Government. One half would like to go to Genoa and grasp murder by the hand, and the other half is convinced that at all costs we must fight against the Bolshevists, and information is given to the House sometimes from one side of the Government and sometimes from the other. It is important that the matter should be cleared up. Is there the least possibility of the money being used in this way? That is a question to which we ought to have an answer, and we can only lament that an enterprise which was advertised as about to be a great success, and was costly beyond all words, is so great a failure.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to refer to what the Under-Secretary said with regard to the negotiations which we had with the Soviet Government with a view to repatriating these unfortunate men and their dependents to Russian soil. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would consider laying the correspondence on the Table, if it has not been already published, because a very large sum of money is involved, and it is not unreasonable that we should see
    1152
    that correspondence. I gather that the Soviet Government wished to send a Commission to examine these refugees and, as the hon. Gentleman says, to make their choice. That was putting it rather badly, but they reserved the right of refusing to allow certain of these refugees back into Russia. When we consider the past history of these men, the men who fought in various counter-revolutionary wars, and that there has been a very extensive espionage and sabotage organisation set up for injuring Russia by underhand and underground methods, we see that any reasonable Government would have insisted on the right of excluding known agitators against their rule. I am not very well informed on this matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give some information. I believe that it is a fact that the Soviet Government did ask for some guarantee from these men that they would accept the Government and laws of Russia to-day and settle down peacefully, which was, after all, not unnatural, and it should not be taken by others as an excuse for not sending these men back, simply that the Soviet Government reserve the right to refuse admission to certain notorious renegades and fire-caters. It is a very great pity if that was the only reason why the negotiations broke down.
    The hon. Gentleman swept aside the idea of the Soviet Government refusing to those people admission to their soil, but I think that we might have stretched a point and continued negotiations. We cannot know about that until we see the correspondence. It is a great pity that we have not had the side of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder) in this case. We heard the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office. He rather hinted that if he had been in the place of the hon. Member for Camlachie he might have done otherwise. The action of the hon. Member, as representing the Government, has cost us a great deal of money, but he is not here to give his side of the story. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has given his experiences, and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs rather took refuge behind the hon. Member for Chelsea as being a first-hand observer. I would ask the hon. Member for Chelsea if he can give us any information about the Wrangel activities. He spoke of Wrangel's hard work, self-devotion and

    1153
    sacrifices for the prosperity and comfort of his followers. Is there any truth in these, perhaps libellous, statements, that Wrangel is once more on the war path and that he is recruiting armies at Belgrade? The Under-Secretary tells us, I think, that there are 100,000 Russians in Serbia.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Even 10,000 men would make a respectable army, if they all came together. Wrangel has been going backwards and forwards between Constantinople and Belgrade. We are told that we can control the goings and comings of men to and from Constantinople. Do we visa Wrangel's passports? Have the Foreign Office seen what the "Daily News" has got to say on this matter?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We see it every day.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If we pay this money for the removal of these men to Serbia, then if there is any truth in these statements, we are acting as a recruiting agent for Wrangel's army. I have heard that Wrangel is raising an army, and that tentative arrangements are being made with a certain great Power, not ourselves, to provide shipping for him to a Black Sea port in certain eventualities—the breakdown of negotiations with the Soviet Government in which that great Power is engaged—and these troops will then be landed on the northern shores of the Black Sea, and anyone who knows what can be done with sea transport on a long line like that knows that the threat is very serious, and that this precious plan may be used when other plans have failed, to wreck the economic conference at Genoa. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what happened to these refugees before. When Denikin broke down they were taken by our ships across to the Crimea. They were supplied with munitions and helped by us. When I asked Lord Long, who was then representing the Admiralty, why we were holding, the narrow neck of land and preventing the Beds coming down, he said that we had all these people huddled together in the Crimea and were simply protecting them until arrangements could be made for their peaceful progress to their own country. The next thing
    1154
    that we heard, within a few days, was that General Wrangel had got together—
    The CHAIRMAN: These things happened long before the matters with which this Estimate is connected, arose, and I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to confine himself to the Estimate under discussion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was not going into the question of policy now, except to point out that if Wrangel had not taken the offensive against Russia on this occasion we should not have these men on our hands in Constantinople. I would ask, is Wrangel once more on the war path? If we are to vote money for transporting recruits to his army in Serbia for making mischief in South-Eastern Europe, then any hon. Member who votes money for that purpose is-doing a great disservice to the British people and is increasing unemployment in this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: If the last suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend were true, or had the least foundation in fact, I should certainly support him, but it would be a sorry mistake, and opposed to the opinion of the majority of Members of this Committee, if the sinister suggestions which fall from my hon. and gallant Friend prevented us from performing what, after all, is a humanitarian duty in this case. The greater-part of the able-bodied men, those who are capable of looking after themselves, have already disappeared, and the overwhelming proportion of these people are women and the families of the men who were in Denikin's army. The suggestion has already been made by the League of Nations, and by the hon. Member for Chelsea, that these people should be allocated somewhere in a Slav country, where they can acquire the Slav atmosphere, so that they may be in a position to avail of the opportunity, should it ever offer, of going to their own country as citizens of Russia again. That is the object of voting this money just at this-moment. I say most emphatically that if there was the slightest truth behind the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), if I had the slightest suspicion that the British Government had any intention, ulterior or otherwise, of

    1155
    getting men back into Serbia, that they might become recruits for Wrangel's army—if there is such an army—I would support my hon. and gallant Friend.
    I suspect, however, that this is only newspaper chatter. I do not believe there is the slightest foundation in fact for the statement we have heard. If there was, as I say, even the slightest suspicion, I should certainly raise my voice in warning to the British Government against having anything whatever to do with such a proposition. In no circumstances ought we to lend the slightest countenance to it. Once having altered our policy on these matters, we ought to leave it entirely to the Russians themselves, in Russia, to decide what the Government of that country shall be. This is no new view of mine. I was opposed to withdrawing, but once having withdrawn, it would be simple madness in the guise of a vote for refugees, to assist an experiment of the description suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure, however, there is no such intention. I cannot, of course, say what the Serbian Government may not be doing, but if I had any influence with them, and if there were any suspicion that anything of the kind is on, and that General Wrangel is getting an army together in Belgrade or anywhere else in the Balkan States, with the idea of attacking the Soviet Government, or becoming the tool of some European Government to do so, I should raise my voice against it. If the British Government have any influence in advising them, then instead of helping in the recruiting of such an army, they should advise the Servian Government that any such attempt would be madness.
    I come back to the real object of this Vote which is to assist people who are, owing to the fortunes of war, and the terrible distresses and difficulties of their own country not merely refugees but refugees to a certain extent under our protection. To a certain extent we are responsible for them. Of course we could wipe our hands of them. No doubt Parliament is powerful enough to refuse even to honour its bond to these poor derelicts of the Russian débâcle. There is no doubt we could refuse to vote a farthing for the purpose, but I think it would be such a breach of faith to people who are entirely defenceless and largely in their present
    1156
    position because of the policy which we advised, and the action which we advised, that the House would not do so. In these circles the British Government are bound to do everything they can to render assistance to these people. When it is suggested that these refugees should return to Serbia, are we doing that with the sanction of the Serbian Government, and are we still making ourselves responsible to a certain extent for these people? If so, a considerable amount of caution ought to be observed as to the way in which the finances of such a scheme are controlled.
    So far as the administration and spending of money are concerned, nay even in the organisation necessary for such an object as this, I say most frankly after two or three years of close experience, that I prefer to have British administration and British organisation. British money should not be merely handed over to these people or to anyone connected with them to be managed by them. All the time there should be British guidance. I think that is absolutely essential if we are going to have security and confidence that what we are voting for the refugees is being properly devoted to that purpose. I do not know what is the sum involved per head, but I do know that the Russian Relief and Reconstruction Society has established schools for these people in Constantinople, and I know the amount for which we have been able to cloth, educate, feed and house them, with the cost of the administrative staff attached to the schools. We were obliged to take a certain proportion of women to look after the children, and accordingly this applies to both women and children, but we have been able to do all that at something between £20 to £25 per head per annum.
    If you are going to spend this big sum of £300,000 I should like to know how many refugees are to be dealt with and how much it works out per head. The population with which we are dealing in the Russian Relief and Reconstruction Society, is a population whose members cannot earn anything for themselves. They are entirely hopeless so far as earning capacity is concerned, whereas there must be many of these refugees who, if there is proper organisation, and if they arte established in a friendly Slav community, should certainly be able to get their living and reduce this sum by a great

    1157
    percentage. I should like to know whether there has been any financial arrangement with the Serbian Government as to the amount per head to be devoted to these refugees, and whether that amount per head is to last only so long as the person concerned is incapable of providing for himself. Our object should be not merely to dump these refugees down in some place, and support them in idleness, without making any attempt to fit the young to become citizens of the new Russian State, or even to keep the old in a condition of efficiency. That would be a great mistake. The object should be, by educating the young and by giving opportunities for labour on the part of those capable of performing labour, to make them self-supporting as quickly as possible. Otherwise one can quite see that you will have many such escapades as that which has been suggested here this evening, and in the spending of this money considering the finances of our country, great care should be exercised.
    Lord R. CECIL: I only intervene for a moment to say two things. In the first place, I trust the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will be able to give the most complete assurances that this money is in no danger whatever of being diverted to military operations against Russia. We have had quite enough of that sort of thing. I imagine however that no Government, of any sort or kind, would venture to engage in any mad scheme of trying to establish a different Government in Russia to that which prevails there to-day. I ask my hon. Friend whether, in his reply, he can give some hope that the request of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) will be complied with. I think the Committee view with a great deal of dislike the perpetual demand year after year for money for this purpose. I believe everyone feels that some definite term should be put to the amount of assistance we are required to give, even to this object, which in itself is admirable. I welcomed very much the announcement that this matter was going to be taken up by the League of Nations, and a final and complete scheme was to be established, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea that if this is to be done, it should be done immediately. The Council of the League should be summoned forth-
    1158
    with. There is no excuse for delay. There are other matters, which I should not be in order in going into, and which make it desirable that the Council should be summoned immediately, apart from this, but if only on this account we ought to have a meeting of the Council. I beg and pray my hon. Friend, who knows the mechanism of the League thoroughly, to remember that the Secretariat of the League have no initiative in this matter at all. It rests with the members of the Council themselves, and if the British Government express a desire that there should be a meeting of the Council within a fortnight or within whatever time they think right, such a meeting of the Council will be held as a matter of course. It entirely rests with the British Government whether such a meeting should take place, and I beseech my hon. Friend to use his influence with the Government to see that such a meeting is brought about.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I want to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) on coming round to our point of view.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Then I must be wrong.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: If the hon. and gallant Member had only followed the advice which we gave, we would not be here today discussing this Vote. I must also congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea on the very interesting remarks he made in the course of his speech. Perhaps he will be able to help the Committee if he is going to speak again on this matter. I happened to be in the same district myself last September, and I discovered in Constantinople that Wrangel's and Denikin's people were then being trained as soldiers. I do not know whether he discovered such a state of things in Serbia or not, but I discovered many things in Serbia which I did not like, and I am, therefore, all the more ready to believe the newspaper report which has been read out by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) that Wrangel is in Belgrade today with a view to trying to get up reinforcements to attack the Russian people. Things may have changed since then, and I hope they have changed for the better. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether the sum of £1,100,000 already

    1159
    spent on refugees, includes the Wrangel refugees, or has this sum been spent alone on the Denikin refugees.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Only on the Denikin refugees.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I think we ought to look at this question from the human standpoint. We have entered into an obligation and something should be done on behalf of these people, but I must say this, that I protest against this money being spent on Russian refugees when we read in the evening papers that the Government are proposing to reduce even the unemployed benefit in this country. Charity ought to commence at home, and before spending the hundreds of thousands which we are now going to spend on these refugees of Denikin and Wrangel, the Government first of all should look after the starving men and women of this country. To support a policy of this kind is a great disservice to the people of this country. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) said he had listened to a melancholy recital from the Under-Secretary. I think we have had a lot of "Churchilarity" on this matter also. If it had not been for the Colonial Secretary we would not have been in the mess and muddle we are in to-day.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir S. HOARE: I will endeavour to answer some of the questions which have been put to me during the discussion. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in all the directions he has taken, but may I point out that what he has just said cuts directly across the proposal to make a grant for famine relief in Russia. I am sorry he should have followed that argument, but that is the effect of what he said. He asked me a question on the matter already referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), as to whether any of this Vote goes to encourage military operations from Serbia, and whether when I was in Constantinople I found Russian troops actually in training. Let me re-assure the hon. Member, and tell him that that is no longer the case. The whole of the Army of General Wrangel, with the exception of a few hundreds—and I hope even they are now removed—has been demobilised and dispersed in the
    1160
    neighbouring country, and certainly it was the impression I gained from what I heard and saw that these men were not being used for the kind of military training suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. Many of them were in ordinary employment or working in labour battalions, and it seems to me quite fantastic to suggest that any military operations could be attempted from Serbia of the kind suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and more fantastic than words can say to suggest that any of this money we are asked to take for his heterogeneous collection of refugees, many of them women and children, old men or wounded and disabled, could possibly give any support to any action against the Bolshevist Government in Russia. I ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite, therefore, to rest assured that none of this Vote could possibly go to encourage a military operation of that kind.
    The only other observation I wish to make is in development of the suggestion I made earlier in the discussion as to a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. That is the only possible way of dealing satisfactorily with a problem of the kind covered, by this Vote. Unless we can get the problem looked at as a whole, and unless we can get all the Governments concerned each to take some small part in its liquidation, we shall go on having Votes of this kind brought up year after year. I am afraid in what I said earlier in the Debate I may have given the impression that I was critical of the administration of the Foreign Office in this respect. I did not intend to do that. I think the Foreign Office have done what they could, but that they have done it in perfectly impossible conditions. As long as you have these refugees in places like Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt, you cannot deal satisfactorily with them. Again, therefore, let me emphasise what I tried to say earlier in the Debate, that the crux of the whole matter is to have an immediate meeting of the Council of the League. It will then be seen whether the Governments concerned are prepared to support the League in this matter. If the Governments are not prepared to support the League, then there is no solution of this question, and it should be known that the League cannot continue to carry out the obligations of 12 months ago. I hope

    1161
    the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us, therefore, before the Vote is taken, that he is going, here and now on behalf of the British Government, definitely to press for a meeting of the Council.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It has been suggested that it is impossible to vote against this money without at the same time registering a vote against credit being given to the Russian Government to help the starving people in Russia. I submit there is no analogy whatever between those two votes. It is monstrous that we should have always to be asked to supply money for refugees of the White Army and then be told that there is no money available for the starving population in Russia. In the one case you are asking for money from the British tax payer. In the other case you are asking for credits from the British taxpayer; but the real source of the difference is this. So far as relations with Russia are concerned, we on these Benches can no longer trust hon. Members opposite. We have been told too often of the innocent nature of the White Armies, of the refugees, of the Government transactions with them. Over and over again we have had denied in this House that there was any connection between the British Government and Yudenitch, Wrangel, and Denikin. We have had denials as to our responsibility for these adventures in Russia, and over and over again it has been proved, I will not say that the Government, but that their emissaries abroad have had relations with these adventurers, and have given their support, open or veiled, to their adventures. We do not know to-day whether there is or there is not a new adventure brewing, whether Wrangel, who is in receipt of our money, is or is not now in Serbia or Bucharest—
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: General Wrangel is receiving no money from the British Government and never has, so far as I know.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In any case, as I imagine that a good deal of this relief money goes through the hands of administrators, I should be glad to learn that it all goes to those for whom it is intended. A lot of it goes through the Serbian Government's hands, and I wonder how much of it sticks to their hands in the process—
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to say that. I repudiate again the whole of this cock-and-bull story about the building up of a Wrangel Army in Serbia.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman repudiated all connection with Yudenitch's Army two years ago, and we have had exactly the same denials before. It seems to be thought that in dealing with the Bolshevist Government in Russia all the old principles of diplomacy are to be thrown into the back ground, and that we are to acquiesce in anything carried on by our representatives on the spot. We have full confidence in the hon. Gentleman, but is he aware of what goes on in Warsaw, Bucharest, Constantinople, and other places where machinations are constantly going on between the refugees and the Whites in this country. The White organisations and the White schemes go on, and we have no confidence any longer that this £1,100,000 we are voting is all really going for that charitable work upon which we are told to believe it is spent. I agree that, with unemployment as it is in this country, with 2,000,000 unemployed, we are not justified in spending £1,100,000 on this small section of alien unemployed abroad—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Vote is for £300,000.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but we have been told by the hon. Gentleman before you, Sir, were in the Chair, that altogether we were paying £1,100,000 for the Denikin refugees, and the Wrangel refugees, I understand, are not included.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: We do not pay for any Wrangel refugees.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we understand, then, that £1,100,000 is the limit of our charitable obligations for refugees in the Balkans?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I said that the total figure, including the £300,000, for the maintenance of these refugees from the time we undertook the obligation until now was £1,100,000. That is not the cost for the year.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, then, can we be told what is the annual expenditure to be expected for these

    1163
    refugees? We have not been told at all in what liabilities we are involved for next year. We do not know whether we are wiping up the business now, or whether we are going to spend £500,000 or £1,000,000 next year. With things as they are, we are not in a position to find this money on such a liberal scale. If there was any proof that we might get the money back from any future Russian Government it would be a very different thing, but if this sum is to be thrown away while we have 2,000,000 unemployed in this country we are bound to consider that it is inadvisably spent and that it would be much better that these people should see that charitable assistance must come to an end and that they must find work for themselves. At present you have these vast camps continuing to hope that we or the League of Nations will continue to find money for their assistance.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: What about the Reds?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: So long as you object to a grant for the Russian Famine Fund, why do you support this? We are to have no grants for the Whites if we are to have no grants for the starving people in Russia.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Grants for the Reds.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The starving people in Russia are not Reds.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: No, there are very few Reds in Russia.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then why do you oppose a grant for relief? We are not going to vote for this because we are not certain where the money will go, or that this wild-cat expedition may not come off.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sorry to intervene in this Debate again, but a line of argument is being developed that I consider must be met. It started, I think, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain W. Benn), who developed a picturesque story and pointed to the possibility of General Wrangel raising an army in Serbia for the purpose, as I understand, of attacking Soviet Russia. I have been in the closest possible touch with this particular problem with which we are dealing, for
    1164
    I have been anxious about it ever since we incurred this liability, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman—and those who speak in the same strain—will be astonished to hear that this is the very first time I have ever heard this suggestion made, and I have had the opportunity of consulting those who have studied these matters even more closely than I have, and they have never heard it before.
    Captain BENN: I have no sources of information except the Press, and they, of course, are open to everyone, and is it a fact that the Foreign Office has never seen the despatch from the special correspondent of the "Daily News" at Nish three days ago stating this specifically?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that that is purely a debating point. I myself do study that well-known journal, but it is purely a debating point to ask me whether the Foreign Office has read the article in question.
    Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman said it was the first he had heard of the suggestion. I point his attention to this despatch, and I ask in all sincerity if there is anything in it or not.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member knows quite sufficient about a Government Department to know that it is quite impossible for a Minister to know whether there is any individual in that Department who has ever heard this cock-and-bull story before or not. I have not heard it, and such advisers as I have been able to consult, men who are intimately acquainted with these questions, have never heard it either. The suggestion has been made—and I do not know that I was not included in the responsibility—that the Serbian Government is implicated in this matter. I think that is a very serious statement to make, and I think hon. Gentlemen occupying responsible positions of leaders of parties ought to be a little more careful before making any such statement as that in this House.
    Captain BENN: I made no suggestion about the Serbian Government at all, if the hon. Gentleman was referring to me.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The suggestion has been made, and it was made by my

    1165
    hon. and gallant Friend, that there is a possibility of building up a counter-revolutionary army in Serbia based on Wrangel and Denikin refugees. I say that that is a statement that ought not to be made in this House at all, and I repudiate it, from every source of knowledge which I have. I have never heard it before, and incidentally I may say that I fear irreparable damage may have been done to the whole cause of the Russian refugees by that statement. To have chance ideas, picked up from a newspaper, thrown into the midst of this very difficult matter may do irreparable damage. There is no question whatever of any of this money that the Committee is asked to vote being used for any military or counter-revolutionary projects whatever. It is merely for the support of a number of Russian refugees for whom we have made ourselves responsible. Does my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Benn) or the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suppose that I should undertake this unpalatable task once or twice a year of asking for money for these refugees if I had the slightest suspicion that one farthing of it would be allocated in any other way? How is it conceivable? In point of fact, our interests in this matter are watched over by a gentleman representing the Foreign Office in Serbia, who surveys and superintends the expenditure of every part of this money, and my hon. and gallant Friend may remember that I informed him earlier in the Debate that the expense of these refugees in Serbia has been reduced to 6s. per head per week. That should satisfy my hon. (and gallant Friend that every kind of economy, so far as the refugees are concerned, is being studied.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is that in francs?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot say, but it can only be done, of course, with the advantage of the exchange. I do again, from my own knowledge and from that of others better informed than I am, most emphatically repudiate the suggestion that any part of the money which this Committee is asked to vote is, has been, or by any possibility could be, used for military purposes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) and my Noble Friend the
    1166
    Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) have both urged the importance of an early meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. I can only say that I have great sympathy with that suggestion and that I will use what influence I possess to bring about that result. An hon. Member spoke about thrusting responsibilities on the League of Nations without furnishing them with the sinews of war. It would be preposterous, in my judgment, to ask the League of Nations to take on a pledge involving a large expenditure of money without providing them with funds for the purpose.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain that not a single Member of this Committee will for one moment dispute, but indeed will gladly maintain, the bona fides of the Under-Secretary for the Foreign Office in discharging his difficult duties with so much good temper and so much capacity, but I hope he will not take very much to heart what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has said. I think, on reflection, he will see that all that my hon. and gallant Friend did was to bring to public attention in this Committee a statement made in the "Daily News," and perhaps some other journal—I do not know—with regard to Serbia. The advantage of that is this, that the Minister, speaking with official responsibility, has denied that, and I cannot imagine that a better service could be rendered, because, after all, this is the place in which to bring up statements which are issued in the Press in order to get answers to them, and now the public will know that the Minister responsible says there is no danger at all of any part of this sum being handled otherwise than for the relief of these distressed people, who are mainly not military men, but women and children. That position has been cleared up, and my hon. and gallant Friend has denied that he had in his mind any suggestion of any aspersion on the Serbian Government of any kind. I was very much impressed by what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea said in his second speech. Of course, he speaks with very special knowledge of the whole matter, and, notwithstanding what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has said, there is undoubtedly a danger that

    1167
    a Division on this particular Amendment might be misunderstood in the country. I think the great majority of Members of this House, and certainly a very large and influential section of the nation, is very desirous that something should be done to relieve the terrible conditions in the famine-stricken areas of Russia, and it would be a great pity if this Amendment were pressed to a Division and if there were any chance of misrepresentation as a result. Under these circumstances, after having had a Debate which, I think, has certainly been useful in clearing up many obscure points, I would express the hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
    Mr. G. BARKER: This has been nearly a Front Bench Debate, and I feared the back benchers were not going to have a say in the matter. I do not remember, since I have sat in this House, a Vote-being proposed in Committee of a more provocative—I do not think I should be exaggerating if I said of a more enraging—nature than this Vote. I should like to know what the British taxpayer has got to do with the results of Denikin's adventure. I know this much, that if it had not been for the organised opposition of the workers of this country, we should be engaged now in voting a very much larger sum than is actually the case. The Prime Minister has said that we are the most heavily taxed nation in the world, and it seems to me that we have to pay taxes for all manner of things that happen throughout the whole of the civilised and uncivilised world. I do not know what the taxpayers have got to do with furnishing funds to succour the refugees of Denikin's expedition. This is, I suppose, some of the fruits of the ill-starred adventures of the Colonial Secretary. At the present moment we have over 2,000,000 unemployed, we have the people taxed as they have never been taxed before in their history, and we have British working men who are unemployed actually being taken to prison because they cannot pay taxes that arise out of Votes like the one we have before is this evening. I protest, as a humble Member of this House, in the strongest possible manner against this Vote. I hear there has been some suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn, but, so far as I am concerned, I shall
    1168
    oppose that, if I have to go into the Division Lobby by myself. I do not believe that British working men should pay a penny of this money. These ill-starred adventures, condemned in their initiation by the working classes of this country, should be opposed by every Member who believes in fair play for the British taxpayer, and therefore I shall oppose this Vote.
    Captain BENN: I moved the reduction of this Vote because I wished to have an opportunity of protesting against the vacillating, expensive, and miserable Russian policy of the Government. I have not the least desire to stop money going to these poverty-stricken people. Oh the contrary, I wish the Government would make a grant to the famine-stricken people of Russia, and, in view of that, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Mr. T. O'CONNOR: It will perhaps facilitate the Debate if I speak on the two items to which I wish to draw attention, and the first is Item J, which is £16,368 for meeting the expense of fuel oil supplied to Armenia. The second item is for £25,000 for the maintenance of Turks at Malta. With regard to the first of these items, I have nothing but praise to offer to the Government. I think it is a sign, perhaps, of better things on the part of the Government that they have in this particular grant given an indication of their sense of the duty they owe to the Armenian people. If I were to raise any objection in regard to this particular item, it would be that it was so small. My hon. Friend, answering an interruption, said, I think, that this money was given to the Armenians to help them to fight the Bolshevists. I do not hold any brief for the Bolshevists, but I must say I think money spent in enabling the Armenians to fight the Bolshevists would be much better spent in enabling the Armenians to fight the Turks. The Armenians, or a large body of them, have lived under Russian rule for many years, and although under the Tzarist Government they had no more liberty than any other portion of the Tzar's subjects, at least they were free from butchery, and many not only lived there, but prospered. I think the complaint we have to make against the

    1169
    Government is that, in spite of their pledges, and, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) said, the pledges of France, to help these Armenians and to save these Armenians, and the efforts of the Armenians to help us fight our battles in the War, they have been very imperfectly realised either by the Government of England or the Government of France.
    With regard to the second item, if I did not know my hon. Friend, and if I did not know all the conditions, I would say this represents one of the most flagitious transactions in history. What does it mean? £25,000
    "to meet the cost of maintenance in Malta of certain Turkish subjects who were arrested at the instance of the British High Commissioner at Constantinople for violations of the Turkish Armistice."
    And the reason given for voting the sum of money is
    "the laxity with which they were guarded by Turkish authorities at Constantinople made it necessary to remove them to Malta—"
    and so on. Just fancy this ironical position! Here are a number of Turkish soldiers. They are accused of the most atrocious crimes against Armenians. But that is not all. They are accused of the most atrocious crimes against our own soldiers—crimes, some of them, too abominable even to mention, or even to hint at. The Turkish Government is-asked to bring these men to justice. I have heard some of my hon. Friends almost every day for the last three years badgering the late Attorney-General and badgering other Members of the Government because they have not brought to justice some of the alleged criminals in the German Army, and nothing could ex-teed the burning and boiling indignation with which these Gentlemen have denounced the alleged supineness of the Government in bringing these alleged criminals to justice. But the worst offence of the worst German soldier pales into insignificance.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: No.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I say the worst offence of the worst German soldier pates into insignificance compared with some of the crimes of these Turkish criminals whom our Government failed to bring to justice. Some gentlemen think we ought to make the Turkish Government our allies. The Turkish Government so
    1170
    grossly neglected to bring these hideous criminals to justice that we had to resort to what I will euphemistically call extralegal methods, and arrest and deport these men ourselves. Having in that way got hold of these atrocious criminals, we gave them at once the advantage of being under the guardianship of the English authorities in Malta, of receiving the humane treatment, as, I am glad to say, can always be expected in such circumstances from the English authorities inMalta—I do not say in all parts of the world, although I do not want to go into extraneous subjects—and we housed and fed them there, and treated them well. Then comes the additional fact in the situation, that we have a number of prisoners in the hands of the Kemalists. Now what does the Government do? The Government tries to make an exchange of prisoners. Was there a single one of these British prisoners against whom the Kemalist commanders dared to bring one charge of criminal cruelty? Not one of them. They were simply prisoners of war. Now what kind of prisoners were those in Malta? They were not prisoners of war merely. They were men who were charged with the violation of women and the murder, and the organisation of the murder, of women and children and men of the Armenian race, by the hundred thousand. Some of them were men who were partly responsible for that hideous massacre, by the most cruel means, of some of our own soldiers. I do not think my hon. Friend will contradict the statement that has been made clearly, and confirmed, I think, by Colonel Rawlinson that 50 per cent, of the British prisoners who fell into the hands of the Turks died under most horrible conditions. What did the Government do? I said I would qualify the word "flagitious," because, to be quite right, I doubt whether the Govvernment could have done anything else. Their anxiety to release from such a body as the Kemalist authorities 25 of out-gallant soldiers would have justified almost anything.
    I understand that this was the form of the transaction. Forty of the Turkish prisoners were released, and then the emissary of the Kemalist Government was repudiated, and the Turks got back their 40 prisoners without a single one of ours being released. Then we tried our hand a second time. I am not blaming my hon. Friend, or the Government, or the

    1171
    authorities on the spot for exhausting every effort to get these men from the Kemalists. We tried a second time, and we got the release of our 25 prisoners by the release of 120 Turkish prisoners. Let me call attention to what the Turkish prisoners were who were released. Their names were published in the "Daily Telegraph." I cut out the paragraph at the time, but I have mislaid it. I remember distinctly, if not the names, what these men had done. I think there were at least five who were the main agents, the inspiring force, that organised and carried out the massacre of three-quarters of a million of Armenians during the War. I remember one case in particular. One of the Turkish prisoners released was the man who organised the massacre at Trebizond. If any man is familiar, as I am, and my hon. Friend below me is, with this affair, he will know that of all the massacres, that was one of the most ghastly and cruel. For instance, in the very same paper in which I read of the liberation of the miscreants, I read an account, I think it was of a Frenchman, or a Frenchwoman—I forget which—who was in Trebizond during the massacre. The massacre there took the form of putting people into a ship, taking them out to sea, and dropping them, and one's blood almost ran cold in reading how every day in going along the shore the writer saw the dead bodies of babies coming to the shore. And the man who organised that is one of the prisoners released in exchange for our soldiers.
    Is it not a curious commentary on the policy and traditions of this country that such things should occur? And yet there is nothing like a unanimous and an irresistible protest against putting a body of Christians again under the control of men like these. What happened? I have not yet told the end of this ghastly story. Some of these organisers of butcheries—not the butcheries which are, perhaps, in that part of the world committed by disbanded soldiers fleeing from their villages and murdering and violating women, but a butchery organised by a Government as part of the Government policy. What has happened to some of these gentlemen? According to my information, they have been appointed to high commands in the Kemalist army, and there are men in this House who actually vindicate the policy
    1172
    which will drive a Christian army out of Asia Minor and leave all the Christians of Smyrna and all the Armenians around to the mercy of the Kemalist gentlemen who organised the massacre of the Armenians by hundreds of thousands. If that is not enough to condemn any policy, I do not know what is. For these reasons, although I do not wish to criticise too severely the Government. I think it my duty to bring these realities before the Committee.
    Mr. A. HERBERT: I am not going to follow my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) into a long political discussion, but I should like to answer one or two questions which I heard him put. I am sorry I did not have the advantage of hearing the whole of his speech. I only heard the latter part of it. He asked, first of all, who were these prisoners in Malta, and he then told us the thing that they had done. I am not here to defend massacre, by whomsoever it is committed. I should like to see all criminals punished; but I will only say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that we were never told what those people had done, or, at least, it was never proved what they had done. We have all had a number of things said about ourselves in this House, but until you are brought to trial and convicted, there is no certainty that you have done the thing of which you are accused We took a number of these men away after the Armistice, not as prisoners of war, and we kept them for three years without any trial. I will tell the Committee who one of them was. He was Rahmy Pasha. I suppose he had an experience very few men have had in wartime. He was officially thanked by Sir Francis Elliott, our Minister at Athens, for his kind treatment of the British community in Smyrna. After that he was seized under some pretext—no offence whatever being alleged—and was transported to Malta and kept there for three years. To-night I shall support the Government in this Vote which is for the upkeep of a number of Turks who have been imprisoned in peace time without trial. Let me add that this is the smallest part of the debt we are paying for our action; the larger part is in the hostility that we see at present throughout. Turkey.
    Mr. MALONE: We are asked to-night to vote for a number of small Votes which

    1173
    are in reality the remnants of a jumble sale which the present Colonial Secretary has been trying to erect in different parts of Eastern Europe. I am not going to follow the various Members of the Committee into the different Votes; but I think that the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will not be regarded as conclusive in this matter. We have had a good many assurances with regard to other matters in the last three years, and our experience has shown that what has been said in this House has invariably been contradicted by actions outside. In passing, let me say that this is rather the bitter irony of the case, that these Russian refugees should have been sent to spend so much time at Prinkipo Island. The place has rather strange memories. If the Prime Minister had carried out his Prinkipo policy there would never have been any necessity for these refugees to go there.
    I want particularly to deal with Item O—Relief in Russia—and I hope that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to reply to the few questions I am going to ask. This matter has not yet been raised in discussion. The Item reads:
    "Further sum to provide for the repayment of the grants and advances made to necessitous British, Allied, and Neutral subjects in Russia, and raised by the British Chaplain in Moscow and others. The advances are partly recoverable."
    The amount is £15,000. I hope we shall be able to be told that these advances are recoverable. If my information is correct these people are practically destitute. I will say, before I finish, a little more of what I know as to their present condition. The British Chaplain in Moscow, I presume, is the Reverend E. North. The Under-Secretary has told us to-night that £95,000 has already been given for these purposes. I understood him to say at first that £50,000 had been paid to the British Chaplain in Moscow. The hon. Gentleman says it is £95,000. Perhaps that includes all the charges, not only to the Chaplain, but to other people. Say that £50,000 has been paid to the British Chaplain in Moscow. This additional £15,000 makes a total of £65,000. That is the first point on which I want some further information from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It is a point about which we have a right to ask.
    1174
    How is this £65,000 arrived at? Nearly two years ago when the original sum of £50,000 was brought up here, I tried to elucidate from the hon. Gentleman how this sum of £50,000 was made up. May I now press him to tell us whether he has any definite statement at all as to how this total sum he is asking for, this £15,000, is arrived at? Has he any claims, any receipts, any statement at all? If he has the latter, are the statements in sterling or roubles? If they are in roubles, this £65,000 would amount to nearly sixty-five thousand million roubles. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to tell us that the British Chaplain in Moscow has borrowed sixty-five thousand million roubles from other British subjects in that place? I am sure he does not. What has happened is this: This £65,000 is a purely arbitrary sum arrived at by the British Chaplain in consultation with the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
    I should also like an answer from the Under-Secretary as to what has happened to these refugees, and what is happening, and whether my version is or is not correct. I believe there are less than 700 of these so-called necessitous persons. They arrived in London in March, 1920. They were taken to the Holborn Union Workhouse at Mitcham. There they were housed under quite comfortable conditions, receiving full maintenance and a small allowance for personal expenses. In November, 1920, the lease of Mitcham Workhouse, which had been used as a military hospital, ran out, and the Government asked these people to find accommodation outside, giving them a small but quite sufficient allowance. In February, 1921, notice was sent to them telling them to quit by 28th March, 1921, and after that date it was left to them, being necessitous persons in this country, to apply for relief to the Guardians. What is the most iniquitous thing about these Russian refugees which were brought to this country? We were told they were English subjects, but they are only that technically, for the majority could not even speak English. They were brought over here because the British chaplain in Russia found out that they had grandfathers or great-grandfathers or great-uncles who happened to be English. He brought them over to this country—I hope the Under-Secretary will deny this if I am wrong—solely for

    1175
    propagandist purposes against the Russian Government. They were brought over here in order that they might be taken about the country, North, South, East and West to spread fabulous tales amongst us as to the position of affairs in that country.
    These people who could not speak English were brought over as necessitous British refugees. What happened? They were handed over to the Central Committee for the Training of Women in England, and an endeavour was made to teach them English, with more or less success, and an endeavour was also made to find some employment for them. Of course it was very difficult. I do not suppose this £15,000 really represents any 6f the money spent by that Committee on the training of these people. We might be told about that. There is sad irony in these Russian so-called British refugees in this country. They could not get work. No one would engage them in this country. If you bring 800 persons from another country to this country at this time of trade depression, how can you expect them to get work? What we further know of this anti-Bolshevist propaganda was that these people, or some of them, went to Soviet House, the headquarters of the Russian delegation, to seek work. Some of them have got work. They were turned out of the workhouse on to the streets literally to starve, and even these refugees have been so mishandled by the British Government that to-day they are turning against that Government, and why? Because a short time ago, after they had been brought out of Russia and left to starve on the London streets, Lord Curzon sent to inquire whether they were now in a position to pay their fare from Moscow to London. That is the bitter irony of that which had gone before.
    Why were these people brought here at all? Let us hear that before we vote. Let us hear why the Government ever approved of the bringing of these men and women from Moscow to this country. The Under-Secretary has told us that the Soviet authorities have been approached with regard to the repatriation of Russian refugees in this country. I do not believe that they have really been approached properly. I can quite understand the Soviet Government raising objections against many of the ragtag and
    1176
    bobtail of the white armies going back to Russia, but I am quite sure, if they are approached again properly, they will raise no objection—they have not done it in the past—to people going back to Russia if they are prepared to work. That is the real trouble. Most of these refugees do not want to work. Having lived in Russia all these years idle lives on the backs of the people, they only want to go back to Russia to overturn the Government so that their lives may be continued at the expense of the working classes. Let us hear something about the so-called Anglo-Russian refugees.
    Why were they brought here? Was it for propagandist purposes, or for any other reason? I have told the House that they were brought here solely for propagandist purposes, so that this British Chaplain in Russia could make anti-Bolshevist propaganda against the Russian Government. Let us have the full, strong light of publicity upon this matter. Let us know all we can in dealing with these leaders—I might use that term—of the English colony in Moscow. The British public ought to know more about these matters. The British Chaplain in Russia has been used, and used mainly by the British Government, as a centre of counter-revolutionary intrigue in Russia. Before he went to Russia, Mr. (now Sir Paul) Dukes had a great deal to do with the Russian Chaplain on behalf of the British Government. Has this £15,000 additional been spent on counter-revolutionary propaganda? Sir Paul Dukes when he left Russia was rewarded by a knighthood. Is this sum another means of simply rewarding the Reverend E. North? Let us know all about it. We have not had a clear definition. I shall be forced to vote against the Government, though, if money were spent on real relief for those who were starving in Russia, I should not hesitate to vote in favour of it. I would vote for four times that amount, but as it stands I shall certainly vote against it. What we are asked to vote for is a most iniquitous and outrageous scandal.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. G. BARNES: This is a crazy sort of debate. We are going from one subject to another, and, therefore, I may be excused if I try to get the attention of the Committee back to what I think has been the most important topic yet raised. I

    1177
    refer to the topic raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor). A great deal has been said about the relief of the Russian refugees, with which I am perfectly in favour. No good service has been done to the working people of this country by suggesting that, because we have 2,000,000 of people in this country unemployed, we cannot afford to do a little towards relieving these distressed people. But that is not the point I wish to put. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division has raised a question first as to the Turk and his atrocities, and the ease with which we let men off from Malta who, it was true, had not been convicted, but were held in prison charged, and were therefore let off without trial when they might have been tried, because they were in our custody. I think that was wrong. I also want to raise my voice in support of the plea of the hon. Member for Scotland Division in regard to the occupation of the Province of Smyrna.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not in order. The items are the Maintenance of Turks at Malta and Oil for Armenia, which was ordered and paid for. I am afraid that the occupation of Smyrna could not be brought into order.
    Mr. BARNES: It seems from my point of view to be a lamentable proposal that the Greeks should be driven out of Smyrna and that the area should be occupied by that sort of people. About the oil for Armenia, it is stated that something is to be done in regard to getting back that money when there is a suitable Government. All I want to say about that is that I hope the Government will not regard that as in any sense an acquittal of our obligation towards these people. They were induced to fight on our side during the War. As a consequence, they not only lost men in the War, but were subjected to these horrible cruelties of which we have heard. I do not think for a moment that the Government stood behind these people as they should have done, and I therefore express the hope that when the Under-Secretary of State gets up to reply he will tell us something which will indicate that the Government have in their mind a serious sense of responsibility in inducing these poor people to come into the War on our side, and that they will not regard their obligation altogether dis-
    1178
    charged by the mere paltry payment of this sum of money, but will still stand behind these people in their further struggle to escape the clutches of these Turks.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I want to call attention to the note under the heading "J."—
    "The claim has been noted for presentation to any future stable Government of Armenia."
    It would appear from this statement that the Government is now telling us that there is no stable Government in Armenia. As a matter of fact, the Government that is in Armenia is the most-stable they have ever had, but it is a Government hostile to this country, and that is the net result of the policy, the poltroon policy, of the Government on this matter. The Government has abandoned these people, with the result that Armenia has fallen into the hands of a few Russian sympathisers and emissaries. You have in Armenia at the present time a Government which is perfectly stable, which is giving that country peace, internal peace and peace with its neighbours, and it is hostile to this country because this country has betrayed every pledge and obligation we have ever had to these people.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I was glad to hear the confession made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—a confession that appeared to me to be appalling—that so much money has been wasted on ventures that have brought us into disrepute in many parts of the world. I wish to put some pertinent questions. The Under-Secretary has given some very interesting figures of the number of people affected by these Votes. We have, under Subhead L, "Maintenance of Turks at Malta, £25,000." The Under-Secretary told the Committee that the number of persons involved in that sum was 120. £25,000 appears to me to be a very large sum indeed to cover 120 people, and compares strangely with the amount per annum we spend on our own unemployed in this country. We have another item of £10,000 for the repatriation of Turks from the Yemen. I should like to know how many persons are involved in this. We are told under Subhead O—"Relief in Russia"—that this is not the last time an application will be made to the House

    1179
    for a sum of money to deal with this item, although we have £15,000 now included in this Supplementary Estimate. I think the Under-Secretary should be informed that there is a strong suspicion in this country that money voted in this way is not voted for the purpose stated in these words, "Relief in Russia." A point has already been mentioned by an hon. Member with regard to what might be described as spy work in Russia.
    Personally, I object very strongly to any Government in any part of the world sending men to this country to propound political doctrines. We are the people to determine what form of Government is to our liking. I would like to ask whether any of this money is likely to be spent in Russia for propagandist purposes? It has been hinted at already, and we are entitled to a reply. The last-item is one of £60,000 for "Advances to Bessarabian Co-operative Societies." To some of us this is very interesting, and we should like to know whether these co-operative societies are under the wing of any Government, or whether they are voluntary co-operative societies with which we have been doing business. There is another item, and I would like to support the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin on the point that he mentioned, that it is unfair to ask the League of Nations to do what is, in my view, some of the unclean work that should have been done by our own Government. In conclusion, I think we ought to add a note of protest here. Some of this money, undoubtedly, has been spent, and some of the Estimate that is included here for the future will be spent, undoubtedly, in order to maintain the sons and daughters of the wealthy classes of Russia who are opposed to the Bolshevist Government. I want to raise a protest against any money being spent on these people when we are unable, as a State, to find money in order to maintain our own people decently in this country.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Malone) regarding the British refugees from Russia. It was one of the most heartless speeches I think I ever heard. It was one of the brightest experiences of my life to see the way in which Englishmen have gone to Russia, there to establish their position in factories and other works. No one could
    1180
    sympathise more than I did with these British people who were brought to ruin when the terrible troubles came to Russia. These men and women and children, who were rescued with difficulty, were brought over with nothing but the clothes that they had on at the time from what appeared to be absolute starvation and massacre. We rescued them with great difficulty, and I am sorry for the way they have been treated in this country since they were brought over. We have heard how they were sent to the workhouse and neglected by everybody. They came under difficulties in Russia through no fault of their own. The Government has done nothing for them. We have heard hon. Members on the Labour Benches objecting to any help being given and ridiculing them. These are our own British people whom we rescued out of Bolshevist hands. I think the speech is one of the most distressing episodes I have heard in my life.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I rise to disabuse the hon. Member opposite of any supposition that the money proposed to be granted under sub-head "O" is to be used for any other purpose than that mentioned. It may be that the hon. Member has not been present at the former discussions on this subject. If he had, he would have been aware that many people took part. For that purpose they had to borrow money from whom they were able to borrow, and under this head all we are proposing to do is to pay back to these people who came to the rescue, the money that they lent then. None of it, as the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) seems to suggest, very unnecessarily and rather wickedly, I thought, concerns Mr. North, and none of it is used for any purpose of propaganda whatsoever. For a member of the Government to come down here and put down a bogus Estimate, asking for money ostensibly for a proper purpose, and then using it for propaganda purposes, I am sure no hon. Member would entertain that suspicion.
    Lord R. CECIL: Before my hon. Friend concludes his intervention, I hope we shall have some indication of the Government view upon the matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) and the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes).

    1181
    I do not want to disturb the harmony of the proceedings, but I think the Government should make it clear where they stand on the Armenian Question. It has been raised on the item Oil for Armenia. I do not want to go back to the old story, but no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the obligations of the Government are precise and binding in regard to the Armenians, and it would be a dishonour to this country if we were to allow these unhappy people to perish without any effort of assistance from us. The least the Government can do is to assure the House that they are using every diplomatic and moral effort short of sending an expedition to do something to repair the grave injustice which has been done to these people.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In answer to the question which has just been put to me by my Noble Friend opposite, I may say that this question of the Armenians in Cilicia has been very much in the mind of the Government, and unquestionably that matter will come up for earnest discussion at the Conference to be held with regard to the settlement of the Turkish Empire. I had no notion that a question of this magnitude would be raised in association with this item in the Vote, otherwise I should have conferred with other Members of the Government on the subject. There is no doubt whatever that whatever can be done will be done by the Government. My hon. Friend asked a question about the Turkish prisoners who had been exchanged from Malta, and no doubt some of them were of the very severe type which he described. I believe some of them were people lying under suspicion of the gravest possible kind.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not think anyone doubts any of his statements, and we all appreciate the difficult task he has of clearing up the mess made by other parties. I do not doubt the hon. Member's word, but I wish to ask him one or two questions. This £15,000 for relief in Russia is in addition to another £95,000 which has already been advanced. I think we ought to have a little more information about it. When the hon. Gentleman introduced his very complicated Vote he said very little about this item. Without having suggested that' the Reverend Mr. North and his friends
    1182
    were spies, may I ask how is it that two years after this larger sum was voted we are asked for a further £15,000? Surely accounts were kept, and there must be a list of those who subscribed money, and it seems curious that two years later a further sum should be preferred against the Government, and the hon. Gentleman tells us that this is not the last and that there are other sums to come in.
    Secondly, I want to ask has there been a careful scrutiny by accountants of all these claims, and have they been gone into in a businesslike manner. I think there is some excuse for the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone) asking questions as to the way the money was used. I accept the statement that the money was used partly in charity, but I must say that I think, looking at our whole relation with Russia, there is some excuse for this question being raised in this House, and there is some excuse for curiosity on this point. I think we ought to have some more details as to who these other people are who have been disbursing this money, and we ought to have some assurance that the matter is being looked into from a business, and not simply a sentimental point of view. I understood the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say very distinctly that the Foreign Office have discovered that the rumours about General Wrangel raising another army in the Balkans is untrue.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I said they had never been heard of before to-day.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The present High Commissioner in Constantinople is well known as an enemy of Bolshevist Russia, but it is very comforting to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Office definitely repudiate any knowledge of any such expedition being prepared. The hon. Gentleman has assured us in this respect, and we take his word. We have been told, however, that some of these soldiers were being drilled in the environments of Constantinople. That was being done in September, and we were then paying for the food and lodgings of the people who were being-drilled. We are now told that that has been stopped, and the hon. Member for Chelsea, (Sir S. Hoare) has borne out that statement, although he admits they

    1183
    were drilling a few months ago, and that some of the money we voted last year was used for feeding these men who were engaged in military exercises instead of looking for work. It is very gratifying to know that the Foreign Office have definite information that this Wrangel expedition is not to be revived. It will
    save many questions from this side of the Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the patience and courtesy he has shown, and I think he might now have the Vote.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 72.

    Division No. 38.]

    AYES.

    [8.39 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Atkey, A. R.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Austin, Sir Herbert

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pratt, John William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Prescott, Major Sir W. H.

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Remer, J. R.

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

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

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

    Rodger, A. K.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Seager, Sir William

    Bruton, Sir James

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Shaw, William. T. (Forfar)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Casey, T. W.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

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

    Kellaway, Rt, Hon. Fredk. George

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Kidd, James

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Taylor, J.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

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

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Lorden, John William

    Waddington, R.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lort-Williams, J.

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

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

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Derltend)

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wise, Frederick

    Forrest, Walter

    Molson, Major John Eisdale

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

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Neal, Arthur

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gardiner, James

    Parker, James

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Dudley Ward.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    NOES

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Galbraith, Samuel

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Gillis, William

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles w.

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lunn, William

    Bromfield, William

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

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

    Cairns, John

    Halls, Walter

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

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hancock, John George

    Mosley, Oswald

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

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hayward, Evan

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Robertson, John

    Finney, Samuel

    Irving, Dan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Foot, Isaac

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

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

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)

    Wignall, James

    Sitch, Charles H.

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

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Spencer, George A.

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Sutton, John Edward

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Swan, J. E.

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

    Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Myers.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): This token Vote for £100 covers Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to nearly £9,780,000, and is for the service of Shipping Liquidation. In case the Committee have not got it exactly in mind, perhaps it may be as well if I explain the nature of this Shipping Liquidation service. On the cessation of the Ministry of Shipping, on 31st March last, the work divided itself naturally into two parts. Firstly, there was that part of the work which was permanent and continuous and administrative in character, that is to say, the work which used to be done by the old Transport Department of the Admiralty and the old Marine Department of the Board of Trade. That work was carried on, under the heads of the Mercantile Marine Services and of the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and with that administrative work this Vote is not concerned. This service is a purely liquidation service, and is not, strictly speaking, an operative or administrative service at all, though there is, of course, the ordinary maintenance of assets such as is practised by any liquidator pending the disposal of the assets, which, in the present case, are ships.
    I do not propose to go into the general question at any length, and, indeed, it would not be in order that I should do so on a Supplementary Estimate. Further, it is really unnecessary, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Colonel Leslie Wilson), in making the final speech for the Ministry of Shipping last year, went so fully into the general position that hon. Members who want to be informed as to the general course of the work will find all the information they
    1186
    require on reference to that speech. At the same time, there are one or two things which I think it right and respectful to the Committee to say with regard to particular items in the Vote. Firstly, I would say this single word with regard to the existing assets which still await disposal. The ships which still await disposal consist at the present moment of only 13 prize and detained vessels, and I am sure the Committee wlil be glad to know that the number has been reduced to so low a figure. Their total tonnage is about 50,000 tons. They will be disposed of as soon as they have been condemned by the Prize Court, if that event occurs. Whether or not it will occur is, of course, not for me to say, but as soon as condemnation takes place, if it does take place, the vessels will be disposed of.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why are they not coming before the Courts now?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: They are coming before the Courts now, but it takes time. In addition to these prize and detained vessels, of which now there are only 13, only one Government-owned ship now remains out of the enormous armada acquired during the War. This one was taken over by the Government because it was considered to be less expensive, and so it turned out to be, to do so than to re-condition her and return her to her owners. Her name is the "Himalaya," and at the present moment she is employed on trooping service. The only other vessels which remain are one old paddle steamer and two barges, and I have hopes that we shall be able to dispose of these at an early date.
    Turning to the actual Estimate, I should like to make it clear to the Committee that, apart from certain small administrative charges, as to which I will say a word in a moment, there are in this Supplementary Estimate no fresh liabilities at all. The Estimate is only for the purpose of bringing into final account liabilities which have long since accrued—some of them accrued some years since—but which it has not been possible to ascertain with the exactitude which is

    1187
    necessary for bringing a liability into final account. What I am doing, therefore, in moving this Vote, is in a sense reporting progress to the Committee as regards liquidation. I think the Committee will see that, whatever there is to be said—and there may be something to be said both for and against—as regards the practice of the introduction of Supplementary Estimates in general, in the case of a liquidation service a Supplementary Estimate is really a virtue and not a vice, is a subject for congratulation and not for reproach, because it means, in effect, that the work of liquidation has gone on faster than was expected at the beginning of the financial year. Having said that, perhaps I may be allowed to say one word asking for the sympathy of the Committee upon the position of the unfortunate liquidator. In no other system of accounts that I ever heard of, except that of national accounts, would a liquidator be expected to estimate exactly what his receipts and payments were going to be during a given financial year, 12 months, or even more than 12 months—because the Estimates are made up in December and January—beforehand. That would never be done in commercial practice, nor would it be necessary for a liquidator to do what in effect I am now doing, that is to say, to hold a shareholders' meeting in order to get leave to bring to account faster than was expected various items which have come up in the liquidation during the current year.
    With that small comment, which I think the Committee will feel to be not at all unjustified, let me say a word about the particular items. The Committee will see that the gross increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid is £9,721,900, as against an anticipated increase of £9,722,000. The increase in receipts is due, broadly speaking, to two causes. In the first place, greater progress has been made than was anticipated in recovering sums due to His Majesty's Government, and, in the second place, further settlements which were not anticipated during the financial year have taken place with various foreign Governments, and with certain Dominion Governments. I think it is important that the Committee should realise that this token Vote not only covers Appropriations-in-Aid of nearly £9,750,000, but that it actually means that there is an increase
    1188
    of revenue coming into the Exchequer, represented by the difference between £100 on the one side and the extra receipts, which the Committee will find stated at the bottom of the page, amounting to £1,500,000. What I am reporting to the Committee, therefore, is that we have made better progress, and have collected more money for the Exchequer to the extent of £1,499,900, than we expected to do at the beginning of the financial year. There is still, however, at least one large financial settlement to take place with a foreign Government. That is the final settlement—the last settlement with the United States. We are in close and active negotiation, and I have good hopes that we may arrive at an agreement during the current financial year, and provision has accordingly been made on the other side of the account. On that other side of the account subheads B, D, E and F are administrative charges in respect of which there are extra amounts due. In some cases the necessity for the extra amounts is duo simply to the fact that greater progress has been made than was anticipated with the liquidation and, in consequence, increased charges have become due. In the majority of the amounts it is due to the bringing into final account of back charges, which have accrued in past years, which were not capable of exact ascertainment, and which it has only been possible now accurately to ascertain, and in at least one case, in the case of Subhead B, travelling expenses, it is due to an error in the original Estimate. The original Estimate was a bad Estimate. It was a considerable underestimate, and I have to acknowledge that and to express regret. There was also in Subhead D, a considerable underestimate in the sum of £27,250 due to a similar clerical error. But apart from those amounts, the majority of the charges under B, D, E and F are merely the bringing into final account of back charges.
    Subheads G and H comprise the anticipated settlement with the United States and also the bringing to account of expenditure in the accounts for previous years which it has hitherto not been possible to examine so accurately as to satisfy the requirements of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. These have now been examined, and they are to be finally agreed. They are in the state in which they will pass the Comptroller and

    1189
    Auditor-General, and it is necessary to provide money to pay them. There are further included in G and H sums of money to meet various claims for liabilities which it is now known have been incurred during the current financial year, but which it was not possible at the beginning of the financial year accurately to anticipate, and in regard to that any Member of the Committee who has practical shipping experience will know that, in cases of delay, repairs, collisions and damages, it really is not practically possible in advance accurately to estimate what your ultimate liability is going to be. In collision cases, for instance, you do not know what the actual amount of the claim is going to be until the liability is determined, and in the majority of litigious matters—and all the amounts under this Subhead are litigious—until you have reached what they call the discovery stage, the stage at which your documents are communicated to the other side and theirs are communicated to you, you do not even know what the amount of the claim is going to be, let alone what the amount of the ascertained and adjudged liability is finally going to be. It is not, therefore, possible, as anyone with practical knowledge of the business will agree, accurately in advance to estimate the amounts which you are going to be called on to pay under these particular heads. Sub-head J consists of three different items, in the first place, of balances due on final account for shipbuilding to the amount of £326,000. These represent the final payments in respect mostly of vessels which were cancelled at the time of the Armistice. They were then in various stages of completion, and it has been matter of great difficulty to ascertain the exact amount finally due for the balance of payments in respect of each, but this amount of £326,000 represents the payments which have now been really ascertained and made for that purpose. The next item in this Subhead is £400,000 which it has become necessary to pass as a credit to the Prize Fund in respect of the valuation of prize vessels, and the balance consists of a sum which has to be passed as a credit, not to the Prize Fund but to the Prize Court, in respect of sales of detained vessels. The Prize Court means the Exchequer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does this payment to the Prize Courts come out of the Prize Fund generally?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, there are two quite distinct sources. The thing works the opposite way to what you expect. The Droits of the Crown go to the Prize Fund, and are paid out to the various recipients. The Droits of the Admiralty go to the Exchequer. The £400,000 in respect of prize vessels are Droits of the Crown payable to the Prize Fund, and will be ultimately distributed. The balance of the amount is Droits of Admiralty, in respect of detained vessels, payable to the Prize Court, which will go as appropriations to the Exchequer. Subhead K, £19,000, represents an amount in respect of claims for diversions which it was hoped to settle, when the original Estimate was framed, before 31st March, 1921. In fact, it was not possible finally to settle it before that date, so it lapped over into this financial year, and provision has accordingly to be made to pay it now. In Subhead L, miscellaneous Services, including losses on exchange, the amount to the debit of exchange account in respect of losses is £50,000, but as a matter of fact most of that represents purely book-keeping charges, because it is the practice, in working the Treasury Chest Fund, that issues from the fund are made at the rate of exchange for whatever the particular accounting period is. They are issued by the Drawing Department at that rate of exchange. Any fluctuations of exchange during the course of that accounting period are for account of the Department which draws the money. Therefore, in the majority of cases, this purely represents a matter of bookkeeping from one side of the account to the other. The rest of the Miscellaneous Services cover a variety of items, payments to harbour boards, and various other small things which are stated fully in the annual accounts in accordance with usual practice, and are presented to the House and reported on by the Public Accounts Committee, and unless anyone desires any particular information in regard to that I do not think it is necessary to go into details.
    Perhaps I should say something about Subhead Q, amount required to meet losses and sums deposited with Russian banks, £100,000. Before the revolution

    1191
    we were engaged in sending munitions and stores, and in the course of the work transport officers were installed at various ports in Russia. They had sums of money to their credit in various banks with which to work. When the revolution took place the revolutionary Government stepped in and embargoed those sums in the banks and ultimately confiscated them. They will no doubt form part of the claim which may ultimately be preferred against the Russian Government.
    Mr. J. JONES: Which Government?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no exact knowledge, and I have no right to say which, but ultimately, sooner or later, a claim will be preferred against some Russian Government in respect of the amounts due to His Majesty's Government. In the meantime, I am clear that the proper thing to do, as being responsible for the liquidation, is to write the amount off. Therefore I ask the leave of the Committee to write it off accordingly.
    Mr. WISE: Which bank is it in?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In a variety of banks. I can give my hon. Friend the exact information as to the allocation if he wishes it, but I have not the information with me at the moment. It was in various banks at the ports of entry into Russia. To complete the story, I ought to say something as to the extent and duration of the work. I will not say anything about the staff, because it would not be in order, as there is no money in this Vote for staff; but in order that the Committee may understand the extent of the work, I may say that the staff numbers just over 300. They will be reduced progressively as the work continues to be reduced. In case my hon. Friends may feel anxious in regard to the staff, I can assure them that if they will turn to the relevant section of the Geddes Committee Report they will see that they use words almost of encomium in referring to the work of the shipping liquidation. The real thing is that in a liquidation business like this you cannot take short cuts. It is no use saying: "Here is an old service, cut it away; take the axe to it." If you were stupid enough to do that, you would be confronted with one of two alternatives, either of which is unthinkable. You would have to
    1192
    repudiate the existing obligations of His Majesty's Government to people who had claims against them, or you would have to pay all the claims in full. Clearly, that is an impossible course.
    There is one matter which deserves consideration, and that is that in all these liquidation services there will come a time when you get so far down in your liquidation that the balance of claims either to pay or receive on the one side and the balance of the staff costs on the other will become nearly approximately equal. We have not got near that point yet in regard to this service, but we shall reach that point sometime, and I cannot help thinking that it would be exceedingly desirable that those who are particularly charged with consideration for these matters, the Public Accounts Committee, should consider the position which is going to arise then. The position from the point of view of the Department is that the Department is bound by the letter and the word of the Exchequer and Audit Act. It has to satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General has to work by the Exchequer and Audit Act. When that situation arises, it might be desirable possibly to have some modification or some relaxation of the exact letter of the Exchequer and Audit Act; but we have not yet got anywhere near that point in regard to this liquidation, because the monthly costs of the staff on the average of the last six months has been just over £8,000, while the savings per month by recoveries, disallowances, and reductions have been just over £308,000. Therefore, there is still on the monthly balance a sum of £300,000 per month over and above the cost of the staff.
    9.0 P.M.
    As regards the extent of the remaining work, the Committee know that Sir Joseph Maclay has resigned the position of Shipping Controller, but that we are fortunate in having his advice and assistance in an advisory capacity. It would be simply presumption on my part to say anything about the great services of Sir Joseph Maclay, but I do say that for one reason, if for no other, he deserves the eternal gratitude of the taxpayers of this country, because after the Armistice, at a moment when many other expert people in the shipping world held contrary views,

    1193
    Sir Joseph Maclay persistently gave the Government the good advice, which they took, to get out of the shipping business as quickly as they could.
    Mr. J. JONES: Yes, and sell the ships to the shipowners at half price.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot pretend to be able to give any exact estimate of the balance of the work which remains to be done, and I hope that the figure I am going to give will not be quoted against me in future, because one cannot make more than the best conjecture. I think that I ought to make a shot at it, and I estimate that there will still remain after the close of this financial year to be paid by His Majesty's Government something like £8,000,000, and there will still remain to be received by His Majesty's Government something like £13,000,000. I cannot translate this Estimate into terms of months. The process is almost certain to take more than the next financial year, but how much after that I cannot say. I can, however, give the Committee the assurance that, so far as it is in the interests of the Exchequer, we will use our utmost endeavours to expedite the progress. Probably Members of the Committee will be inclined to receive that assurance with great confidence because of the progress, on the whole, the unexpectedly satisfactory progress which is revealed by the presentation of this Estimate.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but there are several points which we must notice in this Estimate. I congratulate the hon. Member on the very charming manner in which he has presented the Estimate. I only wish we heard him more often, and that we had more of that sort of lucidity practised on the Government Bench. It is true that the Geddes Committee in their Report say:
    "We have not investigated the staff in detail. The cost appears to be small in relation to the turnover and we make no recommendation."
    When one remembers the composition of the Geddes Committee, hon. Members will understand perfectly well why they said that. In case there was any doubt about it, they state:
    "The actual administration is conducted with the assistance of an Advisory Committee consisting of the late Shipping Controller and other shipowners formerly associated with the Ministry."
    1194
    Dog does not eat dog, and I should have been very surprised if they had said anything else. I do not wish to be misunderstood in this matter, and the fact that the late Shipping Controller gave his great services unpaid, and that he was, on the whole, very successful, is a matter on which we can join with the hon. Member in a note of congratulation. I am glad to hear about the £400,000 Prize Court money. I wish it had been settled earlier. It has taken far too long. We have not yet got the final consignment of prize money. It is not the men in the Service, but the men who are demobilised and out of work who want this money. I only wish that this £400,000 could have been put in before. Is this an estimate of the total amount, or will there be some further amount when these last ships are sold up? There is a great deal to be said about the selling of these ships which can be said on Report.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The reparation ships do not come into this Vote.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But the captured ships have been sold. They are all part of the same policy. The items at the bottom of page 42, £7,500,000 include some ex-enemy ships—I do not say under the reparations but as prizes. But in reference to these losses of money deposited in Russian banks, I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman said about the Transport Officers lodging these great sums in Russian banks. That is not what was done by Transport Officers in cases which I have known abroad. I do know that there are very heavy claims by shipping companies against the Russian Government for carrying munitions and transport as a private commercial contract with the Russian Government. These are legitimate claims. Do these companies get any compensation? This sum has been written off. Does that mean simply a bookkeeping entry or rather an erasure? Will this £100,000 be available for making good, losses in other Departments? Is it money advanced by the Treasury to these Transport Officers and used by them? What I want to be certain about is that none of this money is money due to British shipping companies.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON indicated dissent.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad to have that clear. These are legitimate claims and are as much entitled to be paid as any others.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I will stand only for a few minutes between the Committee, and the more important discussion which awaits the Committee, but there are a few matters in this Estimate which require some further elucidation. The hon. Gentleman congratulated himself upon being in the position to present a Supplementary Estimate on the ground that a Supplementary Estimate in the case of liquidation departments meant that the work was being speeded up. It is easy to understand on the administrative side of the work that a more rapid sale of assets than was anticipated will, or may, result in greater charges on administrative expenditure, but the hon. Gentleman went on to point out that the main increase in these administrative charges, that is under the first four headings, was due to a clerical error.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, only a small amount under Sub-head B. I said on the contrary that the main amount was due to bringing in back charges.
    Mr. MOSLEY: Then I should like to know how this extraordinary miscalculation arose under the heading D, where we find an increase in the charge for salaries, wages and allowances of three times the original Estimate. A miscalculation of that kind seems almost inconceivable. Does it mean that additional staff which was taken on? Again, a clerical error, which he admits under B, of over 100 per cent, appears a remarkable performance for any Government Department, a performance which would incur sad consequences for a clerk or employé in an ordinary firm. Then under heading E we find that travelling expenses have increased four times the original Estimate. The hon. Gentleman has given no explanation. A further explanation of the extraordinary miscalculation of these administrative charges should be offered before we pass this Estimate. Again, I cannot see why under the remaining headings, which represent, so far as I can make out, the payment of bills incurred in the War, none of those amounts could be estimated in the original Estimate. Presumably they are all at least three years old. Why for instance under Q, losses of £100,000
    1196
    for amount deposited in Russian banks prior to the revolution, were not those amounts introduced in previous Estimates? Why does the hon. Gentleman's Department wait four or five years and then spring them on the Committee in a Supplementary Estimate? There are in these Estimates numerous other cases of extraordinary delay and miscalculation the like of which I have never witnessed in any other Supplementary Estimate presented to this House. This will be another of the points which can be raised on the Report stage. I would also like some explanation of item H in which the original Estimate was £1,000 and the revised Estimate is £300,000. There is another extraordinary miscalculation under heading K. All these are War bills presumably three or four years old. They are sprung suddenly on the Committee and in every case we find these amazing miscalculations. On the Report stage we anticipate a full explanation, as is the custom of the hon. Gentleman in reference to these points.
    Mr. WISE: I want to ask my hon. Friend two questions. One is in connection with Item L. I think he stated that £50,000 had been lost in exchange. Is that all for this year? Who advises him on the exchange question? He also said he expected to pay out £8,000,000 and to receive £13,000,000 in the future. Are these sterling amounts or will they be liable to exchange?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Perhaps it will be convenient if I first answer the question put by my hon. Friend who has last spoken. The amounts of £8,000,000 and £13,000,000 are sterling amounts, but they are only arrived at approximately. I cannot pretend to go any nearer. As regards the loss in exchange, I have explained that this is really in effect a bookkeeping transaction between the Treasury and the Department. The Treasury Chest Fund lays down money in ports abroad in local currency for this purpose, and when the Department draws upon the Treasury it draws from the Treasury at the rate of the day. It has to bring into account ultimately that expenditure at the end of its accounting period, and if there is a fluctuation in local currency during that period it is a matter for the account of the Department which draws the money.
    Mr. WISE: You do not draw the currency yourselves?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, the Treasury Chest Fund exists explicitly for the purpose of laying down money in ports abroad for the use of Government service abroad. With regard to the other questions which have been asked me, I may say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), the delay in paying prize money has not been attributable to the Shipping Liquidation Department. Until the vessels are adjudicated as prizes, it is quite obvious we cannot make payment. So far as I know, I think this is probably, from the Shipping Liquidation, the final payment into the Prize Fund. As to what amount remains in that fund still and as to how long the disposal will take, the hon. and gallant Member should address a question to the representative of the Admiralty. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), I am afraid, after all my explanation, I have still failed to make the matter clear to him. I hope when the question arises in the future I may be more fortunate. I have failed to make clear to him that you cannot in a service of this character pretend to estimate in advance. With regard to these particular heads, there is no pretence made that you can make an estimate in advance with any hope of being accurate. What you have to do is, towards the close of the financial year, when there is only a short time left and when you can estimate with some degree of accuracy over the remaining period, to find what your ascertained liabilities have been during the financial year, what you have actually brought to account as passed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Then you have to come to the House of Commons and ask for money to provide for that. If you wanted to estimate in advance on the safe side, you might ask for such a large sum of money in your estimate as would make you quite sure of covering yourself, but that would be grossly unfair, both to the House of Commons and to the taxpayer, because it might mean estimating for a much larger sum than you would ultimately require. In connection with liquidation services there is no alternative to be resorted to in these matters, but to go by your ascertained liabilities when
    1198
    you can bring them into account, and then ask the Committee for the money as I ask them now to give this Vote.

CLASS V.

  MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,737,600, 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, 1922, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

REGULATION OF COAL MINES.
Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move
"That Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, shall not cease to have effect."
In submitting to the House the Motion which stands in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself, it is desirable to bring to the memory of the House the position taken by this party towards the Mining Industry Act of June, 1920. It is quite fair for hon. Members to ask what has brought about the change which would seem to be indicated in the terms of this Motion. That question can best be answered by reviewing the grounds of our previous opposition. I am not going to enter into a re-hash of the arguments brought against the Act of 1920. Certain of my colleagues acknowledged then that the Measure was not wholly bad, that, like the curate's egg, it was good in parts; but it was held that the benefit to be derived from it was infinitesimal, compared with the disaster which was certain to overtake the miners, should the Measure come fully into operation. The Measure placed before the House in June, 1920, involved, as we then said, the destruction of the national bargaining power of the Miners' Federation. It compelled the workmen to fall back upon district and sectional arrangements. It destroyed at one blow all the progress made by the miners over a

1199
quarter of a century towards securing uniformity in the wages movement, for which they had constantly stood. The idea of equal pay for equal work, in whatever area the miner was employed, was absolutely destroyed, and workmen were thrown back upon what was then described as the economic basis of the industry. We pointed out this at the time. I know our speeches may be quoted against us, but, whatever speeches can be brought in evidence against us upon our changed attitude, there was not a single speech made from these Benches which did not point out the economic disaster that was certain to overtake the miners if that Bill became law.
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman), who was in charge of the Measure, who took a very prominent part in piloting it through the House, and who was most courteous all the time, thought that our fears were exaggerated. He said so both in the Committee room and in this House. I am sure he can see now that our fears were not only not exaggerated, but that indeed they fell far short of the actual state of things that has ensued since the passing of that Act. The forebodings we could not help entertaining have been proved too well-founded, and to-day the direct result of these sectional and district arrangements set up under the Act of 1920 and given effect to in the agreement of July last year is seen in the fact that the wages of the miners have been reduced to a lower level of purchasing power than has ever been the case during the last 40 years. Nevertheless, though we deplore the consequences of the sectional arrangements for which the Act of 1920 provided, we are driven as practical men to recognise that an accomplished fact exists. The Mining Industry Act is on the Statute Book; the Coal Agreement is in force. The desirability of giving the miners some degree of control in shaping the fortunes of the industry which exacts such a terrible toll of life and limb from him has been universally admitted. The members of the Sankey Commission, though differing in many respects, agreed unanimously upon this. Employers' and workmen's representatives were for once agreed. The employers favoured the pit committees and area boards embodied in the Measure because they said a spirit of friendship and conciliation would be
1200
established between employers and workmen, and that they would be the means of bringing both parties closer together than had been the case before the War, so that the industry could be carried on for the benefit of all parties. That statement, which was true then, is as true to-day, but by far the most powerful case for Part II of the Act was presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who was then President of the Board of Trade, and perhaps the House would be interested if I repeated a few of the sentences uttered by the right hon. Gentleman. This is what he said:
"I venture to say that Part II of this Bill is a great advance on anything that has taken place in industrial organisation in the past. You set up a mechanism for bringing the two parts of the industry together in the hope that by meeting each other much more amicably than they have done in the past you will be able to bring about far more harmonious relations than have existed hitherto. There has been a system something like the system of pit committees in many parts of the country in the past, and wherever established they have done good. But they have not been operating in all parts of the country, and we propose by this Bill that a system working in some parts shall apply to all."
The right hon. Gentleman went on a little further and said:
"We go further than that"—
and this, after all, is what we really would ask the attention of the House to, because these are the words, I think, that caused the House at that time to give a much more ready support than might otherwise have been the case—
"it has always been complained in the working of this industry that the workmen did not know what was happening, and that if they only knew the facts a good many fears and apprehensions would disappear. For the first time in any industrial legislation in this country we are giving the workmen the opportunity of knowing what is happening and what its profits and proceeds are in order that they may understand the vicissitudes with which the employers are faced. On the other hand, the employer is under the knowledge that all the facts have been placed before the workmen, and that he can no longer decoy them—if he did so before—with stories, which stories do not quite fit the fact."
As I have said before, many of my hon. Friends on these Benches, and, indeed. I myself, fully recognised that the Act of 1920 was not wholly bad, that there were many good points in the Measure, and had it not been for the fact we knew to be inevitable, that that Measure,

1201
acting on the lines upon which it was conceived, must eventually bring the greatest disaster on the industry that has ever been known, we would then have given support to Part II. It was true, and it is true to-day, that the workmen remained in almost absolute ignorance of what was taking place. It is as true to-day as ever it was that this great industry, on which the whole of the country depends, is conducted in such a way as to keep the workpeople themselves in what is almost blank ignorance of the facts of the industry. It may be said—and, indeed, it was said as lately as the beginning of 1921, by the Prime Minister himself—that under the agreement which the men, through sheer force of circumstances, through a poverty almost indescribable, were compelled to accept, the miners were being called upon to enter into the greatest profit-sharing scheme that had ever been invented. A more ridiculous travesty, a more miserable burlesque, of the actual case has never fallen from the lips of any man, much less from the lips of the Prime Minister of a great nation like our own. I do not want, at this moment, to go into the terrible and harrowing details of the facts that this agreement has pressed upon us, but I do say that the pit committees, the district committees, and the area boards under Part II of the Act would have given to the workmen some opportunity at least of becoming acquainted with certain of the elementary facts of the industry. They are not calculated to give us all, neither the pit committees, nor the district committees, nor the area boards to give us anything like the essential knowledge necessary if there is to be that proper feeling and that good understanding that ought to exist in an industry such as this, and which would help us part of the way. To that extent I take it is a part of the Act that ought to be supported. It by no means merits, however, the very vivid and highly-coloured description of the effects of the pit committees and the probable results of operating Part II of the Act that was given by the then President of the Board of Trade. He went on to say that all the facts would be placed before the workmen.
The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I think the President of the Board of Trade was referring to the quarterly reports of the inspectors.
Mr. WALSH: He was referring to the pit committees and the area boards in Part II of the Act. The quarterly statements had been in possession of the House some time before this Measure was introduced, and he was referring entirely to the pit committees. He said:
"There has been a system something like the system of pit committees in many parts of the country in the past, and wherever established they have done good, but they have not been operating in all parts of the country, and we propose by this Bill,"
and so on. He is referring still to the pit committees. We do not for one moment believe, nor could the right hon. Gentleman, if he really had gone into the matter as closely as those of us whose life conditions compel us, believe, that we shall know all the essential facts of the industry, but the pit committees would at least bring the responsible workmen and the responsible officials of the mine together. The men are enabled to throw out hints, and they are enabled to take some little part in showing how their conditions can be improved. They are enabled to give many hints to the responsible management as to how the whole conditions can be bettered, and to that extent a condition of friendship and of mutual respect might be developed which does not exist very largely in the industry to-day. Something can be pardoned to the right hon. Gentleman who was the father of the Measure, because of the parental exaltation which suffused his mind at the moment, but I am sure he would be the first to admit that his language at that time was too highly coloured and that none of these wonderful results have ensued. Indeed, had they been at all possible, there is no doubt that the employers would not have been willing to give their support at that time in anything like the same degree as was the case. We are bound to agree with another thing that the right hon. Gentleman said. He said:
"The importance of the coal mining industry is such that it deserves special treatment and consideration. It is the foundation upon which the success and prosperity of our country depend."
Nobody need indulge in high falutin' language in this House to the effect that any particular industry is necessary for the continuance of the nation, but that the mining industry is a great industry, upon which large interests depend, that

1203
it is in the highest degree desirable that it should be conducted upon lines of mutual confidence and respect between employers and workmen, everybody must admit. That the well-being of the nation itself depends in a large degree upon the prosperity of that great industry may also be admitted, and therefore anything that tends to develop a feeling of mutual respect and confidence, anything that tends to remove suspicion and substitute a cordial good feeling and honest relationship, is to be welcomed. To that extent Part II was a desirable part of the Act of 1920. Notwithstanding the attitude that we took up in August, 1920, notwithstanding that we felt that we could not then support the Act on the ground that its central principle necessarily involved the break up, the complete destruction, of the Miners' Federation in the national bargain sense, it was because of that and not because of any dislike we had of Part II that we were compelled to vote against the Measure itself, which necessarily involved voting against Part II. We did at least look upon Part II, if I may say so, with a somewhat chastened affection. We did not love it. We were very much like the story of the American, who, being very hungry and being asked if he could eat crow, said he thought he could, but he did not hanker after it. Neither did we hanker after Part II, but it was infinitely better than the Bill as a whole. As we could not have Part II without having the Bill as a whole, we were compelled to vote against the Measure, and that is a perfectly fair description of the attitude that we were compelled to take at the time.
I have given the fundamental reason which caused this party to vote against the Measure in 1920, but I am certainly not aware of anything that has happened to bring about the changed attitude of the employers. To give the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Mining Department his due, I must say this. I think it is only fair to him to say that he is taking up the same attitude now, and has taken up the same attitude all the time, as he took in June and August, 1920, namely, that he then believed that Part II was a part of the Act that ought to be used to the fullest extent by the miners. He thought it was capable of great good. He has consistently stated
1204
so, and he is entitled to every possible credit for his consistency in that matter. I am sure he has nothing with which to reproach himself in respect of Part II of the Act of 1920. I understand that even now he believes that that part ought to be utilised both by employers and workmen to the very fullest extent, and indeed, in the Report which he has laid before the House, he certainly has expressed his opinion in no uncertain manner. Therefore, the Government itself, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman at the head of this Department, have been consistent, and I understand that he is still with us in hoping that this particular part of the Bill will be fully utilised. I hope, therefore, I am speaking to the converted in his case, but there is nothing at all to justify the change of attitude on the part of the employers. They admit that there is the same necessity, that there is even a greater necessity now, after that terrible disturbance of last year, to restore such an amount of respect and mutual confidence as is possible. The men's wages are going down in such a terrible manner that they feel they are suffering most unmerited hardship. Indeed, it is more than that; they believe they are victims of a great injustice, and surely it is the duty of the State to remove by every possible means from the minds of the men that suspicion, that feeling, that the hardships that are entering every day into their lives are the consequence of injustice which is being inflicted upon them and not the result of a fair deal that is being given to them.
Therefore, anything this House can do to remove that suspicion, anything this House can do to develop confidence greater than that which in every respect has hitherto existed, is surely the most beneficial work to which the House can set its hand. I recognise, however, that even in referring to our friends the employers, a charge of inconsistency cannot be directed with any real force against them. Indeed, in this respect, I take it we are companions in adversity. It is true they can equally reproach us with jumping Jim Crow, and the condition of the mining population, and all the interests involved, the future prospects of the nation itself, depend so largely upon the progress of this industry, that versatility in changing one's attitude is not conducive to the best interests of the

1205
State. I suppose they can taunt us with really doing the same thing, and I cannot say that the taunt would not be justly deserved. After all, nothing is gained by taunting each other with changing one's views. I am sure hon. Members and right hon. Members in this House will remember that from these Benches, time after time we made certain appeals, I know everyone of them most earnest, some of them the most earnest appeals I have ever heard in my life, that drastic action, hurried action, ought not to be taken.
We fully recognise, with the employers, that you cannot force people to love you. Affection is often a plant of a very slow growth. You must, first of all, eradicate suspicion before you can develop harmonious relations. You must act in such a manner as to prove your good faith, and we quite recognise that unless we could develop in the minds of the employers a genuine belief that we were acting in perfect good faith, that we desired equally with them the success of the industry, you might retain Part II for 100 years, but unless you could honestly develop feelings of confidence and mutual respect, it would be so much leather and prunella. We quite admit that. Therefore, we appeal not that pressure shall be put upon the employers, but simply that Part II shall not be made abortive, that it shall remain on the Statute Book, leaving the healing influences of time to bring the parties together. Do not destroy it. Nothing should be done to destroy anything which gives the slightest gleam of hope of better relationship between the two parties in this great industry. It will not in itself penalise any employer. There is nothing in the provisions of Part II which lays any penalty upon the employers or the workmen, but, at a later date, when both sides have come together, when suspicion has been removed, when that good feeling has been developed, which, I am sure, the future holds out, we shall proceed with a growing confidence, with mutual respect, to bring about the best relations in that great industry in which both parties are so deeply concerned.
Mr. HARTSHORN: I beg to second the Motion.
After the very lucid statement to which we have just listened, I think it will be altogether unnecessary for me to say
1206
more than a few words. I think I should make a great mistake, after the very full explanation given of the case of the miners and our present point of view, as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh), if I spoke at any length on the matter, and I only desire to emphasise two or three points upon which he has already touched. This Act, as we all know, is divided into three parts. In relation to the first and second there has never been any disagreement, but on Part II, as my hon. Friend has said, we were disagreed as to one part of the machinery thereunder. Part II proposed to establish machinery for the conduct of the industry so far as the relationship of workmen and employers was concerned. It proposed to set up pit committees, district committees, area boards and a National Board. In relation to three of those committees, we were in accord with the employers and the Government, but on the other, the Area Board, the Board which was to determine the general wage question of the miners, we were violently opposed, because we desired a National Wages Board based upon the economic capacity of the industry as a whole to pay wages, rather than sectional district wage arrangements based upon the economic capacity of the various areas. That was the whole point of difference between us when the Bill was under discussion in 1920. Since then we have had a very prolonged stoppage in the mining industry, and the contest was waged on the issue: Were we to have area Wage Boards, or were we to get a national Wage Board, with a national pool? So strong was the opposition of the miners to this area board wage agreement, as embodied in Part II, that the miners resisted its introduction by maintaining a stoppage for three months. Ultimately we were beaten. We do not make any pretence about it. We were beaten, and we had to accept the inevitable.
Mr. J. JONES: We will come again.
Mr. HARTSHORN: And to-day we have the area boards in existence. They are an established fact, and, having been compelled to accept the one objectionable feature to which all our opposition was directed, the natural corollary to that is to accept the whole scheme, and agree to the whole of the machinery provided

1207
under Part II of this Act. What I want to emphasise—and the only thing I want to emphasise is—that when area boards were forced upon us by the coalowners and by our opponents, we foretold what would follow. But I do not want to enlarge upon what has been already said. What I want to emphasise and make clear to the House is this, that Part II of this Act is essentially, from beginning to end, the scheme propounded and advocated all along the line by the coal-owners themselves.
With the Sankey Commission's Report we had four separate Reports on the Question of Nationalisation. The coal-owners, in conjunction with a few other employers who sat on the Committee, made a Report on their own. They dealt with the three schemes which had been submitted to the Commission. One was submitted by Mr. Sidney Webb, another by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and the third by Lord Gainford. The one by Mr. Sidney Webb and the other by the Mining Federation were concerning schemes of nationalisation introduced into the industry. Dealing with Lord Gainford's scheme—that is the coal-owners' scheme—the Commission say:
"This scheme is based upon the principle that private enterprise must be maintained and that the nationalisation of the coal industry would be prejudicial to the economic welfare of the country."
The whole scheme is based upon that preliminary declaration. Then they go on to say:
"The owners contend that want of knowledge in respect of prices, costs, and profits, and the absence of machinery conferring upon the workers opportunities for obtaining information and influencing the conditions under which they work, have to a great extent been the cause of the existing discontent."
That is their first statement, that the absence of this kind of machinery for dealing with the conditions in the mining industry are, in their opinion, one of the chief causes of discontent in the mining industry. They further say:
"The owners propose that by means of joint Committees of employers and workers full opportunity shall be given to the workers in each district, and at each colliery, to make suggestions with respect to the methods and conditions of their work, but without impairing the authority of the owners …. upon whom the law imposes the responsibility for the management and the direction of the mines."
1208
They make this statement, and they elaborate it in detail on page 39 of the Report under a paragraph headed, "Co-operation in the Coal-mining Industry." They say:
"We recommend that the following procedure shall be established. Pit Committees.—There shall be established at each colliery a Pit Committee consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the management and of the mine workers."
10.0 P.M.
Then they determine what the functions of these committees are to be, and these are exactly in harmony and accord with the wording of the Act as contained in Part II. They say there shall be district committees, and they describe the constitution and functions of the district committees, and these, outlined by the owners, are exactly the same as we have in this Part II. They propose a National Board. The Government have accepted in its entirety the scheme outlined by Lord Gainford, advocated all along the line by the coalowners, and ultimately embodied in the Act. My hon. Friend has talked about the possibility of us being taunted about the speeches we delivered when this Act was before the House. To my mind, there is no inconsistency in our attitude then compared with our attitude now. I have never ceased to believe that we were right on the last occasion. I have never ceased to believe that it would be for the good of this country if the mines were nationalised, but that, in the absence of nationalisation and a National Board, that some sort of internal financial arrangement would Be a good thing for the industry and the country. I have never ceased to believe that. But we have not got it! We have the scheme of Part II. So far as the workers are concerned, while I believe a very different system of things would be all to the good, we have simply to take the facts as we find them. I am one of those who believe that if we are to have private enterprise in the mining industry the best way to get the best results under that system of working is to have good relationship existing between the coalowners and the miners. You must either have co-operation or hostility, one of the two policies.
This whole scheme is based on the assumption that there is to be a spirit of goodwill and co-operation operating as between the coalowners and the miners. That is the whole basis of the scheme.

1209
I cannot for the life of me understand why the coalowners have adopted their changed attitude. Our changed attitude is clearly understandable. There is a vital difference in the situation. Earlier we were contending for a principle which is not now under discussion. The situation to-day is precisely that for which the coalowners were contending.
Mr. J. JONES: We will get our own back.
Mr. HARTSHORN: I sincerely hope that as this House forced upon the miners of this country a wage system in harmony with the desires of the coalowners and at the behest of the Government, that they will stand by the Measure they then passed, and will not now again, at the behest of the coalowners, and simply because they have changed their attitude—now that we have gone back to that which before they maintained was the road of salvation in the industry—I hope we shall not have a volte face on the part of this House when the vote is taken to-night. Having got our area boards, I think it is for the good of the industry and the community that the whole scheme should be worked. For that reason I beg to second this Motion and hope it will be carried on a Division.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: I trust that the remarks I will make will do nothing to disturb the harmony and good spirit created by the speeches already made. You cannot help but develop mild and friendly charges of inconsistency. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) has been consistent in one thing, that is, in his condemnation of Part II a few years ago and his praise of it this evening. He has been consistent in the vagueness and the lukewarmness both of his praise and his condemnation. I find that on the Second Reading of the Mining Industry Bill of 1920 the hon. Member for Ince said this:
"I am not paying any attention to these small Committee points about the establishment of pit industries—"
I presume it is a misprint in the OFFICIAL REPORT and that he meant pit committees—
"which are pure dressing and are not very good at that."
So this Part II is pure dressing, and not very good at that. This evening Part II is not wholly bad and is a desirable sec-
1210
tion instead of being pure dressing. There is some slight inconsistency.
Mr. WALSH: I am friendly in my support.
Mr. ROBERTS: There is a question that the coalowners can be charged with inconsistency. I think it is clear in studying the reports of what is said here, before the Sankey Commission, and in another place, that the coalowners, or a large section of them, with regard to committees, say that these committees should be set up on a voluntary basis. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, on the second Debate, said that Lord Gainford never recommended that these things should be compulsory, and that
"they should be done voluntarily between the parties. The right hon. Gentleman would be right well advised to drop Part II altogether."
So it shows there was no great faith put on the value of the pit committees at that time by those who put forward the views of the coalowners. The hon. Member for Ince stated that these committees are no use whatever unless they are set up in the spirit of mutual friendship. If they are forced, on one side by the other, they will be perfectly hopeless, and will only lead to friction. The hon. Member said that if this Resolution were passed it would only mean that Part II would remain on the Statute Book, but would remain in abeyance. I have been told that high legal opinion has been taken, and that it has been stated very definitely that if this Resolution be passed to-night, and that if the miners in any particular coal pits pass the necessary resolutions, as set out in the Regulations, that then that pit committee will be set up compulsorily. In that case you would find the committee sot up compulsorily by the ballot of the miners against the wish, perhaps, of the owners of that particular pit. It would be difficult there to expect the spirit of mutual co-operation and friendship, which is absolutely necessary if this is to be a success. If I am wrong, and it means that this will remain in abeyance for ever, and has no compulsory effect at all, then I have no objection to the Resolution, but I am advised it is the other way.
Mr. WALSH: Might I ask if the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the whole of the conditions are simply recommenda-

1211
tory of the pit committees, and have no penal powers of enforcement, and it would inevitably depend on the goodwill of both sides?
Mr. ROBERTS: I think I am right in saying that the pit committee would be set up by a ballot of the men in any particular pit if this Resolution be passed. It could not be set up voluntarily, and there is nothing in this Act that will prevent these being set up voluntarily in cases where there is a wish on both sides that they should be set up. There is nothing whatever to prevent this thing being done voluntarily now. In many cases they have been tried, and in some cases have been abandoned. There is nothing in the present state of affairs to prevent that from continuing, but this is a Resolution allowing a pit committee to be forced on employers. I can conceive of no motive for forcing a committee on any particular pit except a motive to try to create trouble. There has been, with regard to the charge of inconsistency against the coalowner, a considerable change of circumstance since the Act was passed, namely, the settlement of the unfortunate dispute of last year. That settlement has set up voluntary conciliation committees which deal with a very large number of questions, and it resolved itself not into a question of the area of the district and national boards, but simply brings it down to the question of the pit committee. The pit committee is an institution which can be set up voluntarily and can work voluntarily. It seems to me that the idea of the compulsory pit committee leads us into difficulties. I think it might possibly lead to friction between the management and workpeople. These committees would have to be held monthly. There are about 3,000 pits in the country to which these committees would be applicable. That would mean a large number of meetings to be held, and I have a suspicion that, if it were forced, these meetings would not tend to give good feeling and peace in the industry. It is perfectly possible that the hon. Gentleman will agree that these pit committees might be used by the more extreme section—by those who do not want peace. We must all admit that there are many who do not. [An HON. MEMBER: "I thought you were Diehards."] This will be a good
1212
opportunity for these extremists to exercise some of their talents and give considerable trouble in the industry. We must be perfectly candid about it, that a forced pit committee would be an opportunity for the extremists, who do not want peace, to stir up trouble.
Mr. HARTSHORN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that pit committees would be appointed by a ballot vote of the whole of the workmen, and that it is one of the reasons given against extremists getting on to the committees that the whole of the workmen would elect by ballot vote?
Mr. ROBERTS: I am perfectly aware of the fact as stated by the hon. Gentleman, but at the same time I do not think that we can escape the possibility, the very grave possibility, that there are certain districts and certain pits where, ballot or no ballot, the extremists, who are often the more active and energetic members of the trade union, would see that they were fully represented on the pit committees. The system of deputations now in vogue can deal with practically all the matters which it is presumed the pit committees under this Act would deal. These deputations are coming forward daily and dealing with all manner of things. They meet in a perfectly friendly way, and they are being worked to the satisfaction of all parties. Take the small concerns. What are you going to put in the place of these deputations? You are going to bring in on the owner's side four more men to act jointly with the manager at the consultation. That will not do any good, because you are practically bringing in the manager's subordinates, who will sit there and say nothing, or say "ditto," because if they said anything contrary to their superior they might find that their position was rather an awkward one. [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: The first two speakers on the Opposition side were listened to without interruption, and I think hon. Members might listen to a speaker on the other side without interrupting.
Mr. ROBERTS: I was trying to deal with this matter without saying a word that would ruffle anybody who had not got a very susceptible hide, but I notice that although hon. Members opposite are prepared to give hard knocks, they are not prepared to receive any. To have four other men appointed to act with the

1213
manager in dealing with these questions would not be any great advantage, because, whatever you may say with regard to deputations from the point of view of the workmen, with regard to management, I think anybody who knows anything about management knows that it must speak with one voice or it is destroyed. For that reason these pit committees are not going to be very effective. Access to the management should be conceded as a matter of justice, but it is not good business to force these things which seems to me to be futile. These committees would give upon the men's side an undue preference to the section of workmen who are in a majority, and there is a large and important section who would be unlikely to receive any representation or to have their voices heard in any way. The colliery enginemen and mechanics object to Part II because they feel they would be entirely out of it and their views would not be heard. I am not sure as to the position of the deputies. They are a very important section in the working of the mine. Are they not to be represented in any way on the workers' side? Bearing in mind what has happened in recent years, everyone must admit that the deputy sits nowadays in a great many cases on the workers' side of the table. These things are very important, but it is not really these minor matters that compel me to ask the House not to put compulsion back on the industry. Some of us think that rightly—hon. Gentlemen opposite think that wrongly—control and compulsion have been taken off the industry. I do not think the people of this country or Members of this House desire the reimposition even of the shadow of compulsion. Once you begin to bring compulsion back again, once you force people to meet who cannot meet voluntarily, once you force them by Act of Parliament or by the action of the State to do this, you are doing something to bring back the elements of the reintroduction of a control which has been disastrous to the industry—both to workmen and employer in the past and which will be disastrous if imposed again. I believe a peaceful issue will come through voluntary co-operation between the two sides. They should really meet together as free men and not under compulsion, and if they do that then with the goodwill and friendship which hon. Members have shown this
1214
industry will come back to its old position and do its duty to the nation.
Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: It is just possible our attitude on these benches might have been a little more conciliatory had it not been for the speech which has just been delivered. I am not one of those who interrupted in any way during the time the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) was speaking, and I may say here I do not mind whether his friends interrupt me or not. It would perhaps have been a good job for all of us on this side if we had had the advantage of a university education, for then we might have been able, perhaps, to have made black appear white to-day and white appear black to-morrow. This Act, however, which is on the Statute Book is your work, not ours. We did not ask for it; we asked for something better. You told us to give up our claim to nationalisation, that this was something infinitely better We warned you, and we are not extremists. I am not an extremist, and none of my friends here are extremists. We told you that it was not extremists who were asking that which we were claiming at that time, that it was the considered opinion of the most moderate-minded men in our industry—and there are some moderate-minded men an our industry. There were some patriots, too. The British Miners' Federation gave you an Army during the War. Over 400,000 of them joined the Army. In my own district 30 out of every 100 joined without compulsion; so that there are some people in the mining industry who are interested in the well-being, not merely of the nation, but of the Empire, and, while it would be a mistake in an ordinary member of the Labour party, it is a crime on the part of a man who has had a university training, to suggest that every member of the mining community is more or less extremist in his point of view.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: We never said it.
Mr. GRAHAM: If you are willing to withdraw the statements you have made, very well, but the best evidence that my hon. Friend on the other side can give that we have touched him on his conscience is that he will vote for us. If he does not, I do not know that we shall agree that he is even yet convinced.
The first point to which I desire to draw the attention of the House is that

1215
this Act was put on the Statute Book by the Government. They acted in collusion with the owners. They argued the case out with us, not in this House, but in the Board of Trade offices and at Downing Street, and they prophesied all sorts of good from the proposal that they were putting on the Statute Book. Now their position is that they are going back on what they said. I want to know whether they were sincere then. If they were, their supporters will be voting for the continuance of Part II. If they were not sincere then, I want to ask this Government, or any other Government of a similar character that may take their place, do they expect to maintain peace in the mining industry? It cannot be done. With the best will in the world, we cannot maintain peace if the men find that not even an Act of Parliament will be respected by the coalowners, and that, when the coalowners say: "We are not going to work the Act," the Government are going to support them in their refusal to carry out the law.
This question should not have arisen at all. If I, or any Member here, were guilty of breaking any law, no matter how reasonable our objection might be to it, we should be told, "Either you will carry out the law or you will go to prison." We have always been led to believe—we used to boast of the fact—that in this country of ours we were all equal before the law. We are not now. The owners had the Government behind them before the stoppage took place in the mining industry—some Members of the Government are cowardly enough to go into the country and describe it as a strike, but they will not do so here. You were be hind the owners then, and evidently you are behind them now. We have been very badly deceived by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
"At the Coal Commission the miners succeeded in making a case for several points which they put forward. In the first place they made a case for bettering the amenities of their lives. It was shown that in certain colliery districts the conditions under which they lived were unworthy of the state of civilisation we had reached."
Are the conditions any better to-day than they were then? Is there any likelihood of any improvement being made in the conditions? It is a responsible Minister of the Crown who makes the statement,
1216
and he knew a great deal more about it than we did, at least he said he did. He said, secondly:
"They also made a case for getting a greater knowledge of the industry in which they spent their lives and for obtaining positions of greater responsibility."
The hon. Member who preceded me talked about the folly of certain working sections of the miners being on the committee, interfering with the management, and probably they might find themselves in difficulties if they disagreed with the manager. That means, if it means anything at all, that they would be victimised. That is nothing unusual. I know what victimisation is myself.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: I want to explain that. I was not saying anything about those on the men's side of the table. On the management side they will speak with one voice.
Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, but the manager has got to do what he is told by men who know nothing at all about the industry. The manager is only a workman, and his wages are being reduced the same as ours. Although he is bound by Act of Parliament, he is the one man who is held responsible for the proper working of the colliery, but he is a man who is directed by someone who knows nothing at all, either theoretically or practically, of the mining industry. What does Lord Pirrie know about mining? He is one of the biggest coalowners in the county I belong to. I think I know a little more about it than he does. The business of a manager is to make profits, and that is implied in this statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said we had made out a case for better amenities in our lives. I know the district he comes from. The dug-outs in France were more comfortable places than these one apartment houses. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I know perfectly well—just as well as you do. In the third place we have made out a case for the workman taking more interest in the profits of the industry, and indeed that case was conceded by the owners. The owners and the workmen agreed at the Sankey Commission in recommending the course that is implied in Part II of this Amendment. And now the owners are refusing to work it because they have got the idea into their

1217
minds that the miners are very much broken up and that it may take some years for them to recover, and during the period that may elapse between now and the time when the British Miners' Federation might be a power again in the industrial world it will be possible for them to make a fair amount of profit. They do not care what might happen to the State in the meantime. The miners will recover before that time. They are recovering now. We are working under an agreement at the present time. You say it is a voluntary agreement. It is not a voluntary agreement. There is nothing voluntary about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why did you agree to it?"] Hunger made us agree to it, and nothing else. Our men stood out for 13 weeks against the acceptance of that agreement, and at the end of the 13 weeks they were compelled, not because they had changed their view, but because of their physical necessities, to accept the terms laid down by the Government, but they had the hope that when the Government backed the proposal that at least the Government would be honourable and stand to its word.
If the hon. Member for Bothwoll (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for South Ayr (Mr. J. Brown) and myself when we leave this House were to go into our respective counties we could create some trouble. Do not make any mistake about that. When we leave this House, as we do each week-end, we spend the week-end endeavouring to soothe the men and to keep them quiet, in the hope that there will be a change in the position, so that their lot may be brighter in the next few months than it has been in the past few months. We do not ask any credit from hon. Members opposite for that. It is our duty, and we do it. What we do expect from hon. Members who voted in favour of this Act is that they should be men of principle, men of character. You either meant what you said then or you did not. If you meant what you said, then your business is to tell the Government to carry on with the Act. If you did not mean what you said, if it was only a pretence, intended to meet the situation that existed at that time, and which you imagine does not exist now, and that you only conceded to force, or what appeared to be force, you are inviting force. You are inviting the miners and every other organisation of workmen
1218
to refuse to accept your word, the word of the British House of Commons, and to depend entirely upon their own strength.
Had we been less patriotic, had we paid more attention to the material things of life and looked at life only from the economic standpoint, we would never have accepted your Commission in 1919, and if we had not accepted your Commission in 1919 you would have been up against some trouble. It would have paid us then to fight, but we did not fight, largely because we realised that the interests of the country were greater than the interests of the few. We accepted the Commission, and you pledged your word that you would carry out its recommendations. Now, here is the last thing that is left. Our men are at the present time working under conditions that are absolutely scandalous. Individually, every man in this House, if you speak to him, admits privately that the conditions are a scandal. They are scandalous because of the rotten agreement that was forced on the men. One of the reasons, at any rate in the Country that I come from, why the men are living under the scandalous conditions that prevailed there is that patriots who remained on this side of the Channel making money, are selling their coal to the Germans cheaper than to their fellow countrymen.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going into a matter that is not raised by the Resolution before the House. He has been a little led away from the point.
Mr. GRAHAM: I will confine myself to the matter which is at issue. What we are anxious about is that Part II of the Act should be retained. Part II proposes to set up a series of pit committees, district committees, area boards, and national boards. We have all along been in favour of pit committees. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) said, that we were pressing for what appeared to be a much larger and more important matter at the time this Bill was introduced, and that was the main reason why we objected to the Bill at that time, but during all these years in which we have been taking part in negotiations with the owners we have been in favour of pit committees, and there are pit committees. Every colliery has its committee, and managers

1219
and men meet and continue to meet, and they met long before the dispute of last year. The main thing that is new in connection with these pit committees is that they would have a greater control of and greater interest in the questions of safety and health, and output maintenance and increase. These are the matters to be dealt with by the pit committees. Nobody has said that the men ought not to have some say in the management of the colliery from the point of view of safety. On the question -of health it is admitted that there is great need of something being done in the mining districts. But what will appeal more to hon. Members on the other side is the fact that the work of the pit committee in consultation with the manager was to devise the best way in which the output could be increased and maintained. Their power as a committee is to recommend. In the event of a disagreement between the management and the colliery committee they have the power to submit the case to a district board. But it is not to be forgotten that the men would only have one side of that committee. The other side will be equal in number, and right up to the National Board the employers themselves will be directly represented, and if there is any virtue in co-operation this is the way by which you can have it.
If this House decide to abandon this Act from to-night then they will give it as their considered opinion that there is not much value in co-operation at all. I hope that the House will give some courage to the Government. It is a pity that they lost it. I hope that a sufficient number of Members will be prepared to support the continuance of Part II to enable the good work that it is possible to do under the provision of this Act to be carried on. While we were fighting to get nationalisation, we fought that question as a matter of principle. We fought it not merely as miners, but as citizens. We were prepared, even though we failed to get it either by negotiation or by use of force—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, there were only the two ways. If force is a bad way, then do not use force. We were prepared, even though the law was against us, to carry out the law, and we do so now. If the law is against us, we accept it and try to get it altered.
1220
That is the work of reasonable men. We are entitled to try and get the law altered, and I assure the House, if hon. Members by their vote to-night abandon everything that has any relation to the promises made by the Sankey Commission, then it will not bring peace to the mining industry nor to the country. It will create in the minds of the men a feeling that immediately they get into a stronger position to attack and to hit severely, without any regard to the consequences, they will do so. I appeal to hon. Members not to take advantage of the power which they possess, to create a situation such as you, as well as we, may be sorry for, in the event of this part of the Act not being retained in force.
Mr. R. McLAREN: A certain amount of heat has been generated in the course of this discussion, and in the few minutes at my disposal I shall seek to address myself to the question in a reasonable manner. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) have been very frank in acknowledging that a mistake was made when the Measure was first introduced into the House. They have not said that they themselves are very much to blame for what has transpired. It will be recollected, that both these hon. Gentlemen, and those who took part with them in the Debate on the Measure, distinctly stated they would have nothing whatever to do with it, and in Committee they distinctly refused to discuss the various Clauses. I wonder what has brought about this wonderful change on the part of my hon. Friends. They must have very solid reasons for taking up this attitude. It has also been frankly acknowledged by the various speakers on the opposite side of the House, that one of the reasons why they did not accept the Measure as it stood, was because it did not come up to their expectations in regard to a national pool. Having been baulked in nationalisation and that matter, they are now anxious to get back to Part II.
Something has been said in reference to the coalowners and their part in this matter. I am not going to speak on behalf of the owners except to say that the owners at no time were in favour of Part II. Speaking, however, on behalf of a body of men who carried out the provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911—the

1221
colliery managers of Great Britain and Ireland—I may point out that the colliery managers have expressed themselves very freely by deputations to the Secretary for Mines, and have distinctly stated that under no conditions whatever will they carry out the provisions of Part II. I am quite satisfied to-night that even if this House decides that Part II should be carried out the colliery managers would not carry out those provisions.
Mr. LAWSON: They do what you say.
Mr. McLAREN: I will give the reason why that is so. During the discussion, a deputation came and asked me to read a resolution they had passed. Only a month ago I met the managers for Scotland, and they said that they had in no way changed their minds and were as strong to-day against Part II as when the Bill was introduced. This is their resolution:
"They give the strongest oposition to pit committees on the ground that their experience is that they are a total failure leading to friction, weakening of discipline, interference with the statutory duties of managers, and in no way add to the increase of output."
Those were the terms of the resolution passed at that time, and they still adhere to them. The carrying out of the Act of Parliament devolves upon the colliery manager. A pit committee is set up consisting, I admit, of practical men, but men who have no knowledge of the scientific side. They may not look at it from the point of view of the scientific men, with the result that if anything is brought about as the result of the pit committee the workmen on the committee take no responsibility, and the whole responsibility rests on the manager. It is bringing in dual management, to which the managers of the country will never submit. They alone are responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Act. The questions of safety and development come in and are entirely matters for the colliery managers, and they declare that rather than submit every one of them will resign. I would remind the House that under the Goal Mines Act no colliery where more than 30 men are employed can be worked without a colliery manager, and if the colliery managers withdraw the colliery must cease its operation. I notice that every time anything is done in connection with
1222
mines there is only one class looked to, namely, the miners, because it is said that if you have not the miners to work the mines cannot be carried on. It should not be forgotten, however, that if there are no managers the same thing will happen and the mines will stop work. Therefore, I say every class should be taken into consideration, and I am bound to say that the colliery owners as a whole are as determined as they were a year-and-a-half ago, that they will not submit to Part II, and that if the House does pass it and bring it into operation at all it will make no difference so far as these men are concerned, because they absolutely refuse to carry the provisions out. I hope the House will show its sense and will give a solid support against the Motion that has been made to bring this thing back into operation. If there is any fault to be found it is not with this House. It must rest on others, and I think it is scarcely fair to raise this matter now when they have been the cause of the whole trouble.
Major KELLEY: I am not interested in mining, and I am not a miner. If I were, I should certainly burn wood and not get coal. I do not pretend to know the technical, or perhaps it is the tactical, reasons why at one time the owners were anxious to put Part II into operation, and the miners now want it in operation. I am strongly in favour of the Resolution, and earnestly hope the House will support it. I am told by the Yorkshire Miners' Federation that this will bring in a new era of peace. That is quite sufficient for me. Anything that will bring about, or attempt to bring about, a new era of peace in our disturbed industrial world will always have my support, from whatever quarter it comes. I believe the mine-owners will be well advised to accept Part II of the Act. They were at one time in favour of it, and why they have changed in their attitude I do not know. By putting Part II into operation, mine-owners and miners will have the chance of thrashing out their difficulties in common surroundings, and I cannot help thinking it may avert many serious misunderstandings such as have occurred in the past and which have caused serious lock-outs, strikes, or whatever they may be termed. I feel very acutely indeed that it is necessary, with the industrial unrest which we have in this country, that every

1223
possible chance should be given to employers and employés to meet in the board room, where they may thrash out their differences, and both sides will know the difficulties under which the industry has to be carried on.
Mr. GOULD: I sincerely hope that Part II of this Act will not be put into operation. I think we have had some experience during the past 18 months or two years in the coal industry which has led us to believe that the less interference we have, the better it is for the industry. Since the last settlement, and since the Bill was introduced, we have been operating the coal mines under Part I of this particular Act, and the Advisory Committees which have been set up under Part I have seemingly been able to bring about an impossible state of affairs. As we go back to last September, when we thought it was impossible for us ever to regain any part of our export coal trade, and consider the position to-day, when practically every ton of coal produced in this country can be sold, and a great deal more than we produce to-day could be sold if we could only come to a condition where the men could be got to work, and when we consider that all this is being done under the application of Part I of the Act, without any of the unnecessary interference which would be brought about by the application of Part II of the Act, and when we realise that for the last four or five years we have had nothing but difficulty and trouble in the industry and that for the first time we have just had six months of peace, and we have people working, too, on a wage which nobody will agree is fair, but which can be bettered by the men themselves if they will only apply themselves to the proper opportunities and conditions which apply to them, I think everybody will agree that in these circumstances it will be wise to leave well alone and not to introduce new principles into the industry which will create a further cause of trouble and which will create an atmosphere which must necessarily bring about differences of opinion and interference.
11.0 P.M.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), whose speech I was not able to hear, but who speaks with a great deal of authority and of knowledge of the South Wales coalfield, can bear me out when I say that the trouble which we have to-day in the South Wales
1224
coalfield, which is probably the most difficult to work of all the coalfields in the country, is not the question of getting coal, but the question of getting sufficient miners to work on the face. I had an instance put before me only a few weeks ago of a man and his two sons who had been working in a certain pit, and they were receiving, in one direction or another, in relief £7 10s. per week. They could earn £9 10s. a week, but would not go to work for £2, and that particular pit could take another 100 men, working on the face. They did not want any more surfacemen. Under Part I of the Act, as it is applied to-day, any differences or disputes which may arise as to the number of men to be employed can be settled, and they are being most harmoniously settled. How do we know, if we have Part II applied, that we are going to get the same right of settlement and discussion we have to-day? I must say, in common fairness to the leaders of the Miners' Federation—and I speak with a certain amount of knowledge—that when we bring these matters up for discussion with them we have no difficulty whatsoever at the present moment in getting these matters rectified. At the same time, we have to realise that there is a great tendency on the part of certain individuals, who are not representative by any manner of means of the majority of the federation, to revert to the old pernicious system of working on the minimum wage, and if we had pit committees and area committees, as are suggested under Part II, when we know full well that the majority of these men would be representative, not of the saner and better class, and the more thinking part of the Miners' Federation, but the more active and extreme section of the Federation, these men would be encouraged in the principle of working on the minimum wage, and not encouraged to increase production, and thereby increase their own wages and reduce costs. I do think that the most vital thing we have to consider to-day is to retain the degree of confidence we have established bit by bit despite the fact that we have been confronted by six or seven years' experience of difficulties which have been brought about by interference, by control, by all the conditions which grew out of necessity, under extraordinary circumstances. For the last six months we have

1225
been establishing confidence as between the mine manager and the worker, and if we once attempt to introduce the principles which are applied in the second part of the Act, we shall at once introduce principles which are going to be a very disturbing factor in the industry.
The principle, to my mind, which is involved in the application of Part II of this Act—and I believe every thinking Member of the House will agree with me—is that idealistic principle which is so strongly advocated by those who have no practical knowledge of industry, and who are not concerned with the general management of business. It is a very idealistic proposition, but it is as well known to the employers and those who are in charge of industries as it is to the leaders of the Miners' Federation and the leaders of the other unions, that it is impossible for two sections of the community, the employers and the workmen, to work together in committee in control of any organisation without there being differences of opinion and differences of policy, which make it impossible for them to work harmoniously. The great consideration seems to have been forgotten. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke from the other side in his pathetic appeal and his drastic criticism of the Government made reference to the fact that the Government is going back on its pledges. I have never receded from the position I have taken all along on coal matters—that the whole policy of the Government in regard to coal matters, indeed even in this particular Bill, has been dead wrong. There was the Sankey Commission in the first place—a panic measure. There was this Act—a panic Measure. Now part of this Bill has to be scrapped. We now see the Government scrapping the portion of the Bill that they said was the most important, a Section that was going to bring peace to the industry, which, in fact, was a simple sop and has led nowhere.
We have to-day a comparison in another industry as to what might happen if Part II is applied to the coal industry. The very conditions that are there responsible for the trouble are the very conditions that would obtain were Part II of this Bill applied to the coal industry. It is a question which can never be settled by disputes between capital and labour—who is going to be responsible for the management of the industry.
1226
Under Part I we have the Advisory Committee, and that is all the authority that is necessary for the well-being, safety, and for the general carrying on of the mines. To introduce for a single moment these pit or area committees, is to suggest at once that there is going to be interference in every possible direction. While pit matters are being discussed output is to be held up, the mines held up, and so on. The great thing that we have to remember is this: We have succeeded under Part I of the Bill in winning back our trade. During the past six months, to our amazement, a great portion of our coal export trade has been won back. We have reduced costs very materially. It is perfectly true we have had to trade at a loss to get that trade back. The time has, however, now come that there is a slight profit in South Wales, and a fair margin of profit all over the country in the coal trade. My hon. Friends above the Gangway know that under Part I of the Act they get 83 per cent, of the profits, and the coalowners only 17 per cent. Therefore if it is profitable for them under present conditions, then, surely, they do not want to introduce any disturbing factors. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hartshorn) was complaining bitterly in public a few days ago about the attitude of the miners. They seem to be quite satisfied with the prospects and possibilities. They are beginning to believe that if they turn to and produce the coal that they know they can produce they can earn a good deal more than the minimum wage, while figures are adduced in support of the statement that they are working merely subsistence wages! We must remember that it is not only the miners who are interested in this matter: there are the other sections of the community who are dependent on the work of the miners for a living. Only recently it is that those engaged in other districts here had a chance to get started. If Part II is put into operation it is absolutely certain that it will not only bring fresh trouble into the industry, but there is a strong probability that it will lead to a further reduced output, and create further unemployment, and lead to that discrimination that we have already seen exercised in certain areas in the coalfields against the employment of men who, rather than trade on the unemployment pay, take their

1227
place in the mines at wages and under terms which are current to-day.
Mr. CLYNES: On the whole it can be said that the different Members of the House have kept their heads very well, when we remember that they are not far removed from the time when this subject aroused very strong feeling indeed. I think, however, the same Members are under a misapprehension as to what the House is called upon to decide, and as to what the provisions of Part II of this Act are. In the few minutes that I want to speak, I shall endeavour to make an appeal to Members of the House, who, having understood the question, not to vote as miners' representatives on the one hand or as mineowners' representatives on the other hand. This is the House of Commons which has to decide what it will do with an Act only recently passed. Part of the Act has not yet begun to work. You cannot compel either of the two sides to work it, but you can give both an opportunity to work it by passing the Motion which has been submitted to the House, whereas, if the House refuses to pass the Resolution, you can deprive them of the facility to give effect to some of the best conditions in industrial conciliation and cooperation which rest in any Act of Parliament on the Statute Book. The House could, by a gesture, appeal to the employés and employers in the trade to use not merely one limb of the pit, but all the limbs supplied in Part II and in every other part as well. I think myself that the provisions in the Act in general afford to the coal industry almost ideal provisions for the discussion of conciliation, and I am safe in saying that experience has taught us all that, without the use of some such provisions as these, conditions of contentment cannot be established in the industry. It is true that with the conditions as they are, mine owners can easily compel the miners to submit to many things. But that is not the sort of settlement in industry which is likely to endure. Momentary powers of compulsion, derived from what happened to be the existing conditions in the labour market, offer no sort of permanent guarantee of contentment or peace in any particular industry. In hundreds of different occupations there are in existence, in regular working order week by week,
1228
precisely similar provisions to these Millions of workers follow the lines of co-operation laid down as provisions for the whole industry in Part II of this Act.
What can a pit committee do? According to the Act it can discuss questions and make recommendations affecting the safety and welfare of the workers in connection with their work in the mines. Surely that is highly desirable. It can make reports on certain matters referred to it and discuss and make recommendations upon maintenance and increasing output. It can discuss disputes in connection with matters in the mine, including disputes about wages. Under the most perfect conditions differences will arise day by day in any large workshop, mine or factory. What could be more desirable than to have machinery in existence to anticipate these difficulties, to discuss them and settle them. Hon. Members are under a misapprehension as to the likelihood of extremists either seeking a place upon these committees or finding their way there. A pit committee is not to consist of pit men alone, but it is to be of equal parts of mine workers and mine owners, and that is the kind of committee which the extremist keeps away from. He does not want to meet employers, managers, or mine owners, because the extremist finds his prey amongst the men only, and therefore it is not likely that he will find his way on to these committees, leading to no prospects for his views, but to some pacific solution of difficulties as they arise between employers and workmen.
Since this Act was passed we have had conditions in the coal trade which have been quite abnormal, and that fact is a reason why these provisions have not yet been put into effect. If we had a state of normality in the coal industry, it is probable that the provisions of this part of the Act would have been fully used by the two sides. I ask hon. Members not to limit them in order to score debating points on a question of this kind. It is clear that the mine owners favoured Part II when the Measure became law last year, and I do not think there is on record any evidence to the contrary, either as to their voting or speaking against this part of the. Act. Why did the miners' representatives oppose this part

1229
of the Act? My own conclusion is that they opposed it because it was part of an Act which generally and as a whole they regarded as being a bad Act, and the opposition to it was not so much because of the demerits or defects of this particular part, but because of the strong feeling of resentment which they felt towards the Act as a whole as it was presented to the House last year. Assuming that Members of the House individually consider that the continuance of Part II can do no harm—it certainly cannot do it while it is not being worked—and assuming further they have a desire—which we share—to extend this provision for co-operation and conciliation in the mining industry, what should be the attitude of the Government towards this Resolution? If my right hon. Friend cannot give the Motion his support, I hope he will not offer any opposition to it and will not invite Members of the House to go into the Lobby against it. This is precisely an occasion on which the House has an opportunity, in relation to a great industrial question, to give the workmen some encouragement to go forward in this task of co-operation and conciliation with the employers. The House will miss that opportunity if it rejects this Resolution.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I certainly have no right to complain of the way in which this Resolution has been moved and seconded. It has been put with perfect fairness by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) and by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division (Mr. Hartshorn). But I think the House is in danger of getting a little wide of the actual issue before it. It is not a question whether pit committees are good or bad. The Government view has always been that pit committees are desirable and tend to make for good feeling in the industry and to nip in the bud disputes which might develop into greater and more serious quarrels. Wherever they do exist, they ought to act without interfering with the strict control which managers of pits ought to and must exercise. Still, that is not the real issue to-night. The issue is what is the duty of the Government in view of Section 17 of the Mining Industry Act. That Section says:
"If at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade that the scheme of this part of the Act has been rendered abortive by reason of the
1230
failure on the part of those entitled to appoint representatives as members of the pit and district committee area boards, and the National Board to avail themselves of such "right, the Board of Trade shall issue a report of the circumstances and that report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of 30 days during the Session of Parliament from the date when it is so laid all the Provisions of this part of this Act shall cease to have effect unless in the meantime a resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament."
Therefore what the Government have to decide is what was the intention of the House in inserting this Section? What is their duty in dealing with this question in a spirit of absolute impartiality? I think I ought to give the House, as shortly as I can, a history of the facts in order that it may be fully cognisant of what has happened. As has already been said, at the Sankey Commission apparently all parties recommended pit and district committees. It is not very clear whether they meant voluntary or compulsory committees, but, at any rate, they were all in favour of them. When the Mining Industry Bill was introduced, in 1920, the attitude of the miners was that they would have no part at all in the discussion in Committee on that Bill, and would do all they could to prevent its being worked. They were out for nationalisation, or a policy which led up to it, and were not prepared to take anything less. I think that that is a fair description of their attitude. The Government offered them this instead. They said, "We will have none of it; we will fight to a finish for nationalisation and for a national arrangement." The hon. Member for Ogmore himself, when he went down to the conference of the Miners' Federation in July of that year, said:
"The Government cannot set this Bill in motion unless the miners co-operate in setting up the machinery of pit committees, district committees, and so on, and in the absence of that machinery the Bill becomes a dead letter."
He went on to say:
"This Conference ought to make a pronouncement, so that the Government should know that, if they go on with the Bill, the Federation pledges itself to have nothing whatever to do with it if it ever becomes law."
And, on the hon. Gentleman's recommendation, the Conference passed this Resolution:
"That this Conference, having examined the terms of the Ministry of Mines Bill, hereby decides to refuse to operate the Bill should it become law."

1231
That was their attitude at that time, namely, July, 1920. The attitude of the owners at that time was that, although I do not think they cared for it very much, they were prepared honourably to carry it out. Lord Gainford said in the House of Lords:
"We should have difficulty under the provisions of this Bill if they were adopted, but we all intend, as coalowners, to do our part and work its provisions honourably";
and Lord Joicey said:
"I look upon this Bill as an experiment, though I am convinced that the coalowners will do their best to work it if it becomes an Act. If this Bill becomes law, I feel quite sure we will try to do our best to work it, and see how it works as time goes on."
We, therefore, had every reason to suppose, at that time, that at any rate the owners were in favour of Part II being carried into effect. Then came the strike of 1920, and shortly afterwards the long stoppage began in April, 1921; and it was only just at the end, when the settlement was arrived at on 12th August, that we felt in a position to consider Regulations for working Part II of the Act. The Mineowners' Association claimed that, the year having expired, and no declaration having been made, the miners' representatives still being opposed to the working of the Act, I ought at once to declare that Part II was abortive. I did not think that that was a reasonable attitude to take, because it seemed to me quite impossible, when all this trouble was going on and the country was in a state of chaos, to have got, during the year that was prescribed under the Act, any reasonable consideration of the question. I therefore pointed out to them that I thought it only right that I should issue Regulations, and that I could not really make my Report to the House until I had issued Regulations and until those who, under those Regulations, were entitled to appoint representatives had had an opportunity of seeing whether they wished to send representatives or not. Therefore I proceeded to issue Regulations. The Regulations were drafted and submitted to both sides. The owners said that they had decided not to work the Act, and that they would not even consider the Regulations. I do not know whether the miners considered the Regulations or did not. At any rate they passed no criticisms on them, or very few. After the Regulations
1232
were issued, those representing the owners said they would not work the Act. Then was the time when it was my duty under the Act to make a Report to the House of Commons to the effect that one party having refused to work the Act, Part II became inoperative under Section 17, unless after my making that statement a Resolution of both Houses was passed to the contrary. So that they had practically six months more than the year that was allowed under the Act to make up their minds. On 13th January I got the final refusal of the owners.
That is the history of the case, and a very deplorable history on both sides. Those who have taken the trouble to read the correspondence and the meetings I had with the owners' representatives will, I think, admit that I did all I could to persuade them that it was unwise not to accept Part II, that, as it appeared to me, it was a very short-sighted policy, that the reasons which had induced them to favour it before seemed to me to be equally cogent now and that I should regret very much, both in their own interest and that of the whole industry, if they persisted in their refusal to work. So we have this very deplorable, but I am afraid, not uncommon instance of a practice in the coal mining industry, which is far too prevalent. When one side think they are on the top they want to take the last ounce they can get, and when the other side get on top they do exactly the same, and until the two sides of the industry learn that that is not the best way, I do not see very great hope of peaceful and harmonious working.
I have to say what appears to me to be the proper attitude for the Government to take up at this moment. We have to take up an attitude of strict neutrality. What we would do for one side we would do for the other, and what we would not do for one side we would not do for the other. It seems to us that conciliation by compulsion is very little more than a phrase. It is a dead letter. However many committees you may set up, you cannot compel people, without the goodwill that is necessary, to work to any really useful effect. The hon. Member for Ogmore, if he will forgive me making such ample quotations from his speeches, said on 30th June:
"This Bill cannot be operative except with the whole-hearted co-operation of owners and miners."

1233
I think that is perfectly right. It is perfectly true to say that, whether Part II is left or whether it is abolished, no good can come out of pit and district committees except with the hearty co-operation of both sides. Therefore, if you have one side that is not prepared to give its hearty co-operation, it seems to me it is of very little use to put Part II into effect. I remember hearing of an Englishman landing in America and being told by an American, "This is the land of liberty. Everybody here does what he pleases," and he added: "By gad! if they don't, we make them." It seems to me that legislation to compel everybody to do what they please is almost as difficult as legislation to make everybody conciliatory one to another. Therefore, legislation in this direction is not particularly useful. It is most important that the Government should take up an attitude of strict neutrality in this matter as between the two parties. I have to ask myself, "Supposing the representatives of the miners had persisted in their refusal to work Part II of the Act, would the Government have been either fair or wise in forcing Part II through against that objection?" It would have been interesting to know what the attitude of the miners' representatives would have been in those circumstances. I think they will agree with me that it would have been very difficult for me, unless I could say that I would have forced it through against the wishes of the miners, to say that in view of what appears in Section 17 it is fair to force it through against the wishes of the owners.
Mr. HARTSHORN: You forced the Area Boards.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Section 17 was put in the Act because of the refusal of the miners at that time to work the Act. It was thought—I think this is a fair interpretation of what Parliament thought—that the miners might come to a reasonable view if time were given. Therefore, a year was given in order that they might think it over and possibly change their minds. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have changed our minds!"] Unfortunately, the other people have also changed their minds. It was thought that it would be useless to leave the Bill as it stood in view of the attitude of the miners. Therefore this Clause was put in to meet the situation. The fact that
1234
both sides have changed their minds docs not really make much difference to the question as to what the Government's position should be. One side were out of their senses at the beginning of the year, and the other side have lost their senses at the end of the year.
The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) seemed to suggest that it was possible in some way to leave Part II on the Statute Book without carrying it into effect. I think that would be a very nugatory proceeding. I do not sec what good you could do by that. It might lead to some people putting it into effect, and others refusing to do so; there would be no agreement, and it would be more likely to cause trouble than to avoid it. The effect of leaving it on the Statute Book would be just to give further time. I do not know whether it is suggested that it should be for a year or for an indefinite time. If it were only for a year whichever side did not want to come in would realise that they need only hold out for a year and the thing would be all over. To leave it longer than a year would be to suggest that you could have a Statute which there was no intention of putting into force.
Mr. CLYNES: I should like to see such machinery as Part II provided permanently, but if that is not the view of the Government, as the whole circumstances have been abnormal we might at least have another 12 months in which an opportunity might be provided.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is a question which has been thought over very carefully. I have been thinking over it for some weeks. It does not tend to bring about the result which we all desire—to bring the two parties together as soon as possible. It seems to me that voluntary action is what is now necessary. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the arrangements existing in other industries, but none of them are by Statute. Therefore, if he is merely asking the coal industry to put up something which exists in other industries, he is merely asking something much less than is in Part II. It seems to me that the Government, having given 18 months to the two parties to come to agreement under Part II, and having failed, then the best hope is to rely upon their coming together by voluntary arrangement, and making conciliation plans together similar to

1235
those which are made in other industries of their own free will. The Government, feeling that their attitude of neutrality is the only proper attitude which they can take up, feel that they must put the Government Whips on in order that there may be no doubt as to their attitude.
But may I, before I sit down, make one appeal to those who represent the coal owners, not only in this House but in the whole country? If all that they have said about the desirability of pit committees is still in their minds and still close to their hearts as apparently it was then, if this opportunity of drawing more closely together appeals to them, as I believe it does to the best of them, just as much as it did then, is not this a splendid opportunity? If Part II is allowed to drop and they have their complete freedom it is a glorious opportunity to them to come forward now when there is no kind of Government interference and no kind of compulsion, and say, "of our own free will we will meet you and set up this machinery on a voluntary basis." If they do it will be the best solution that can possibly be arrived at.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I must confess that I received, in what I may term the penultimate peroration of my right hon. Friend, one of the greatest Parliamentary surprises I have ever had. I thought the whole of his speech, marked as it was by clearness and lucidity, tended to this conclusion—that having heard all the facts, this was a matter for the House of Commons to decide. I imagined that he meant, in effect, "We will not put on the Government Whips, but let the House take the responsibility." Therefore I was very surprised at the conclusion actually reached by my right hon. Friend that he thought it his duty to ask that the Government Whips should be put on. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party has said, this is a matter for the House of Commons. We have heard the case for the miners and the case for the coalowners, stated, generally speaking, with great fairness and moderation on both sides. We now know that one party, which refused to work the Act, has come to the conclusion that the experiment should be made and that another party, which was in favour of the Act being operated, has come to the conclu-
1236
sion that, at the present moment, it should not operate. I cannot imagine a situation which lends itself more readily, on grounds of reason and moderation, to a short delay. Some time should be given before this is taken off the Statute Book—for that is what is involved—to see whether a common agreement cannot be reached.
I still suggest to the Government that the very serious decision they have taken should be reversed; that, at any rate, they should leave the decision to the House of Commons. This is one of the occasions on which one is glad to notice that by far the greater number of Members who are going to vote have heard all the substantial part of the Debate. The House is fully seized of the whole position. I know the House, or I am getting to know a little about it now, and I think if this were left to the fair judgment of the House, it would decide that another trial should be given, as a most important step towards bringing the parties together. I suggest to the Government that if this Motion is carried, it does not at all necessarily follow that the Board of Trade is compelled to proceed at once. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines told us that he has already exercised his discretion for six months. What he has done already he can do again, but if he has not that power, I am certain the general sense of the House would not be opposed to a short amending Bill giving him power to suspend these provisions, so as to give an opportunity to the parties to come together—not under compulsion at all. We all know how foolish it is to try to make men of goodwill by Act of Parliament. It is quite impossible to do so. There has now arisen, although it is very late I am sorry to say, a real Parliamentary opportunity. The House of Commons can now assert itself, not in any sense hostile to the Government—let me make that perfectly clear. Simply by letting the House vote as it really wishes to, perfectly freely, you will give the opportunity for taking a step which may lead to peace in this industry. It may. Do not let us omit any chance of doing that. I do really fear that if this step is taken to-night there may arise a very ugly and hostile spirit which will be most difficult to allay. I do beg the Leader of the House to consult with my

1237
hon. Friend as to whether it is not wise in the interests of peace all round to let the House have a free Vote. He may take a step which may be Very fruitful of goodwill in this very difficult question.
Question put, "That Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, shall not cease to have effect."
The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 141.

Division No. 39.]

AYES.

[11.53 p.m.

Ammon, Charles George

Grundy, T. W.

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

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

Robertson, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

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

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Halls, Walter

Rose, Frank H.

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hancock, John George

Royce, William Stapleton

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hayday, Arthur

Sexton, James

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

Hayward, Evan

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Betterton, Henry B.

Hills, Major John Walter

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Birchall, J. Dearman

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hogge, James Myles

Spencer, George A.

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Breese, Major Charles E.

Irving, Dan

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sutton, John Edward

Bromfield, William

Johnstone, Joseph

Swan, J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Cairns, John

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

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

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

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

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Kennedy, Thomas

Tillett, Benjamin

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wallace, J.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, John James

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

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

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

Lort-Williams, J.

Waring, Major Walter

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Lunn, William

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Edwards, Hugh (Giant., Neath)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wignall, James

Fildes, Henry

Myers, Thomas

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Finney, Samuel

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Forrest, Walter

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

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Gillis, William

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Goff, Sir R. Park

Raffan, Peter Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Rendall, Atheistan

Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Walter Smith.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Hurd, Percy A.

Armitage, Robert

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

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

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Dawson, Sir Philip

James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Atkey, A. R.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Austin, Sir Herbert

Eiveden, Viscount

Kidd, James

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Lindsay, William Arthur

Barlow, Sir Montague

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

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

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Gangs, E. Stanley

Lorden, John William

Barnston, Major Harry

Ganzoni, Sir John

Loseby, Captain C. E.

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

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

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

Gould, James C.

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Manville, Edward

Bowyer, Captain G, W. E.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Matthews, David

Brassey, H. L. C.

Gretton, Colonel John

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Melton, Major John Eisdale

Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Morrison, Hugh

Bruton, Sir James

Hailwood, Augustine

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

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

Murchison, C. K.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

Nail, Major Joseph

Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Neal, Arthur

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

Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Harmsworth, C. B, (Bedford, Luton)

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

Casey, T. W.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Parker, James

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

Hood, Sir Joseph

Purchase, H. G.

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

Rae, H. Norman

Coats, Sir Stuart

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Ramsden, G. T

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N

Cope, Major William

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Remer, J, R.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereforo)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

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

Roundell, Colonel B. F.

Sugden, W. H.

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

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Sutherland, sir William

Wise, Frederick

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Senders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D

Tickler, Thomas George

Young, Sir Frederick W- (Swindon)

Seager, Sir William

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

Younger, Sir George

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

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

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Dudley Ward.

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the
1240
House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at One Minute before Twelve o'Clock.

POST OFFICE.
  PUBLICITY OFFICES.
  PUBLICITY OFFICES.
  TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' ACCOUNTS.
  TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' ACCOUNTS.
INDIA.
  FOREST SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  FOREST SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).
  BENGAL PILOT SERVICE.
  BENGAL PILOT SERVICE.
  RESERVED SUBJECTS.
  RESERVED SUBJECTS.
  ARMY OFFICERS (HOUSE ACCOMMODATION).
  ARMY OFFICERS (HOUSE ACCOMMODATION).
IRELAND.
  POLICE FUNDS.
  POLICE FUNDS.
  IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.
  IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.
  CATHOLIC WORKERS, BELFAST.
  CATHOLIC WORKERS, BELFAST.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. ROSS AND J. J. HARRISON).
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (W. ROSS AND J. J. HARRISON).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (WAGES).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (WAGES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  MANUFACTURED ARTICLES (IMPORTS).
  MANUFACTURED ARTICLES (IMPORTS).
  RUSSIAN ORDERS.
  RUSSIAN ORDERS.
  AGRICULTURE (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  AGRICULTURE (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  ENEMY DEBTS (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  ENEMY DEBTS (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).
  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).
  SLATE CLUBS.
  SLATE CLUBS.
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGNERS).
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGNERS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  CLUBS REGISTERED.
  CLUBS REGISTERED.
  SHOP HOURS.
  SHOP HOURS.
  GUNS, CHELSEA AND WINDSOR BARRACKS (THEFT).
  GUNS, CHELSEA AND WINDSOR BARRACKS (THEFT).
  SENTENCE FOR ROBBERIES, SINGAPORE.
  SENTENCE FOR ROBBERIES, SINGAPORE.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  WORKMEN'S RAILWAY TICKETS.
  WORKMEN'S RAILWAY TICKETS.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT, SCOTLAND.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (MR. E. T. STEPHENSON).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (MR. E. T. STEPHENSON).
  SERVICE CANTEENS (ACCOUNTS).
  SERVICE CANTEENS (ACCOUNTS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (QUEUES, CHAPELTOWN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (QUEUES, CHAPELTOWN).
  BOOT AND FLOOR POLISH TRADE (WAGES).
  BOOT AND FLOOR POLISH TRADE (WAGES).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TEST).
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TEST).
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS).
  SUDAN.
  SUDAN.
  RUSSIA (GENEEAL WRANGEL).
  RUSSIA (GENEEAL WRANGEL).
  MONTEVIDEO TRAMWAYS.
  MONTEVIDEO TRAMWAYS.
  SIR PAUL DUKES.
  SIR PAUL DUKES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SUMMER TIME BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the time in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, being in advance of Greenwich mean time during a certain period of the year: and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make better provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Lambourne.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

MACUIRE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Leonard Cornwall Maguire not to intermarry with any offending party.
6. It shall not be lawful for the said Leonard Cornwall Maguire to intermarry with any woman on account of whose adultery with him his marriage with the said Alice Mary Maguire is dissolved by this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): I move that this clause be omitted from the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY. BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I do not propose to move the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. I hope I have not in any way inconvenienced any of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, gave Notice yesterday of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill. In that case, as your Lordships are aware, I do not move the Second Reading formally, as I do in the case of other Private Bills, and the promoters have to find a Peer to undertake to make the Motion on their behalf. There obviously has not been time since last night for them to make their arrangements, and, therefore, I propose to put down the Second Reading for today week. I communicated last night with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and I was able to communicate this morning with the only other member whom I know to be interested in the Bill, the Duke of Bedford. As I said before, I hope I have not inconvenienced any noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Earl say whether the Bill will be effectively taken next Tuesday?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I see no reason to the contrary. I have communicated with the promoters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A great many Peers are interested in the matter, and I make the inquiry so that the matter may be publicly known.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have no reason to think that the promoters will not have ample time in the week to get out any memorandum they want to communicate to the Peers who are arguing in their behalf.

SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
STIRLING CORPORATION (WATER, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion by Viscount Peel for the Second Reading of the Bill resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, on rising to submit to your Lordships some observations on the Second Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill I beg to ask for that indulgence which your Lordships extend to a member of this House who is addressing you for the first time. My excuse for choosing this topic on which to address you is the fact that I have for some little time taken an interest in the electrical industry, and the observations which I shall venture to submit are based upon what I consider to be the public interest in this matter, and not upon that of any of the parties concerned.
During the course of the very interesting exposition which the noble Viscount gave

291
in moving the Second Reading of this Bill last week, he made, if I may so venture to describe it, a very remarkable admission. The noble Viscount referred in eulogistic terms to the wisdom of your Lordships in rejecting a very considerable portion, and a very important part, of the Electricity (Supply) Bill of 1919. I am tempted, therefore, to refer very briefly to the genesis of the measure now before your Lordships, for the Bill which we have to consider this afternoon is not only an amendment of the Act of 1919, but is complementary to it. The Act of 1919, as originally introduced in that year in another place, was brought forward with the avowed purpose of making possible a cheap and abundant supply of electricity in this country, and it was to accompany the erection of houses for heroes to live in, both of which happy things were promised to us in the Election of 1918.
The principle of the 1919 measure was to make electricity cheap and abundant, as regards its supply, by the erection of big stations with a view to bringing about economy of production. I need hardly say that this principle is one which has long been accepted in this country by everybody concerned. Indeed, if I remember aright, as long ago as 1906 a Bill was brought forward by the industry itself embodying the very purpose which the Government Bill of 1919 desired to achieve, and if political considerations had not intervened, the Bill to which I refer might, and possibly would have been passed in that year. If that had been done, there is no manner of doubt that the improvements necessary in the industry would have been carried out at infinitely less expense than they can possibly be carried out in the circumstances now existing.
Although the principle was the one desired by everyone, the proposal of the 1919 Government Bill went a great deal further, for it proposed to do what everyone desired, by compulsion and under strict bureaucratic control. In those circumstances the Bill met with a very strenuous opposition in another place, and discussion extended over many weeks in Committee; but when the Bill reached your Lordships' House, I think I am correct in saying, it did not differ very substantially, so far as the principle is concerned, from the Bill as first introduced by the Government. In this House, as your Lordships will no doubt remember, the Bill met with such
292
devastating criticism that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack rose on behalf of the Government to withdraw a great many of the important provisions proposed, in deference, no doubt, to the wishes of a majority of your Lordships. The withdrawals, announced on behalf of the Government by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, included the compulsory clauses of the measure.
Those of your Lordships who were present at that debate will recall the very memorable exposition of the subject made by the late Lord Moulton, and also, I think, by the late Lord Downham, in concentrating your Lordships' opposition upon certain features of that measure, with the result that I have indicated. This was the episode which the noble Viscount recalled the other day when he extolled your Lordships' wisdom in so completely transmogrifying the measure which the Government had up to that moment pressed with so much tenacity. I submit, therefore, with all deference, that in view of your Lordships' record with regard to the 1919 measure, you are well entitled to examine the present Bill in the most searching way possible.
I should like, before discussing the terms of the Bill now before us, to refer to the rest of the history with regard to this matter, for after the 1919 Act was passed two Bills were introduced in another place by the Government, in 1920. One, a Bill which was called, I think, the No. 2 Bill, was very much the same as the measure now before us. Neither of those Bills succeeded in reaching your Lordships' House. In 1921 a proposal for legislation on this matter was referred to in the King's Speech, and a Bill was again introduced in another place, but, like the Bills of 1920, it failed to reach your Lordships' House. This year, however, it is of some interest to note, the Government are dealing with the matter in a different way. This year, unlike last year, there was no mention of this subject in the Speech from the Throne, and, instead of making a further attempt in another place to promote the measure, a Bill is introduced in this House without any previous warning.
The noble Viscount has described it as a most innocuous measure. Nay, more, in his concluding words, he held out the blissful expectation of a cheap and abundant supply of electricity as the result of its passage. I think, therefore, that we

293
are entitled to ask whether the Act of 1919, which this Bill proposes to complement and extend, has, in its two years' operation, made the electricity supply of this country any cheaper or any more abundant, and, if it has not, whether the proposed extension in this Bill of the powers of the Electricity Commissioners and of the proposed joint electricity authorities, holds out any reasonable hope of bringing about that happy consummation? The noble Viscount, it is true, quoted a number of figures to show the recent development of the industry and its future possibilities, but I can hardly think he would suggest that the development has anything whatever to do with the setting up of the Electricity Commissioners or any other of the provisions of the Act of 1919, or, in fact, that the Act has had any effect whatever on prices or the amount of supply.
The noble Viscount then proceeded to describe in some detail the activities of the Electricity Commissioners since they came into existence over two years ago, and we have also the advantage of studying the operation of the Act as set out in the able Report issued by the Electricity Commissioners and published last year. I am perfectly willing to admit that they have held a great number of local Inquiries; that. they have delimited a great number of areas and suggested a great number of schemes, but I say that in spite of this, after two years of constant work, in no single instance has any order yet been issued for any of the schemes they have propounded, and not a single scheme has even been accepted by any of the electricity supply authorities concerned. With regard to these Inquiries I understand that the Commissioners have invariably requested electricity supply undertakers to submit schemes for setting up joint electricity authorities on the assumption that the authorities will possess powers to be given by some Act of Parliament, not passed, but presumably on the lines of the three measures submitted in another place during the last two years. For the Commissioners thus to anticipate legislation is an assumption on their part, not entirely alien to the idea of bureaucracy, that a Government Department is in some way superior to Parliament.
Let me refer to one specific Enquiry, and I will take an important district in this matter—namely, the London district. In the case of London the Commissioners held
294
an Inquiry last year. It lasted seven weeks, and it cost, approximately, £40,000, and that amount does not include the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners. I will not suggest who bears that expenditure, but at present it seems to be borne by the taxpayer. I admit there is some irregularity in regard to this matter which Clause 6 of the present Bill is intended to obviate. At this Inquiry all the parties in the whole of the area concerned, with one notable exception—Poplar, a borough which seems to go in for placing itself in an exceptional position—came before the Commissioners with an engineering scheme in which they were entirely agreed and which they brought forward perfectly voluntarily.
What was the result of this long and expensive Inquiry in which all concerned came forward to help as best they could? Nothing whatever. No scheme whatever has resulted so far as the Electricity Commissioners are concerned. I will go further and say that in this particular case they had a unique opportunity of bringing all parties into line in London, and that they did not succeed in the purpose for which they were created by the Act of 1919. In view of that statement, which I believe to be perfectly correct, it is somewhat astonishing to read in The Times of February 25 a statement, quoted as on the authority of Mr. Arthur Neal, the official spokesman of the Ministry of Transport in another place, that the supply problem in London had been practically solved. I suggest that perhaps the electrical industry is, after all, not so very different from other industries in this country and that it would do better with a little less, rather than a little more, legislation.
The noble Viscount suggested very persuasively to your Lordships that there was nothing in this Bill that could possibly offend the most delicate palate. I beg most respectfully to differ from him. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions which are calculated to offend even a hardened palate, if such there be in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount laid great stress on the fact that this Bill is permissive and entirely dependent on consent. In so far as it is permissive, what is the kind of thing it permits? By Clause 5, as I understand, it actually permits a local authority to use the money of the ratepayers for purposes quite outside their own area. But Clause 5 is not even

295
entirely a permissive clause. Surely subsection (4) of the clause is frankly compulsory, for it requires and compels authorised undertakers to contribute towards any administrative expenses of the joint electricity authority, and to meet a temporary deficiency in the fund established under the principal Act. I do not know how that subsection can he described except as frankly compulsory. I contend that it immediately infringes the principle of the Act of 1919; and that it is entirely inconsistent with the statement of the noble Viscount that compulsion is unnecessary, and that your Lordships acted with so much wisdom in 1919 in strongly objecting to compulsion. I cannot agree, therefore, that the Bill is merely permissive, or, that where it is permissive it is necessarily innocuous.
The noble Viscount told us also that unless this Bill, or sonic similar Bill, became law it would render futile, useless and ineffectual a great number of the provisions of the Act of 1919. Is not that rather an extraordinary admission on the part of a member of the Government? What does it mean? It means that the 1919 Act, to which the Government attached so much importance, on which so much Parliamentary time was expended, which on the admission of the noble Viscount your Lordships so much improved, and under which so many expensive Inquiries have been going on for two years, was in itself a futile, useless, and ineffectual measure. Personally, I venture to agree on that point, for I do not see what the Act of 1919 has done to bring about the objects for which it was brought forward, and I suggest that we might have heard your Lordships' wisdom even further extolled if you had rejected the whole of the Act of 1919 instead of only a very important part of it. But I would like to add with regard to its operation—and there I think the noble Viscount will agree—that no complaint can be made against the industry of not having done the best in their power to make this Act work.
The noble Viscount, in his speech, examined the clauses of the measure one by one. I will not attempt to put a strain upon your Lordships' indulgence by following him through each clause. I have already made a brief reference to Clause 5, but I should like to suggest that, if this clause is really to take its place in the law of the land, there should be some limit to the
296
amount which local authorities are going to be allowed to raise for the purpose of lending to a joint electricity authority.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a limit in the Bill. The noble Lord has not observed that all this is subject to the consent of the Ministry of Health.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I suggest that the sort of safeguard your Lordships would prefer to see would be a safeguard which is included in the Act, and not left to the Government Departments which have so far administered the Act of 1919. I further submit that the proposal to require authorised undertakers to contribute to the administrative expenses of the authority and to make up a joint authority's trading losses can only be called a highly objectionable provision, particularly as the amounts which they may have to make up are, as I have already argued, quite unlimited so far as the proposed Act is concerned. In fact, this provision seems to me practically to be the same thing as saying: "Hand over part of your business to somebody else, and then pay any losses that person may incur in carrying on your business, whether those losses arise from incapacity, or from recklessness, or from any other cause whatever." I think your Lordships will agree that no ordinary business could stand on such a principle for a moment.
If I may say one word more upon Clause 5, I would remind your Lordships that this clause has appeared in various Bills several times before, and I believe that serious objection has already been taken to it on the ground of the need of economy. If economy was necessary in this country in 1919, in 1920, and in 1921, I think I shall not be making a controversial statement when I say it is even more essential in 1922. I will now trouble your Lordships only by referring very briefly to one other clause. I refer to Clause 16, which is to enable owners of railway, tramway or light railway generating stations to supply electricity, subject to certain safeguards. I submit that this clause, as drafted, is open to objection, and is likely to lead to injustice. If it is to be passed it seems to me to require a provision that a supply shall not be given within the area of supply of an authorised undertaker except with the consent of that undertaker. Without such a provision in the clause as I read it a supply could be given to one and one only

297
of two undertakers having competitive areas.
I do not know what is your Lordships' intention with regard to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I submit with great respect that if it is going to be read a second time to-day, very important Amendments are needed to several clauses, and, incidentally, in the direction that I have endeavoured to indicate, primarily with two important objects—first of all, to secure some limit upon the borrowing powers of local authorities; and secondly, to prevent authorised undertakers being required compulsorily to contribute to the trading loss of a joint authority. Without wearying your Lordships any further, I submit that the wisdom shown by your Lordships in the case of the measure of 1919, to which so remarkable a tribute has been paid from so unexpected a quarter, is equally necessary in the consideration of the measure now before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I have listened, as I am sure many of your Lordships have listened, with real pleasure to the felicity of diction with which the noble Earl who has just sat down has expressed the substance of his case. I have boon more impressed, I confess, by the felicity of his diction than by the felicity of the substance. I venture to speak to your Lordships not only as a mere amateur of this matter. I sat for two years as Chairman of the Coal Conservation Committee, and I followed the fortunes of the project which arose in the time of that Committee through its subsequent stages until it assumed ultimately, the form of the Bill of 1919, which passed the other House, but met with a somewhat violent onslaught when it came before your Lordships' House. The noble Earl who has just sat down referred to the elaborate examination and the destructive criticism to which the financial clauses of that Bill were subjected. I followed that debate very closely, and took some part in it, and my recollection is that the House would have none of the Bill on the ground of bureaucracy, that magic word which figured greatly in the speech of my noble friend the late Lord. Moulton, and of which we shall hear more before we have done with this matter.
The Bill of 1919, in its integrity, is gone. We are not dealing with compulsion at the
298
present time. The purpose of this Bill is a much more moderate one—namely, to give the facultative powers, the permission which is required to enable the schemes worked by the Commissioners under the Act of 1919, in the truncated form in which it was passed, to become operative. The noble Earl reproached the Commissioners and the Government with the fact that, notwithstanding the operation of the Act, so little had been done. But there has been no power for the local authorities, who after all are the important people in this matter, to exercise the powers that are required. They are hampered and hindered as regards their finance in a way in which they are not hampered and hindered in respect of gas or tramways, or any other undertakings, and the purpose of this Bill is to enable them to give effect to schemes of this kind. This is not compulsion; it is the untying of their hands.
I cannot wholly congratulate the Government, either on this occasion or upon the last occasion, on having made the most of their case. I think there is a tremendous case for the proposition that is before the House. I am not talking of the details, though I think the details carry out the minimum of what is required, but of the very serious situation in which the country finds itself at the present moment, and the crippling of its industrial power compared with that of other nations. Taking evidence, I found that in the United States the skilled workman has at his disposal, on an average, 56 per cent. more power than has the skilled workman in this country. Why? Because electrical power is furnished there with greater freedom, and in greater quantities, than here. But the arguments which came before us were even more remarkable. We were not a mere Parliamentary Committee. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside was one in which I think I was the only layman. The others were not laymen, in the sense that they consisted of industrial engineers of the highest qualities, coal owners, manufacturers and people of every variety of experience in this matter, as well as highly qualified technical experts.
The first and foundational fact which we came across was that of the coal that is raised and consumed in this country 80,000,000 tons is consumed annually for the purpose of producing industrial power for use in factories, by railways, and municipalities, which have to supply power

299
and light, and other purposes connected with industry. We found, not merely by theoretical estimates but by comparing the experience of regions where they had managed to get into operation a system such as is proposed in this Bill, that that amount of 80,000,000 tons could he reduced, if all went well, by not less than 55,000,000 tons, so that 55,000,000 tons out of 80,000,000 tons represented the waste under the old system. The reason is not difficult to find. A small generating station is always very wasteful, because the loss of energy is large in proportion to its size; it is a long way from the pithead, where the coal is produced, and it cannot get the coal with the cheapness with which a large generating station can obtain it.
We found, for instance, that in Northumberland and Durham, where the local authorities and the colliery owners—Lord Gainford knows a good deal about this—were producing electricity at the pitheads, the cost of production was so reduced that you could buy power there for industry at a halfpenny per unit, while if you crossed the borders into Lancashire you paid, on an average, at least three halfpence per unit or three times as much. These figures are trifling as compared with London, to which I will come in a moment, but up in the North, in Northumberland and Durham, where this has been done by men of great enterprise and skill, all those engaged in industry are being supplied from large central generating stations with power, as I have said, at the rate of something like a halfpenny per unit. Even in these days of the high price of coal it is not much more, because you can use waste coal for producing power for electricity, although you could not carry such coal into the market and command a decent price for it.
When you come to London and compare it with the state of things that you have up in the North, the outlook is appalling. The noble Lord spoke of London and of the failure of Sir John Snell's Commission to get a scheme. Can he wonder at that, when he remembers that there are seventy generating stations in greater London, fifty different systems of supply, twenty-four different voltages and ten different frequencies. To that condition of things, how can you have either economy or efficiency? How can you avoid being charged prices far in excess of what you should be charged for your electric light, and, if you are engaged in industry, how
300
can you avoid being charged prices which make the effective use of electric power impossible in industry? The noble Earl went on to object to Clause 16, which gives the railway companies power to produce and sell electric power. I only wish that a thoroughly efficient generating station such as the Underground Railways have at Lots Road, were allowed to come into competition and generate power, for then you would learn how cheaply such power may be obtained. But the noble Earl says, as I understand, that it would be an injustice to private enterprise to give such power without the consent of the undertakers in those districts. Does he imagine that those gentlemen who now charge 2d. and 3d. per unit are going to expose themselves to the competition of those who will produce power at a halfpenny or a penny, when they have the power of refusing their consent?
The truth is, that the opposition to this Bill is all summed up in a series of newspapers and circulars which have rained in upon me during the last two days. Here is a sentence in which it is all summed up—"A flank attack upon the citadel of private enterprise." It is a flank attack upon the kind of thing which I have been describing. If we prevent the public from getting the benefit of the cheap supply that they require, and if we hamper industry in obtaining cheap electric power, it will be a day of ill omen in our annals. The noble Earl fixed upon Clause 5 of this Bill as giving to local authorities some power of enforcing contributions. Yes, but that is only when all the undertakers in the district have come in.
What is the scheme? The scheme is this, to remove legal disabilities which prevent those engaged in the production of electricity from coming together and producing it in that large quantity which is possible at the source where the coal is raised. If this Bill becomes law, and people are set free to follow out their economic tendency, which is to produce at the cheapest rate, instead of being prevented by law as at present, what will be the result? The result will be that generation will then take place on a large scale near the collieries, and the electricity will be brought by cable over long distances. It can be brought 200 miles if necessary, but it will rarely be necessary to bring it more than a fraction of that distance, and the local authorities and undertakers,

301
who have organised themselves, will work together and supply power and light at a cheap rate to those engaged in industry. I know that some of the authorities have been too ready to apply the profits of such undertakings to the reduction of the general rates, and I should like to see power and light produced to the consumers at a rate which is just as much as would cover the cost of production and provide for all sinking fund charges and interest on debt.
I think that if this Bill passes, and people are free, the tendency will be to cut down the cost of production. Take Northumberland and Durham. I believe—my noble friend Lord Gainford knows better than I—that at sonic of the larger collieries they are producing electric power at the pithead, and selling it to outsiders, and that is a wholesome state of things. It promotes competition. Where they can combine together they do so, and the North Eastern Railway has announced its intention of electrifying its main line. It has already electrified its suburban lines. The electrification of suburban railways is proceeding everywhere. But why should the benefit of that be restricted to the railway companies? In London, for instance, why, instead of the seventy generating authorities which we have at the present time, should there not be one great generating authority composed of the various authorities come together and working under one scheme and generating their electricity, their coal landed at the mouth of the Thames, or brought wherever it is most convenient and economical to bring it for generating purposes. That is what we had before us in the expert evidence in the Committee to which I refer.
But I do not want to dwell on that Committee. After all, it is a Committee on which I sat, and over which I presided, and just for that reason it ought to have less authority and be less cited by me. The Government of the day very wisely said: "The proposals of this Committee are much too far-reaching for us to leave it to the recommendations of the Report of that Committee." And the Board of Trade appointed another Committee, over which Sir Archibald Williamson presided. That was a Committee which contained very eminent men; it was a different Committee from the one over which I presided. I have here the Report of that Committee. What did it do? It agreed, after a pro-
302
longed investigation, with the conclusions of the Coal Conservation Board. And, even then, the Government, which I think was rather a timorous Government in this matter, was not satisfied, because it had further investigations by the Board of Trade, which have resulted in the proposition now before your Lordships, and in the appointment of Sir John Snell's Commission.
Sir John Snell's Electricity Commissioners have been able to do no more—thanks to the way in which the last Bill was truncated—than go about the country and make schemes and recommendations. The schemes and recommendations could not be carried into effect for one among other patent reasons, and that was that at every turn the local authorities and other corporations are restricted by statutory limitations. The Bill proposes to set them free to work out their own destiny—not to compel them, but to enable theta to say: "It is our economic interest to produce electricity and power cheaply for those who require it." And what we now seek to get from Parliament is the power to do so without restriction.
No doubt it has been the custom to impose restrictions from time to time on borrowing powers of corporations—not always. In this case the Government take power to impose very direct restrictions upon borrowing power. Whether that is wise or not, I do not know; there is a good deal to be said for leaving things to the local government and responsibility to the electorate. But, at any rate, the more narrow course has been taken in this Bill, and the restrictions exist. In these conditions, how can it be said that we are in a satisfactory position in this country? Six hundred generating authorities in this country, the average size of which is only 5,000 horse-power ! That is ridiculous, compared to modern standards. If you look at the United States, if you look at what is happening on the Continent, you will find that their generating stations are enormously greater in size than ours, and consequently the price is very much less. Is it fair to compel our manufacturers to be subjected to that kind of disadvantage? It has been estimated by the Board of Trade Committee that in this case, if their proposals were carried out, we should have ª27,000,000 worth of coal for export; in addition to what we have at present, that would he set free for the purpose. Or put in another way, we could, by using that

303
coal, get 15,000,000 more horse-power for consumption here in our industries.
It is of that which it is proposed to deprive us in the name of an appeal to let private enterprise alone—private enterprise with its seventy generating stations in the London Metropolitan area; private enterprise, which is raising the rates for power and for light to the extent which your Lordships have heard; private enterprise, which will do nothing to come together under the Snell Commissioners; private enterprise, which cannot be assisted as long as the local authorities are left under the statutory restrictions which they are under as the law now stands, and from which this Bill proposes to relieve them. I do not think that this Bill does as much as it ought to do in the public interest, but at least it does remove a mass of statutory restrictions which at present exist, and it will leave the local authorities free to fulfil a great national need, free to work out the national destiny.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with the general discussion as to the best methods of developing and distributing electrical energy I do not propose to deal. I have not the eminent qualifications which the noble and learned Viscount possesses with regard to that subject. What I want to ask your Lordships to consider is what is the purpose of this Bill, and whether this measure, which has directly nothing whatever to do with the amalgamation or acquisition of great electrical undertakings, is one that commends itself to your Lordships' better judgment. For reasons best known to the Government this Bill is nothing but a financial Bill, and they have thought fit to introduce it, in the first instance, to your Lordships, notwithstanding the fact that during the last three years every warning and every item of advice that your Lordships have given to the Government on financial questions has been wholly disregarded. None the less, they think that this matter is one upon which your Lordships' judgment should be first invited.
What is it that the Bill proposes? It is, in fact, nothing but an elaborate machine for the purpose of enabling money to be raised by an authority that is known as a joint electricity authority. What is the joint electricity authority? The joint electricity authority is an authority established under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919. So far as I can understand, it is a
304
body that comes into existence when the Electricity Commissioners have decided that a certain scheme should he adopted for providing electricity and, as part of that scheme, they are entitled to enable authorised undertakers within the electricity district to hold land and do all that is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions.
I think therefore it will not be wrong to say that authorised undertakers are a body of private people who receive the protection and the direction of the Electricity Commissioners, and are enabled to carry out, under their direction, the large schemes for the amalgamation of electrical undertakings and the development of electrical energy on a large scale that the Bill contemplates. Be it so. They are really nothing but a body of people who may be engaged in carrying on a very beneficent undertaking, but who, I assume, are going to carry it on for their own benefit. I do not imagine that it is suggested that the joint electricity authority are a body of philanthropists. Personally, I should be very sorry if they were, because I am quite convinced that a body of philanthropists, entering into any undertaking so vast and far-reaching as the electricity business, would only come to a lamentable grave. I therefore imagine that these are a body of private people, who are engaged in the laudable purpose of undertaking a great industrial enterprise in the hope that they will make it succeed, and in the knowledge that, if they do succeed, they will profit by it. That I believe to be the foundation of every successful electricity enterprise, and every other enterprise, too.
Having considered that that is their position, what is it that this Act provides with regard to that body? First of all, it enables them to borrow, and Clause 1 which enables them to borrow is really a little astonishing, because it proceeds to describe, as Acts of Parliament not infrequently do, the various purposes for which these powers may be exercised and, having specified them in considerable detail, goes on to say that they may also do it "for the purpose of any other payment," or other work, or any other thing which they are authorised to execute or do. I should have thought it would have been a much simpler thing to have said at once: "You may borrow as much money as you can get the Commissioners

305
and the Ministry of Transport to sanction for any purpose you like, provided it is within your powers." That would have been the full effect of Clause 1, which extends over a page and a half of the Bill.
The whole of the rest of the measure proceeds in much the same way. There are powers to suspend sinking fund; there are powers to issue stock; there are powers to acquire land and to issue stock in its place. I imagine that is an optional power, and that it is not intended that land should be acquired and that the landowner should be compelled to accept stock in its place. Then, in the middle of the Bill we come upon this power of the local authorities. What is it that the local authority may do? The local authority is enabled to give financial assistance in any form it pleases to the joint electricity authorities on such conditions as it thinks fit. That, again, is a clause in general words, following specific powers that they are at liberty to exercise. Generally, they are at liberty to give any financial assistance that they please to these joint electricity authorities, on such terms and subject to such conditions as the authority, the company, or the person who is giving such financial assistance may think fit.
I say that is a power of the most tremendous and far-reaching character to be placed in the hands of a local authority, and when the noble and learned Viscount says: "Oh, but see how you are hindered here and hindered there because local authorities have not these powers to advance and finance these schemes," I ask him to say how many local authorities in this country have as members of their body people who are competent to determine that the particular scheme which is authorised is one upon which it is wise and proper to invest the public funds? That is the real question. The real objection that is entertained by persons like myself to the enlarging of these authorities is just this—that you put the exercise of expert powers into inexpert and uneducated hands, which is a fatal thing to do.
With the best will in the world, these people will make the most profound mistakes and in the end, in spite of the delightful vision with which the noble and learned Viscount gladdened your Lordships' eyes, of lessened rates and lowered charges for electricity, you will find that the same thing will happen as happened with the
306
Water Board—that the charges are going up and the rates are going up with them. If the noble and learned Viscount will permit me to say so, there is no good whatever to be gained from expatiating upon the advantages you would get if these great schemes were successfully carried through. The question is whether, at this moment, the local authorities and other people are in a position to dip into the public purse to the depth to which they will be bound to clip in order to finance these schemes, on the prospect of their success.
I think, too, that much misunderstanding may be caused from attempting to compare the conditions that must happen here with the conditions that exist elsewhere. When, for instance, the noble and learned Viscount, with his great knowledge, calls our attention to what happens on the Continent or in America, I feel bound to ask, What are the generating stations there? I imagine that a great part of them are due to the tremendous power that is obtained by water. The noble and learned Viscount says: "No."
VISCOUNT IIALDANE: A great many are not.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It may be that some are not, but is the noble and learned Viscount prepared to say that in the United States of America one of the great sources for the generation of electrical power is not the Falls of Niagara?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is one out of a great number.
LORD BUCKMASTER: One out of a great number ! It is a great power, and it is not only that. You have water power there almost unlimited in extent. The people who believe that we have got similar water power in this country are, I think, under a profound delusion. I have not forgotten—I think it was last year—that a question was raised about one of the finest rivers in Scotland, and local authorities put forward their claim to be able to use the waters of this river for the generation of electrical power. One expert after another came up, and said: "You may wish to do it, but, great as your river is, and it is one of the finest rivers in the United Kingdom, there is not sufficient power to enable you to work it effectively." I say that thing is undoubtedly true here, and that you cannot possibly compare the

307
conditions under which we have to generate our power with the conditions under which it can be generated in Switzerland, in Italy even, and certainly in the United States of America or in Canada.
Instead of promises as to what may happen in certain events, I should like to see some better examination made of the actual schemes which your Lordships are asked to approve. This Bill does not approve a particular scheme, which is, I think, the way in which this matter should be carried through. I think these undertakers in any district should come before Parliament and get their powers, because then each scheme may be the subject of criticism. I will undertake to say that a scheme which has had the advantage of going before a Committee of your Lordships' House will emerge strengthened, and sometimes purified, by the process. That is the right way to do it. But this Bill asks you to give power to sanction expenditure for any scheme over which you have no control. It is a scheme—
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord will pardon the interruption; I am sure he would not wish to make a misstatement inadvertently.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I would not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord said that the House was asked to sanction general powers to make schemes over which neither your Lordships nor the other House have any control whatever.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is not so, because every scheme that is made by these Commissioners must come before your Lordships' House and another place, and it does not become operative unless a Resolution is passed saying that it should be so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Is that under the Act of 1919?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will the noble Viscount give me the number of the section?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is Section 7, subsection (2).
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am really grateful to the noble Viscount. He is quite right—I am not the least anxious to misinterpret him. I find that he is right and I was wrong, and I regret it. There is power in the Act to approve these schemes, and unless they are approved by the House they do not become operative.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is perfectly right, and my criticism should be modified to a certain extent—namely, that these schemes should not be approved in this manner. It is provided that the Board of Trade shall approve them, and then they are placed before the House. But my real complaint is that they do not go before a Committee either of this House or another place before they are passed. They obtain nothing but the approval of the Board of Trade, and then they are passed. I was inaccurate in saying that your Lordships had no control in regard to them, but my feeling is that there is no effective control. I can see no reason why the whole of the powers which still operate in regard to other undertakings of a public nature should be removed from them now, and that your Lordships should be asked to sanction such a Bill as this which, if it be passed, will, I fear, tend greatly to the multiplication of local burdens, and hold out to us only a remote possibility of any ultimate benefit.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I must ask the indulgence of your Lordships if I speak upon this matter, because it was only about half an hour ago that this Bill was put into my hands, and I was asked to come down here and state on behalf of the London County Council that they attach the utmost importance to the Second Reading of this Bill, and that they very much hope your Lordships will not run counter to them. We regard this as an enabling Bill, and we hope that it will meet with more popular approval than did the compulsion which was a feature of the district boards of the old Bill. The machinery is nearly in order. The Electricity Commissioners have already been

309
appointed, many areas have been provisionally approved, and now this Bill provides the financial arrangements which make the measure a working one. It is a Bill which, for the first time I think, provides for the co-operation of companies and authorities, admitting private enterprise. So far as London is concerned, I understand that, it is only for the purpose of generation that this Bill is to apply. The authority would be something in the nature of the Port of London Authority. Its powers would be fixed, and consequently it would not be able to go beyond the generation which had been decided upon.
A great deal of money has to be spent in London, sooner or later, on electricity. Some time before the war I was a member of a committee of the London County Council which was set up for the purpose of considering a cheaper supply of electricity for London, and we had abundant evidence from all parts of the world—from Chicago, Glasgow and Berlin, for example—showing that in London greatly increased cheapness could be obtained by co-ordination and larger areas of supply. Is the money which is now being spent on electricity to be spent wastefully or not? If it is spent all over the place by small companies and small local authorities it will not be so usefully and so economically spent as would be the case if it were co-ordinated and put under a central authority. It is in that belief that we say: "Let us have this Bill." It must be remembered, in regard to the powers of the local authorities, that under the 1909 Act and the 1919 Act there is practically no restriction on the amount which local authorities may expend, whereas under this Bill they are put under the necessity of being self-supporting.
Lastly, I desire to remind your Lordships, and I would specially remind the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Bessborough) that so far as London is concerned there is an existing statutory power of purchase by the London County Council in 1931, and if I were in the position of an electric company I should feel inclined to say: "Is it not better to go into this co-ordinating authority now rather than be swallowed up by a boa-constrictor in 1931?" Whatever may be the interests of the companies, I am quite sure that this Bill is in the interest of the public, because in 1931 the chaos of London as regards electricity will be such that the London County Council will be bound to exercise its power
310
of taking over. If it does so it will be at a very great cost to the ratepayers. Of course, we do not know what Party is going to be in power in 1931. That might affect my noble friend, too, but I think he is gambling in a very hazardous way in not taking what he can get out of this Bill and in adopting a policy of resisting its Second Reading.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has, in a very marked degree, the great art of presenting a bad Bill in an attractive manner. He has piloted through this House one or two rather bad Bills, and he will excuse me if I say that that makes one rather suspicious on this occasion. I do not say that this Bill is really a bad one, because it is an immense improvement on the Bill of 1919. That Bill, as your Lordships will remember, was destroyed by the very powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord whom we miss from his seat to-day. Compulsion was dropped, though I think it has been hidden, as the noble Earl said, in at least one of the clauses of this Bill. Some of the controversial matters in the last Bill have been expurgated, as the noble Viscount has said, but I do not think that he, or any one who studies this Bill, can tell us exactly how it is going to work.
There are so many different kinds of authorities involved in it. First, there is the Ministry of Transport which is to make Regulations that may or may not be approved by the Treasury. But any Ministry which makes the Regulations is a body of which this country, and of which industry generally, is beginning to be very much afraid. Then there are the Electricity Commissioners who, as the noble Viscount said, have already made themselves exceedingly popular, and they appear, as far as their investigations are concerned, to be in full action at the present time. There is also the attraction that they are not paid out of the taxes, but are apparently paid by the consumers of electricity, or possibly, in some cases—
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are paid directly by the producers.
LORD SYDENHAM: And of course it falls ultimately upon the consumers, so that they are paid either by the consumers, or, in sonic cases, probably by the ratepayers in the area of the municipal undertakings. How these assessments and these

311
important percentages are made I have no idea. Then there come the advisory boards, and the advisory committees, and they constitute a sort of purgatory which the noble Viscount said had to be passed through before the "full blessedness" of the joint electricity authorities is attained. How are all these various bodies going to work? Really, no one can possibly form the slightest idea of what will happen when electricity, which is now partly municipal and partly in the hands of private enterprises, is dealt with under this Bill. Can these very different bodies come together and work in full harmony?
There are one or two points in the very lucid speech of the noble Viscount which I did not quite understand. It is due entirely to my stupidity, and not in the least to any want of powers of exposition on his part. He said that the Bill was necessary to raise capital, and that if it were not passed all the beneficent results which he foreshadowed would be held up. He also said the Commissioners had already sanctioned loans up to £15,000,000 by local authorities, and also large amounts by private companies. Anybody who is in the City knows perfectly well that large sums have been recently raised for electrical purposes. Apparently, therefore, municipal electricity, of which I confess I have grave doubts, can go straight ahead, and the private enterprises are also moving at the same time. The noble Viscount gave some very interesting and very attractive estimates. He said that by 1931 there would be an increased output of 192 per cent. I cannot make out on what that estimate is based. Unless present industrial and economic conditions in this country improve very rapidly, I do not see how this large increased demand is to come about. We are now producing far less manufactured goods than we produced before the war, and what are so often called normal times are times which, I am afraid, this country will never see again.
Then he spoke of large savings of capital. I should have thought there must be a great increase of capital under these schemes, though, of course, that increase might be a great economic gain. If it is all a complete success there would in time be certain redemptions of capital, but at the outset I should have thought that there would be large increases of capital demanded from the people who provide it; such as the £15,000,000 to which the noble
312
Viscount referred. Then he spoke of a reduction of 32 per cent. in the cost of electricity in London by 1931. That is a most alluring prospect to those who can hope to live so long; but again I cannot see on what that estimate is based.
In the present state of things electricity supply, except on the north-east coast, is distinctly uneconomical, and in London especially. But it must be remembered that the great success of the schemes on the north-east coast, to which the noble Viscount referred, is due to private enterprise, and does not require the operation of any Bill of this kind. A great deal of the criticism which the noble and learned Lord devoted to private enterprise is really due to bad legislation connected with electricity in the past; and that is a point we ought to remember at the present time. It should make us exceedingly careful in accepting this Bill. The ideal seems to be the utmost encouragement of private enterprise under highly skilled and impartial expert guidance. I am not sure that this Bill will have that effect. It seems to me that the Ministry of Transport will always be able to interfere; and it will always have a political and not an expert head.
The main objections raised by the noble and learned Lord in December, 1919, were that the Bill would bureaucratise one of the most important industries in the country. I think this amended Bill will to sonic extent bureaucratise the industry. He also said that it would require the raising of enormous capital, which the country in its present impoverished condition could not provide. He and other speakers called attention to the danger of a highly centralised supply of such prime necessities as light, power, and heating. That danger remains, and it is a danger that ought not to be put out of sight. The British people do not take kindly to high explosives, but we have admitted crowds of revolutionary aliens into this country, some of whom are quite capable of almost any atrocity.
The noble and learned Viscount has almost repeated the very interesting speech he made in 1919, but he will not forget that on that occasion his speech was in support of a Bill which I think we all agreed was not a good Bill. It all depends, as the noble and learned Lord has said, upon how these joint electricity authorities are going to work, and whether the public will be

313
willing to provide large sums of money for their use. Will they be managing bodies responsible to shareholders, or will they be councillors responsible to ratepayers; or will they be a mixture of both? Perhaps the noble Viscount will make that point; clear. For the reasons I have given I do not think the time has come for this Bill. I do not think the Bill will produce the effects claimed for it. If the Bill passes its Second Reading, I hope it will go to a Select Committee of this House in order that all its details may be carefully examined and that we may hear the view of those who think the Bill should not be passed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I say one word of respectful congratulation to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for the admirable speech with which he opened our proceedings this afternoon. I hope it is only the forerunner of many speeches in which he will contribute his wisdom to our counsels. I regret very much that the. Government have thought it right to introduce this Bill at the present moment. The noble Viscount opposite made a very good speech the other day and advanced cogent arguments in its favour. Those arguments, however, were really not so cogent as they appeared. But the one point with which he did not deal, and which seems to me to dominate the present situation, is the financial position of the country. That is a matter we must bear in mind. I am not in favour of a policy of inaction in matters of electrical development. I agree with all that the noble and learned Viscount behind me has said of the great importance of electrical development and the creation of this motive power in sufficient quantities to meet all the purposes of commercial enterprise. But surely the present moment is an exceedingly inopportune one at which to tell the country that we are in favour of extra burdens on the rates. I confess that I shrink from it. The Act of 1919 was very carefully considered by your Lordships and was the subject of great modifications. I should have thought it would have been wise to have left that Act alone for several years before a further step was taken.
Do not let the House think that nothing is going on in electrical development. Any one who listened to the speech of the noble Viscount opposite knows the contrary. He pointed out how much was going on, and I have had an opportunity of verifying his statement. There is a
314
great deal going on notwithstanding the severity of the conditions under which anything like industrial progress can be made at the present. None of us suggests a policy of inaction. But the real question is—Are you prepared to go to the country and say that at this moment we are in favour of extra burdens being thrown upon the rates? The noble Viscount no doubt will say that that is a matter for the ratepayers; their representatives need not contribute sinless they like. I aril all for local self-government, but I think Parliament has been rather jealous of allowing a completely free hand to local authorities.
Your Lordships must remember that we are not dealing merely with county councils or borough councils. Ordinary district councils are "local authorities" within the meaning of the Bill, so that any one of them, subject to a limitation of which I will speak in a moment, might embark upon these investments in electrical enterprise. I do not always act with my noble and learned friend, Lord Buckmaster, but I think he was fully justified in saying that you do not find, and ought not to expect to find, upon a local authority—certainly not upon a district council—sufficient experience and expert. knowledge to qualify them to protect the ratepayer in a matter of this kind. It has not been the practice of Parliament to leave them a free hand.
The noble Viscount opposite will say: "Yes, but there is always the Ministry of Health, which will stand as the watchdog of the public." I have great respect for the Ministry of Health, but I am afraid the public have not that absolute confidence in their protective capacity which the noble Viscount professes to entertain. I do not want to say anything very critical of the Ministry of Health, but it was one of the offices newly created and brought into power with a great flourish of trumpets in the days immediately after the war, when it was thought that we were able to spend any amount of money upon any number of things; and the habits into which the Ministry of Health have fallen do not give me any absolute confidence that they would act as a sufficiently reliable protection if they were all that we had to rely upon.
There is one limitation even upon that statement of the noble Viscount. So far as London is concerned, we have not even

315
the protection of the Ministry of Health. As I read the clause, there is an exception here. Is that not so?
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I explain why? It is because the finance of London, as I, of course, know very well, is subjected to entirely different rules and regulations. It is thought important enough to require a Money Bill, which goes through both Houses.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So it has the protection of Parliament itself. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. For all these reasons, I feel very reluctant to pass this Bill into law. I should have thought that the Government would have been far wiser not to press it at the present moment. Just consider our situation. Let the House reflect upon the position in which public finance stands at the present moment. It would be almost an insult to your Lordships' intelligence to remind you that there is no point in saying that the burden is going to he borne by the ratepayer rather than the taxpayer. The ratepayer is quite as badly off as the taxpayer; in fact, he is almost the same person. We really cannot stand any more burdens. When the public realises that the Government have come forward awl suggested at this moment that there should be a possibility of great future burdens being thrown upon the ratepayer, I do not think that, if your Lordships pass this Bill, public opinion will justify your action.
I venture to ask the Government not to press the Bill. I think it would be most unwise to do so. I think the proper course, under the present conditions of financial stringency, is to postpone measures of this kind until better times. I am quite certain that there is no feeling so strong in the country at this moment as a determination to put an end to anything like reckless expenditure, and, even in the case of expenditure which could be defended upon its merits, to ask that it be put off until times are better.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, might I intervene for one moment, as having been associated for sonic time past with companies which produce electricity in the north of England, as well as being associated at present with one of the London companies which produces electricity nearer to your Lordships' House? I have also had some experience in connection with the use of electricity. From an industrial point of view, we find that we can run the
316
collieries of this country much more cheaply and economically if we use electrical power for pumping, for ventilation, and for drawing the coat—if, in short, we utilise electricity rather than fuel for the production of power and for lighting our collieries.
It is true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, stated, that there are in the north of England several large colliery interests which have spare power and spare lighting to dispose of during certain periods of the twenty-four hours, and that they have been in communication with the local authorities as well as with the power producing companies in the north of England and have made arrangements by which their spare electrical energy may be supplied for the purpose of lighting miners' cottages, for street lighting, and, in some cases, for local industries. But although they can produce it at the comparatively cheap rate to which the noble Viscount referred, yet the loss in transmission and the waste in transforming one current into another are considerable, and I know of no case in which the figures quoted by the noble Viscount are really charged to a local authority in the north of England.
I am persuaded, however, that, given time, there is a progressive development going on in the north of England which will enable electricity to be generated for the general community much more cheaply than in the past, and I believe exactly the same development is possible in connection with the work carried on by the large companies which supply London both with light and power. During the last few weeks I have been looking very carefully at the reports of the large London power companies, and I have seen that, in spite of the very severe handicap which they had to meet last year owing to the long and protracted coal strike, there is a steady improvement in the way in which private enterprise is dealing with this matter in London. The very fact that at the present moment there is no more popular investment for the public shows that the public have confidence in the private enterprise of these large generating companies in London.
When the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, a few moments ago, alluded to the necessity of very large sums of money being spent at some future time in connection with the cheap supply of electricity, I think he had in his mind the desire that local authorities should supply power and

317
lighting, and I thought it was time, at any rate to put in a caveat. I know of one of the large companies in London who recently offered to supply one of the London boroughs with electrical energy at 20 per cent, less than the price at which their electrical expert himself thought the borough council could produce it. The borough council would have none of it. The borough council wanted to be able to charge the ratepayers even 20 per cent. more than they could get their energy for elsewhere, because they preferred to have the supply in their own hands, rather than that the ratepayers should be relieved of the increased cost of electrical energy. I know many municipal bodies may be able to supply electrical energy perhaps better than it can be done by private enterprise. On the whole, however, I believe that this is a moment when private enterprise should have a freer hand, and be able to meet the views of the people, rather than that we should be subjected to increased taxation and rates at a time when we have so many burdens to bear. It seems to me that this is not the moment to press a Bill of this kind through all its stages in this chamber, or in another place, and that this is a subject which requires further ventilation. It should be considered in Committee, and if it goes into Committee the Bill will require considerable amendment, I think.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, this Bill has been subjected both to criticism and to approval by, I think, very nearly an equal number of noble Lords. It has been subjected to a certain amount of criticism rather stronger than I expected. Your Lordships will remember that at the suggestion of the noble Marquess I postponed the Second Reading from last Thursday until to-day, and I looked carefully at the Paper and saw no Motion put down in the name of any noble Lord for the rejection of the Bill, although I thought some of the speeches to which we have listened tended to influence your Lordships in that direction. I have placed myself under the disadvantage that I shall have to address your Lordships, if you will allow me, in reply, at a little greater length than would otherwise be the case, on the points raised in the discussion, because, as I made my speech last Thursday, it is inevitable that it should have largely passed away from the minds of noble
318
Lords who have listened to the debate to-day.
I do not know whether I am right in congratulating Lord Bessborough upon his maiden speech in this House, but perhaps I may be allowed to do so, and I do so with all the greater pleasure because, afterwards, I am going to traverse every single statement that he made. First of all, I think it is a very hard charge which has been brought against me, not only by the noble Earl but by the noble and learned Lord opposite. They both said: "What an extraordinary procedure this is. You introduce this Bill in this House, although you introduced it in another place last year. Why are you introducing it in this House now? What the meaning of this strategy?" I really think that is a very unfair and hard charge. I, and other noble Lords, who have had to introduce Bills, have been frequently, and I think rightly, attacked for endeavouring to force Bills through this House at the end of the session, when complaints have been made that there was no time in which properly to consider them. Now, in order to meet your Lordships' requirements, we introduce this Bill at a time when finance is being discussed in another place and your Lordships have plenty of leisure in which to consider the clauses of the Bill. Yet noble Lords attack me for doing what I thought was being done for the benefit and satisfaction of your Lordships.
Now, let me say one or two words about the criticisms of the noble Earl. His first criticism could hardly have been more unfair. He says: "You promised a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, and what have the Commissioners done during the last two years to produce that supply? "That is the strongest argument, perhaps, in favour of the Bill that I have yet heard, because the reason why the. Bill is produced is in order to give some opportunity for fruition to come from the schemes prepared by the Commissioners during the last two years. Surely, the noble Earl must be aware that to take a survey of the whole of the electricity supply in this Kingdom is a very largo matter, and, as we proceed entirely by voluntary system, to bring together all these different authorities and various undertakers, public companies and so on, to get schemes for the construction of joint electricity authorities, must be a matter of considerable time. We have now advanced to this point, that all this work is done; and may I remind your

319
Lordships that the measure you passed two years ago will be of no avail unless you equip them with the powers provided under this Bill. Then, if nothing is done, the noble Earl will be justified in making his criticism and saying: "You have done nothing to carry out the promises which you made." That is my answer to his statement. Eight schemes are ready, and four others are nearly ready and can be put into action immediately after your Lordships pass this Bill.
Then, again, the noble Earl made another criticism upon the scheme for the London district. I think an important point was made by Lord Monk Bretton, newly elected to the London County Council, in which he stated that to-day there was a petition from the London County Council that this scheme should be put into operation as soon as possible. After all, the London County Council cannot be considered a body which is against private enterprise, because they have just won a great victory in support of private enterprise. The noble Earl said that the scheme had cost £40,000. I am not in a position to criticise his figures, but I happen to have a very long acquaintance with the electrical question in London. I have often appeared before Committees in another place, and am personally familiar with all the history of London electricity during the last twenty years. I know something of the waste of money that has taken place in London, and of the difficulties that have had to be met; and I say it is a great thing if, at last, an arrangement has been made and a scheme produced which will effect a settlement and prevent this waste in the future. As I have said, it has won the approval of the great local authority in London, and to make such an arrangement between the companies and the local authorities in London is, I can assure your Lordships, a very considerable achievement.
I was also attacked by the noble Earl on more general grounds. He said I had been declaring that this Bill was permeated through and through with the voluntary principle. He searched through and through the clauses of this Bill in order that he might find some clause which contained the compulsory element, and after having searched, perhaps for many days and nights, he at last thought he had discovered one point in which the compulsory element was involved. I am afraid that the noble Earl is not quite right on this
320
subject, but I would like to deal with the point. He discovered it in Clause 5, subsection (4), where it says—
"A scheme constituting a joint electricity authority may include provisions !authorising or requiring authorised undertakers, and authorising companies and other bodies represented, on the authority to contribute towards any administrative expenses of the authority."

Here, he says, is the principle of compulsion; these bodies are forced to contribute to the administrative expenses of the body which is set up. Let me say that some such provision is very useful and necessary, because these bodies, at first, will have no funds out of which to pay their small administrative expenses.
But let me point out on whom, first of all, this compulsion is to be exercised. It is only on those who are represented on the authority itself. And, curiously enough, the request for this small degree of compulsion was not forced by the Electricity Commissioners on reluctant authorities, but it was suggested by the companies themselves. They said: "It is quite clear we must have sonic small expenses, and it would be rather hard, if we are agreeing together to form this joint electricity authority, that perhaps nine or ten of us should pay our fair share, and the others would not." And so they agreed among themselves to this small element of compulsion. But it is not imposed upon them from above; it is their own desire, and I need hardly say that if any of them object to the scheme they are entitled not to conic into it. I think, therefore, that the element of compulsion is really reduced almost to nothing.
The next point I have to deal with is the borrowing of money. Your Lordships will see that the borrowing of money is very closely safeguarded. First of all, the actual borrowing is limited to certain purposes. Secondly, they can only borrow with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and subject to Regulations to be made by the Minister of Health, with the approval of the Treasury. And these local authorities, who, we are told are allowed to lend money, can only lend it for the purposes for which those authorities are allowed to borrow. That is one point. As to another, your Lordships seemed to think that the Ministry of Health was not a very good authority to control the loans of these authorities. That is a matter of detail, but very important detail, and if your Lordships think that the powers of these authorities to borrow money or to

321
guarantee stock, and so on, are insufficiently safeguarded, I should be glad to consider very carefully any suggestions that your Lordships brought forward on that point. We are all agreed that we do not want to give unlimited powers. But all this is subject to the local authorities themselves, who need not take any part in this unless they like. But, if there is any limitation wanted, I shall be very glad to consider any point that may be made in that connection.
Lord Buckmaster seemed to object to local authorities having electrical supplies at all, because his criticism was that they were not capable of managing these matters, which are entirely in the hands of experts. That criticism might have had some value if it was made twenty-five years ago, but, as we know, these great authorities are conducting electrical undertakings and have conducted them for many years. In fact, the amount of capital invested in the undertakings of local authorities—I am speaking of power distribution—is far larger than that invested in public companies for the same purpose. Therefore, we have to take the facts as we find them.
Surely, it is rather absurd to say that these authorities may raise large sums, as they do now, for establishing their own electricity undertakings, and that one of them may not join together with another local authority, as is proposed under this Bill, in order that they may have a joint supply which may be cheaper than the one which they could set up themselves. As a matter of fact, they have such powers of joining together for mutual supply under the Act of 1919. And the great addition made by this Bill—and it really is a help rather than a hindrance to private enterprise—is that under it the public companies can join with the local authorities to form joint electricity authorities, whereas, before, the local authorities could only act by themselves.

May I further enforce this point on the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury), who has been contending that this is not the time when large further expenditures should take place. I entirely agree with him, and I think everybody will agree with him. But the point of this Bill is that you will economise in the expenditure of public money as far as you can. Instead of every local authority and company raising money for the extension of their own power stations to meet their statutory requirements, they join together in the different
322
districts, and therefore it is surely obvious that the money required, when they are united together in this way, will be far less than might be raised if they were all independent units, trying to raise money for their small independent stations. The noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, dwelt on this point. I think the only specific question he asked me was: Will they appoint responsible persons upon these joint authorities?
LORD SYDENHAM: To whom would they be responsible? Would they be responsible to shareholders, or to the ratepayers?
VISCOUNT PEEL: They would, of course, be responsible to the authority that appoints them. The local authority will appoint its representative on the joint electricity authority, who will be responsible to the authority and to the ratepayers; and, in the same way, those who are appointed by the companies will be responsible to their shareholders.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the local authorities might be beaten by the representatives of the companies.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might be beaten in what way?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon a decision. My noble friend asks about the responsibility, and the noble Viscount says the representatives of the local authority would be responsible to their own local authority, but once in a joint electricity authority they would be subject to the ordinary rules, and they might be beaten by the company.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, because the question is a question of price, and the noble Marquess will see that under Clause 13 there is a Regulation as to the price which will be charged for the supply, which is to be such as to cover their expenditure and such margin as the Electricity Commissioners may allow. Therefore, the difficulty suggested by the noble Marquess really could not arise.
Unless your Lordships pass a measure of this kind—with any Amendments which you think it necessary to make for securing further control over the local authorities in their borrowing—you will really render the whole of your action in passing the Bill of 1919 entirely futile. All the action taken during the last two years by the Electricity Commissioners—their survey and all the efforts they have made to set

323
up these joint electricity authorities—will be barren and futile, unless you equip them with the powers, or, at any rate, some of the powers, that are set forth in this Bill. Some of the criticisms I have heard to-day have been directed not so much to this Bill as to the Act of 1919. But your Lordships realise that that Act was assented to by your Lordships, and all I am asking you to do to-day is to supplement that Act by clauses which, properly controlled and properly safeguarded, will enable that Act to become a reality and not be entirely useless and futile. I hope your Lordships, therefore, will allow the Bill to receive a Second Reading, subject to what I have said as to any necessary Amendments that your Lordships may propose with regard to the borrowing powers of local authorities.
LORD SYDENHAM: Might I ask the noble Viscount what he meant when he said that £15,000,000 had already been sanctioned?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry I did not explain that point. I think I stated in my opening speech that, of course, at the
present time the loans of local authorities for raising electricity supplies are subject to the Electricity Commissioners; they deal with them; those are powers which they now exercise. It is quite clear that if there is no possibility of the joint electricity authorities functioning, and if they cannot take over some of these generating stations, the Electricity Commissioners will have to permit the raising of more loans; because local authorities are not going to stand still: they must develop their supplies. This sum of £15,000,000 has been raised during the last few years, subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners. As I have already explained, they have no power to function through the joint electricity authorities, and that sum will be increased unless power is given to economise money, as I suggest it will be economised, by equipping these joint electricity authorities with the necessary power.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Strafford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Strange, E. (D. Alholl.)

Hylton, L.

Islington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Astor, V.

Kenyon, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Churchill, V.

Lambourne, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Lamington, L.

Hood, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Ancaster, E.

Peel, V.

MacDonnell, L.

Bradford, E.

Ullswater, V.

Manton, L.

Buxton. E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Rathcreedan, L.

Chichester, E.

Ashfield, L,

Riddell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Colwyn, L.

Shandon, L.

Eldon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Leven and Melville, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Terrington, L.

Lucan, E.

Faringdon, L.

Teynham, L.

Lytton, E.

Gainford, L.

Weardale, L.

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Wemyss, L (E. Wemysn.)

Plymouth, E.

Hawke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Avebury, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E.Bessborough)[Teller.]

Somerset, D.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Blythswood, L.

Raglan, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Redesdale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Chalmers, L.

Rowallan, L.

Airlie, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Sackville, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Desborough, L.

Saltoun, L.

Grey, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Strachie, L.

Morton, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Sumner, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

Sydenham, L.

Chilston, V.

Newton, L.

Tenterden, L.

Falmouth, V.

Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller.]

Trevor, L.

Walsingham, L.

Askwith, L.

Phillimore, L.

Wavertree, L.

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

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS IN CENTRAL EUROPE.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the excessive expenditure in connection with numerous International Commissions in Central Europe, and the consequent effect upon the economic recovery of ex-enemy States and their ability to pay reparations.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of the House that, upon the completion of hostilities, a vast number of Missions were despatched all over Europe by the Allies, and that we were not backward in contributing our share to the number. We sent out Military Missions, Naval Missions, Air Missions, Financial Missions, Food Missions, Railway Missions, and Plebiscite Missions. We never actually went the length of sending a Naval Mission to Switzerland, but we sent a Naval Mission to Poland and it remained there for quite a long period. There were so many Missions of a military or naval character in existence at one time that a perambulating Mission was actually established, with its headquarters I think at Constantinople, for the purpose of controlling all the other Missions. In process of time these Missions, the expenses of which fell upon the Allied Governments, were gradually withdrawn, and their places taken by International Commissions which were maintained at the expense of the ex-enemy Powers. Those Commissions may be roughly divided into three classes—Frontier Commissions, Financial Commissions, and Control Commissions.
The classic influence of futility in this direction, and one which probably will always be recorded in history, is the case of Austria. In addition to the Missions which I have enumerated—Military, Naval, Air and so forth—an enormous horde of persons, both male and female, numbering, I might almost say, thousands, amounting to a small army, descended upon Vienna for the purpose of investigating what reparations could be paid. This enormous Commission proceeded to Vienna in the spring of 1920, and remained there a whole year. The cost of this huge body was no less than 7,500,000 gold kronen. Of this sum the Austrian Government was only able to pay two and a half millions, and the remainder therefore—some five millions—
326
had to be paid by the Governments which were responsible for sending the Commission out. In other words, they were five millions of gold kronen out of pocket over this Commission. The end of it was that when this multitude returned it was discovered that there were no means of extracting any money from Austria at all. What naturally occurs to one is that this discovery might have been made by one or two individuals, without it being necessary to send out an army for the purpose. All the Commissions have now come to an end in Austria. That country has been swept so bare that there are no means of supporting Commissions of any kind.
I pass from Austria to the case of Germany. I am not going to say too much on the subject of Germany, because it is one that is so great and complicated that I recognise it cannot be dealt with in a few minutes. But, to put it quite shortly, Germany abounds in Commissions at the present moment. There is a Control Commission, a Reparations Commission, a Restitution Commission, a Coal Commission, a Frontier Commission, a Silesian Plebiscite Commission, War Graves. Commission, and, of course, a Rhine Commission. The Commission of Reparations, which consists of 171 persons, costs apparently, the colossal sum of more than 32 million marks a month. I am not going to discuss that particular point, but I would like to say a word upon one of these Commissions of which I have some personal knowledge—namely, the Control Commission.
The Control Commission was sent out for the purpose of disarming Germany. It consists, or at all events did consist a short time ago, of 1,568 persons, and it costs no less a sum than 23,500,000 marks monthly. I was in Berlin in August of last year, and I was given an opportunity to inspect the work of this particular Commission. I was shown the charts and documents upon which they worked, and it was pointed out to me that the work of disarming Germany was practically accomplished. There was, in fact, so little left to be done that General Nollet, the head of the Commission, with the concurrence of his British colleague, had recommended that the personnel of this Commission should be reduced by 40 per cent. in January of the present year.
I am under the impression that so far from this reduction having been carried out, there has been no reduction whatsoever

327
and it is quite easy to see why this stupendous Commission is still maintained. From time to time there are discoveries in Germany of concealed arms. My information, which is not German information but English information of the most reliable character, is to the effect that the periodical stories of the discovery of arms are grossly exaggerated, and that the statements reflecting upon the complicity of the German Government are frequently without any foundation. I should be inclined to think that the German Government dislikes these concealed stores of arms, if possible, more than we do, because, if I am not mistaken, these concealed arms are usually the work either of Communist bodies or of reactionary bodies under the inspiration of some reactionary individuals, whose importance is probably greatly exaggerated. But the point is that so long as we allow our policy to be controlled by the sensational Press, either here or in France, there is no prospect whatsoever of a Commission of this kind being reduced or coming to an end. There will always be found objections to reducing these Commissions by one man.
In addition to that you have the extraordinary temptation which is placed upon the members of these Commissions themselves. These individuals are so highly paid that it is unnecessary for them to draw their pay in this country or France. Their allowances are on such a liberal scale that they are able to live in Germany in almost a condition of luxury, or at all events luxury as compared with the ordinary population, and even to bring their wives and their families with them. In these circumstances it seems quite conceivable that these Commissions will continue indefinitely. I will not vouch for the figures, but I am informed that the total cost of the various Commissions which I have enumerated in Germany, including no doubt the cost of troops in Silesia and so forth, amounts to the very large sum of between eighteen hundred million and nineteen hundred million marks a year. If to that sum you add the expenses of the Armies of Occupation, which, if I am not mistaken, amount to something like sixty or seventy million pounds sterling a year, if not more, it is not difficult to realise that the process of making Germany pay is a more complicated and difficult one than many people in this country realise.
I will come now to the cases of the smaller countries, which seem to me to be even
328
harder, and I will allude first to the case of Hungary. The financial situation of Hungary is absolutely desperate. These people start with a budget deficit of something like sixteen or seventeen milliards. That is the way in which they begin the year! Undeterred by our experience in regard to Austria—when I say "our experience," I am not alluding solely to His Majesty's Government, but to all the Allied Governments—Commissions have been sent to Hungary on a precisely similar scale. There are the usual Frontier Commissions, Military Commissions, Air Commissions, and Naval Commissions. With regard to the Naval Commission, I should like to point out that although there were only four more or less obsolete patrol boats on the Danube, which constituted the Navy of Hungary, it was nevertheless actually proposed to send out four admirals with their retinue in order to disarm these boats. I am only too pleased to think that some comments made upon it in this House had the effect of restraining these admirals from proceeding to Budapest.
The military part of the Control Commission is enormously expensive. The numbers of this Commission amount to nearly 300, and if I am not mistaken these 250 or 300 individuals cost more than the whole of the old Hungarian Army, which consisted of 35,000 men. This Military Control Commission, during its first six months, cost 250,000,000 kronen; its monthly cost is now about 20,000,000 kronen. Some idea of the lavish scale on which the members of this Commission are treated may be inferred from the fact that a British private attached to the Commission receives in a month as much pay as the Hungarian Prime Minister receives in the course of a whole year. I am informed that the British private receives in pay and allowances an equivalent to 52,000 kronen a month; and, oddly enough, 52,000 kronen is the exact amount of the annual salary of the Hungarian Prime Minister.
Then you have the Frontier Commission, which represents an expenditure of 10,000,000 kronen per month. In regard to this particular Commission I mentioned on a previous occasion—and I cannot forbear repeating it now—that I visited one of these Frontier Commissions and found that the British, French, Japanese and Italian officers were being

329
paid between sixty and seventy times as much as their Hungarian colleague working in the same room and doing precisely the same work.
In addition to these expensive Military Commissions you have the Reparations Commission. It arrived in Budapest in November of last year, and its expenses quite throw into the shade the performances of the Control Commission. In the course of the first month, with only one secretary present and two or three assistants, they managed to spend 5,000,000 kronen on offices and office furniture alone, and their present expenditure is reckoned at no less than 100,000,000 kronen a month. To my mind the idea of getting any reparations out of Hungary at all is absolutely preposterous. It is not only immoral, it is quite impracticable. These people start with a deficit of 17 milliards; the country is bankrupt, they have lost two-thirds of their territory, and they were robbed in time of peace, not in war time, by the Rumanians, to the extent of something like £100,000,000.
We are not only imposing these crushing burdens on this people, but we are calmly pointing out to them that we intend to wring an indefinite sum from them in the shape of an indemnity. In these circumstances, with these burdens piled upon them and being told that an enormous indemnity is to be extracted at a future date, I ask how can you expect any stability of any kind in the country, and how can you expect any one to invest capital there? The only result of the visit of the Reparations Commission, which is by way of ascertaining the amount payable, is that the Hungarian exchange has continued steadily to depreciate. A year ago it stood at about 700 kronen to the £, but since the arrival of the Reparations Commission it has sunk to over. 3,000. Obviously there can be only one end to a procedure of this kind. If these Commissions are allowed to continue, mid unless all idea of an indemnity is abandoned, Hungary must inevitably reach the same position as Austria.
There is one other country to which I wish to refer, and that is Bulgaria. Bulgaria, like Hungary, starts with an enormous deficit. Nevertheless, they have also been allotted their full share of Commissions; and they have been given a Commission of a special character all to themselves. There is a League of Nations Commission which has been in existence since 1920, the object of which is to bring about a reciprocal
330
Greco-Bulgarian emigration. I am informed that this Commission does absolutely nothing, and that the head of it, an Englishman, passes most of his time in Smyrna. In addition, we have the usual Military, Naval, and Air Commissions. They arrived as far back as the summer of 1920. Although there are only eight aeroplanes in the whole country an imposing Air Commission was sent out in which there were certainly two or three British officers. I was not conscious, personally, of the fact that there was a Bulgarian Navy, but a Naval Commission was also sent out, and I understand that the British representative had the grace to retire from it after twenty-four hours' experience.
But the military control which is the main feature of the Commission remained from the summer of 1920 until the present year. Each of the Great Powers was represented, and there was, of course, practically nothing to do. These people lived in the most expensive manner, and on the same scale as the other Commissions I have mentioned. As an instance of the lavish scale on which they were paid I may mention that a typist attached to the Commission received two and a-half times the salary of a Bulgarian Cabinet Minister. The Control Commission has now, fortunately, come to an end and there is nothing left but a nucleus. But whether it has come to an end or not the money has been spent, and it has been absolutely wasted.
The Control Commission was followed by a Reparations Commission which arrived in March, 1921. In order to do things in a proper style they arrived in a special train, travelling across Europe at the expense of the Bulgarian Government. It consisted of about 40 persons, exclusive of the native employees, who no doubt are fairly numerous. At once this Commission proceeded to seize all the best available buildings for their residence. A friend of mine, who happened to be in Sofia at the time, told me that everyone, was cleared out of the only two presentable hotels in the place in order to make room for them, and any amount of money was spent in furnishing and decorating suitable abodes for the members of this particular Mission. As one instance of what took place, I am informed that the head of a Delegation—I am happy to inform your Lordships that it was not the British Delegation—although considerable expense had been incurred in fitting up a house for him, said that he must be furnished with

331
a grand piano. A grand piano was not to be obtained in Bulgaria at all, but the Bulgarian Government sent to Vienna, obtained a grand piano for him, and brought it to Sofia at their own expense. When it arrived, the delegate sent in the bill for tuning it to the Bulgarian Government.
In spite of the hopeless financial condition of that country, Bulgarians have been told that they have got to pay an indemnity of £90,000,000 sterling. I believe that the instalments—they are spread, I think, over thirty-five years—would practically swallow up the whole of the available revenue. One of the objects of sending out a Reparation Commission to Bulgaria was to put the finances of the country in order. It is common knowledge that, as there is nothing to be got out of this country, the only thing to be done is to agree to a moratorium. If that is the case, why are all these people required? If there is going to be a moratorium, it is perfectly obvious that the whole of the work could be done by the Legations, with possibly an expert attached to them who would work with the Ministry of Finance. As it is, the cost for one month to this miserable, bankrupt country is 23,000,000 francs, and up to the end of August of this year the Bulgarians have spent no less than 271,000,000 francs in connection with these Commissions and with Inter-Allied troops.
It is hardly necessary to say that, so far from improving the financial situation, the despatch of the Reparations Commission to Bulgaria has had precisely the same effect as in Hungary, and the Bulgarian exchange has continued to depreciate. I should like to add that the Bulgarians, so far as I know, have honestly done their best to carry out the provisions of the Treaty, and—wrongly, in my opinion—have made hardly any protestations against the way in which they have been treated. My own experience is that, unless you complain and make yourself disagreeable, nobody does anything for you. The Bulgarians have adopted the line of passive acquiescence, and no Bulgarian has ever approached me with the request to ventilate the grievances of his country. I have discovered these facts for myself, but I think that they are none the less very worthy of your Lordships' attention.
That is very nearly all that I have to say on the subject of these Commissions. If the noble Marquess, the Foreign Secretary, were present, he would probably attribute it to innate viciousness on my own part, but
332
nevertheless I am not ashamed to say that the spectacle of these Commissions battening upon bankrupt peoples is one of the most repulsive that I can imagine. I am not alone in this opinion; if anybody here or elsewhere will go to these countries, he will find that it is shared by every Englishman resident in them. I have never come across an Englishman, even if he was a member of these Commissions, who was not heartily ashamed of the way in which these people are bled, and I may mention, as an instance which is much to their credit, that I understand that some of the British members of the Control Commission in Bulgaria mean to resign their appointments.
I should like to know how we should feel if we had lost the war, and if there were established in this country enormous commissions of Germans, Turks, Bulgars and Heaven knows who, living in the most expensive hotels, travelling in special trains, with any amount of money to dispose of, all of which had to be paid for by ourselves; and if we were told at the same time that, in addition to these burdens, we should be called upon to pay an enormous indemnity of an unknown amount in the future. If this process of loading up a people with these burdens were going to have any satisfactory result so far as we are concerned, I should not so much mind; but we are not going to get anything out of it at all. The whole process seems to me extraordinarily futile. It is as if you were to make a man bankrupt and then to quarter all your impecunious relations upon him and tell them they could spend as much money as they chose. The result would be that the money would ultimately come out of your own pocket. That is precisely what is occurring at present. All these prodigious expenses in connection with these Commissions eventually come out of our own pockets, because it means that there will be so much money the less to be paid us, supposing there is anything at all.
The real effect of these Commissions—I regret to say it—is not only to burden these countries in a senseless way but to accentuate race hatred. I cannot imagine any more effective process of carrying out that object, which unfortunately appears to be the object of certain people in this country. And if you ask why it is done, why we pursue this particular course, the only answer you get is that we must do it because our Allies do it. I confess that in this particular case I should like to see this

333
country dissociate itself entirely from its Allies. If the French Government or the Italian Government choose to send these hideously expensive Commissions to the ex-enemy countries, let them do so, but let us set an example, let us either withdraw our Commissions altogether or reduce them to the smallest possible numbers. I believe that if we adopted this course it would do more to enhance our credit throughout Europe than any other action which we might take.
I have been told, when I have brought intelligence of this character before the House on previous occasions, that these people deserve a lesson; and that unless they receive a severe lesson they may be tempted to go to war again. I cannot help wishing that sometimes the Supreme Council, instead of repairing to Cannes or to some other pleasure resort, could be persuaded to establish itself at Vienna or at Budapest, where feelings of this kind would very soon disappear. If anybody were to go to the two cities which I have mentioned—to quote only two—and were to see the swarms of under-sized and stunted children, all victims of famine during the war, the pitiable spectacle of the middle classes who are reduced almost to starvation, the thousands upon thousands of unfortunate refugees, living miserably in cellars or in railway trucks, and if anybody were to realise the general depression which prevails, he would realise that no further lesson is wanted. These people are not in the least likely to go to war, and are not in a position to do so. I maintain, and I shall continue to do so whenever I get the opportunity, that the interests of this country lie, not in laying burdens on these people and trying to extract money from them, but in doing our best to assist them to recover some measure of economic prosperity.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I do not pretend to the knowledge which the noble Lord has of all these countries, but I am able to contribute a little as to the state of Hungary and the feeling there, and I trust that what the noble Lord has said, and the feeling which will be expressed in this House, will lead His Majesty's Government to reconsider these matters. In Hungary, as the noble Lord has said—my information differs from his only in this, that I extend it over seven months instead of six—250 million kronen has been spent on these Commissions.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What is the period?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Seven months, from. July 22 to February 22. That figure comes to £78,125 at the exchange of 3,200 kronen to the £, which is correct according to my information. There are six Commissions. There is the Allied Military Control, which consists of twenty-two Italian delegates or officials, fourteen French, thirteen British, and two Japanese, and I am glad to see that the British are considerably fewer in number than the Italian. To that extent we set a good example. There is the Coal Control Commission of one delegate from each of the four Great Powers. There are four Boundary Commissions, each consisting of one representative of each of the four great Powers. There is, besides, the Reparations Commission, which I understand is not counted in those Commissions nor in that figure. The expense of those Commissions is several times—double at any rate—in those seven months, the total salary of the Regent for the whole year.
Now, the condition of things in Hungary is most depressing. The condition of the respectable middle class and official people in Budapest is quite heartrending. The descriptions are confirmed by all that I have learned and heard, and we are bleeding her for no purpose at all. We cannot get money out of her. We are destroying the very sources of money by the way in which we are dealing with these people, who, after all, strange as it may seem, are not at all unfriendly to the British. I am told that, notwithstanding all this, the feeling in Budapest is a very friendly British feeling, just as it was when I was out there some years before the war. I understand that a distinction is drawn between the British and the French, and what I feel is that His Majesty's Government, and the British nation, might so easily give a lesson and set an example to the Italians and the French, who are disposed to treat these countries after the old Napoleonic fashion, and to bleed them white as conquered countries. That is not, I trust, the British view.
I was reminded of a curious incident which used to take place, I believe, in the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in Holland. As your Lordships will be aware, the original constitution of that country, after it escaped from Philip II, was such that there were not only seven

335
or eight States but each city counted as an independent sovereign State, and sent its deputies, as to a congress. It was part of the theory that unless there was a unanimous vote nothing international could be done. What was to happen if one single little city stood out? They had a most effective remedy. They sent a Commission to it—a deputation of worthy burghers from the central States. It was understood that those burghers must be handsomely received and well treated. They went there, they would not take "No" for an answer, they remonstrated, and they stayed on until their keep was so expensive that the city gave way sooner than stand out any longer. I almost feel as if some of the people who designed these Commissions—perhaps in some other country—are endeavouring to induce some of these countries to submit to even harder terms than those imposed upon them sooner than have these wretched Commissions sitting upon them and wasting their money any longer.
I really could have said a great deal, but it has been so well said by the noble Lord that I am not anxious to repeat it. I understand that the authorities in Hungary have some hope, bad as their finances are, of getting them into something like shape, and these Commissions perpetually come in and stop any chance of rectifying the balance. Hungary, at any rate, is in a better state than Austria, and still friendly to Great Britain. It would be a great thing for the peace of the world—that peace of the world which the League of Nations, of which I am proud to have been a champion, was established to create—if these sore feelings could be done away with, the business of these Commissions wound up and this large army of officials withdrawn from these countries as soon as possible.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House desired me to apologise for his absence—he is in bed again—and to give the reply to the noble Lord. These Commissions in Central Europe were set up under the various Treaties of Peace. The staffs, if not actually laid down in the Treaties, have been fixed by Allied agreement. Lord Newton suggested that we should break away from our Allies, in which Lord Phillimore supports him.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Not entirely. I suggested that we should reduce the staffs
336
as much as possible and endeavour to wind up the work as quickly as possible.
LORD NEWTON: I also did the same.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No doubt Lord Newton will remember that some of the Allies suffered during the war and are anxious about the rehabilitation of their territories. The rates of pay, allowances, and so forth, have also been fixed by agreement between the representatives in Paris of the principal Allied Powers. The Commissions were appointed for a definite purpose, to perform necessary work in connection with the execution of the Treaties. If their cost had not been charged to the ex-enemy countries, the Allies would have had to bear it, and what might have been gained in the direction of reparations would have been lost in direct expenditure by the Allies. In so far as these Commissions involve expenditure by the ex-enemy States, they may, of course, to that extent impede the economic recovery of those States, although I doubt whether the cost to ex-enemy States is quite as great a burden as is represented, relative to the total outlay of those countries.
It is presumably not intended to argue that these Commissions are unnecessary, and the question really is whether the staffs are unduly large, whether the rates of pay, allowances, &c., are unduly high, and whether they have been dilatory, as Lord Newton suggests, in performing their duties. Officers receiving pay at Allied rates in ex-enemy countries, where the exchange has collapsed, naturally seem to local residents to be drawing unjustifiably high salaries, and this fact gives rise to much exaggerated comment and criticism. But it was necessary to remunerate Allied officers at rates corresponding to what they would receive on special service in the pay of their own Governments, and these rates were fixed by Allied agreement after careful consideration, and some of them are subject to periodical revision. There is no reason why the Allied Governments should bear the charge.
As to the cost of the principal Commissions, it cannot be said that the plebiscites were conducted on an extravagant scale, or that the work of the Plebiscite Commissions was unduly prolonged. In the case of the Commission that administered the plebiscite in Sopron, in Western Hungary, the total cost has not been definitely ascertained. As the Hungarian

337
Government refused to comply with the terms of the Treaty of Trianon it became necessary to retain this Inter-Allied Commission in Sopron for several months, in the first place to supervise the territory and endeavour to preserve order, latterly to conduct the plebiscite which was agreed upon between Austria and Hungary at the Conference in Venice in October last. The cost of this Commission will fall mainly on the Hungarian Government, but this constitutes no injustice, as the long duration of the West Hungarian dispute was due to the action of the Hungarian Government itself. In Upper Silesia the Commission has been very costly, but the magnitude and duration of that work has been due to causes entirely outside the control of the Allied Governments. The work performed by the Boundary Commissions is obviously necessary. The staff employed is reasonable, and, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, the cost cannot be said to be excessive.
The Inter-Allied Military Commissions of Control involve a considerable charge, but, again, those who read the military clauses of the Treaty will appreciate that their work could not be done forthwith. It will probably also be agreed that their work was the most important of all. If Lord Newton is correct in asserting that their cost is excessive it is surprising that the ex-enemy States which have been subject to their control, and which will ultimately have to bear the cost, have not shown more alacrity in complying with their demands, and thereby shortening the period during which the expenditure has to be met. I cannot accept Lord Newton's view that depreciation of the exchange is due to the existence of these Commissions.
In the various Peace Treaties it was provided that the military clauses were to be executed within three months of ratification. In no case has this been done. In every case the delay has been attributable to the dilatoriness of the ex-enemy Government. If the period of activity of the Commissions of Control has been prolonged, and the cost increased, the ex-enemy Governments themselves are principally to blame. Even so, however, in the case of Austria, the Allied Governments considered that it would be impracticable, in view of the state of Austrian finances, to leave the Commission of Control in Austria until the military clauses have been completely carried out. Accord-
338
ingly, the Commission was withdrawn in February of last year, sonic four months after the expiration of the period allowed for compliance with the terms of the Treaty. Only a small liquidating Commission was left in Vienna to maintain control, this body being paid by the Allies, and no charges in connection with it falling on the Austrian Government. In the case of Hungary the work of the Commission of Control was delayed at the start by the necessity of detailing officers to supervise the transfer of Western Hungary to Austria, an operation which was unduly prolonged by the action of the Hungarian Government themselves.
The Reparation Commission has been criticised by Lord Newton as placing an unjustifiable charge upon the ex-enemy Governments. In particular, he quoted the Austrian Commission as being very expensive and extravagant. No doubt the presence in Vienna of officers drawing pay at Allied rates naturally gives rise to criticism and ill-feeling. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the reports of that section, far indeed from holding out hopes of obtaining payments from Austria at present, encouraged the grant of credits to that country, and by March of last year (the section was withdrawn in April) the actual cost of the Austrian section represented about five-eighths of one per cent. of the credits given to Austria by the Allied Governments. I think that Lord Newton's statement, that this case was the classic instance of futility, may be treated as somewhat of an exaggeration. He further made alarming statements about the Hungarian section. I am sure he will be pleased to learn that it has been constituted on a very modest scale, and at present it is intended that only four or five officers should be located in Budapest.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, I think the reply of the noble Earl is eminently unsatisfactory. The very interesting recital which Lord Newton gave of the activities and expense of these different Commissions was one which, if widely published in this country, would excite universal displeasure. It is not too much to say that, if it were known that we, who are now suffering from industrial depression, are increasing by our own action that very depression, by inflicting upon these States in a practically bankrupt condition onerous charges which, in my judgment, are generally unnecessary, there would be a universal protest.

339
It was said by the noble Earl that my noble friend Lord Newton proposed that we should break away from our Allies in this matter. I did not understand my noble friend to suggest anything of the kind. All that has been suggested is that His Majesty's Government should take the initiative, as they can properly take it, in suggesting to their Allies that the crushing cost of these Commissions should, if possible, be diminished. They can be diminished, in my judgment, and I have travelled a good deal in Germany since the war. There is no country, even Germany, where the existence of these enormous Commissions is in the least necessary. When difficulties arise the solution always seems to be to appoint a Commission of experts. I have lived long enough now to know that Commissions of experts are a very convenient excuse for doing nothing.
We have been struggling for years to arrive at conclusions as to the amount of money which can be extracted from our former enemies. We have not yet arrived at any definite conclusion whatever, and yet we have Commissions of experts devoting time and—what is much more important—our money (because it will be our money in the end) to the examination of these questions, and, whenever their conclusions are arrived at, and they are supposed to be the last word on the subject, they are again to be reviewed a few months afterwards by another body of experts. The Foreign Office should be prepared to make representations of the most strenuous nature to our Allies on this subject, calling their attention to the fact that the existence of these immense and onerous Commissions is a burden of the gravest kind upon practically bankrupt States, especially when they are continued for an undue period, when they are in many cases no longer necessary.
My impression is that half of these Commissions are prolonged by the members of the Commissions themselves. They do not want to lose their employment, and therefore they suggest that some little incident or other requires the continued existence of some particular Commission.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Is this an allegation against British officials?
LORD WEARDALE: No, not against British officials.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am glad to hear that.
LORD WEARDALE: The noble Earl has distinctly said that many British officials are anxious to resign from these Commissions; so it is not against the British officials. But in the case of other countries I will not say that they openly declare but they covertly insist upon the continuance of Commissions which, as to half of them, are really no longer necessary. I think therefore, that unless His Majesty's Government take a little further and more strenuous action than they have already taken, they are not fulfilling their obligations and duties to this country.
We have heard a great deal lately about the "Geddes Axe." The "Geddes Axe" has been applied and is being applied, I am glad to think, with a good deal of vigour in this country. Why not apply it also in this particular instance? Why not apply the principles of economy to these particular cases where we apparently abstain from applying them because it is supposed that the cost will come upon these other countries who are our former enemies? There can be no greater mistake than that. These ex-enemy countries are not in a position—and we all know it—to pay half, probably not a quarter, of the reparations that have been demanded of them. Yet we are increasing the amount of their liability by expenditure upon these Commissions. I think that His Majesty's Government and particularly the Foreign Office are treating this matter much too lightly, and, believe me, the country will take a very serious view of it if it continues.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the most satisfactory feature in the statement made by the noble Earl was that he practically admitted that everything I said was true. He made no attempt to contest the figures I put forward, and I do not think it is possible to contest them. I am not going to reply in detail to his statement. I will content myself with saying that the position is so ridiculous and so preposterous that I am absolutely convinced that common sense must assert itself in time, and that just as we are forcing economy upon the Government here so, in their own interests, economy will eventually be forced upon the whole of the Allied Powers in regard to this matter.

POSTAL CHARGES.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Govern-

341
ment has given or will give consideration to the urgent necessity for the immediate reduction of postal charges in the vital interests of the trade and commerce of the country: whether they appreciate the fact that the Post Office has become our greatest commercial traveller, and that high postage is retarding trade, causing unemployment in a large number of trades where orders are obtained by the circulation of printed matter; further, have they considered the following observations uttered many years since by Mr. Gladstone: "I rank the introduction of cheap postage for letters, documents, patterns, and printed matter, and the abolition of taxes on all printed matter in the catalogue of legislation for promoting conditions of abundant employment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the business men and employers of the country know, and are practically unanimous in saying, that the present high postal charges are crippling and, in innumerable cases, destroying trade and commerce. It is for that reason that I, as a Chamber of Commerce man, desire to ask His Majesty's Government the Question I have placed on the Paper, and to urge that an immediate reduction in postal charges, if not an immediate return to pre-war charges, should be made. In this connection I should like to quote a short, but very interesting paragraph from a speech by Mr. Gladstone, which I did not include in the Question. He said this—
"If you want to benefit the labouring classes and to do the maximum of good, it is not enough to operate on the articles consumed by them; you should rather operate on the articles which give them the maximum of employment."
There is no question on which the feeling of the country is so unanimous as that of the reduction in postal charges.
As regards this question a conference was recently called by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which was attended by between sixty and seventy representatives of the principal trade, financial, commercial, and industrial organisations of the country. That conference was unanimously of opinion that, in the interest of trade, a reduction in the postal charges is vitally necessary. One of those who attended the conference wrote of it that seldom has there been a gathering of men more entitled from intimate knowledge to speak on a subject closely connected with the reconstruction and the permanent prosperity of British trade.
342
Following that conference, a general desire was expressed that the Prime Minister should receive its representatives, but unfortunately, in consequence of great pressure of work, he has been unable to do so. He has, however, made the suggestion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should undertake the duty for him.
What I particularly wish to urge is that this great postal question is a national question and not a Departmental one. The prosperity of the country depends upon it. It is not a question only for the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should not be surprised to hear—there are certain rumours about—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General are not quite at one about it; I suppose that one wants the money and the other would like to make the reductions. In my opinion it demands the special attention of the Cabinet as a whole, and I want them to realise that an immediate reduction in postal charges is needed to advance trade and to reduce unemployment. It is not sufficiently realised by some of those who are not business men how important cheap postage is to the country.
In the House of Commons on May 24 and June 9 of last year, the Postmaster-General stated in substance that as soon as there was a surplus available from the postal receipts the increased postage rates which were then put on would be taken off, and the public would be given the benefit of any surplus by way of a reduction in postal charges. Mr. Chamberlain, when interrogated on this in the House of Commons not many days ago, said that the Government was prepared to stand by the statement made by the Postmaster-General on May 24, 1921. The question arises as to what that means. The Postmaster-General publicly announced that he anticipated a surplus of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 during the financial year beginning on April 5 next. In anticipation of that surplus I ask for an immediate reduction. I suggest that the Government should not postpone this great commercial benefit. It is urgent that the reduction should come into operation at the beginning of the next financial year.
The business men who understand the question submit that the Post Office is not a revenue-earning Department. If it becomes so it will be another form of indirect taxation, and the whole country will protest against it. We urge that the Post

343
Office expenditure should be reduced as much as possible without loss of efficiency; that it should be made to pay; that there should be no surplus of income over expenditure beyond what is necessary for maintenance and upkeep; and that any income derived over and above that should be utilised towards reducing not only the postal charges but those in connection with the telegraph and telephone. Those who have taken an interest in postal matters must bear the name of Rowland Hill in great respect, and I ask the Government to have a little courage and not be afraid to make an advance. Let them be fortified by the example of what occurred when Rowland Hill brought about penny postage. When he introduced the reform it was stated that there must be a loss to the country, and that it would be a failure. Yet we all know how great was the benefit that this country derived from the introduction of cheap postage.
I am satisfied—and this is why I take such an interest in the subject—that if you desire to revive the trade and prosperity of the country there is no instrument that you could use with greater advantage for bringing about that result than that of putting people into close and cheap communication one with another by means of the post. Were that done I do not believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose anything. I understand that when the Postmaster-General was appointed his instructions were to make the two sides of the accounts balance. There was no question as to what policy he was to follow. I am happy to say that he has now assisting him a council of first-rate business men, and I hope the result of the deliberations of that council will be to make such an impression upon the Postmaster-General as will induce him to cheapen postage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in my opinion would derive considerably more financial benefit from cheap postage than is to be obtained from postage at the present high rate. Moreover, cheaper postage would mean full employment for the employees of the Post Office, and that in turn would aid prosperity. But the most important thing is the improvement that would be brought about in the trade of the country and the consequent benefit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I take no objection to the political philosophy of my noble friend. He will, I hope, remember that during the current
344
year there is a deficit on the postal service, not a surplus. Looking to the future, if one calculates upon a commercial basis—if one, in other words, takes credit for services rendered by the Post Office to other Government Departments—the accounts ought to show a surplus of several millions. The question of reducing postal rates as a result of the surplus is at this moment under the consideration of the Government—not under the consideration solely of the Postmaster-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but within the purview of the Cabinet as a whole. The Government, I assure my noble friend, fully recognises the advantages which he has pointed out, to commerce and industry, and to a hundred and one walks of public and domestic life, of low postal charges, but these benefits must be considered in relation to the financial situation of the moment, and they must be taken into account before a large sacrifice of actual cash can be finally decided upon. Lord Southwark, having made his statement, will, I feel sure, appreciate that, at the present stage of the financial year and in anticipation of the Report by the Committee of business men to which he has referred, it is impossible to make any more precise statement of policy.

WOMEN POLICE.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice to move that he be given leave to advance to to-morrow the following Notice standing in his name for Thursday next:—
"To draw attention to the Report of the Committee on the Employment of Women on Police Duties (of which Sir John Baird, Bart., M.P., was Chairman), in which the first conclusion arrived at was the following: 'That the experience of the war has proved that women can be employed with advantage to the community in the performance of certain police duties which, before the war, were exclusively discharged by men'; and to ask, if in view of the large amount of expert evidence received by that Committee in favour of the above recommendation, and also in view of the useful work since performed in various centres by women police, information will be available as to the source of the evidence which led the Committee on National Expenditure, in their Second Interim Report, to make a recommendation which if adopted would lead to the disband-

345
ment of the women police patrols in the Metropolitan area."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg formally to make the Motion which appears in my name on the Paper.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

AN ALLOTMENT BILL.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture whether he will introduce the Allotments Bill, promised by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Allotments, presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary, but for which time cannot be found in the House of Commons. At this hour I shall be very brief indeed, though this is a question of great importance to a very large number of people in this country. The reason I ask the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, to introduce here the promised Bill to give greater security to allotment holders, instead of waiting until time can be found for it in another place, is that the Government have had to acknowledge how much they are hampered in the House of Commons for time. They have actually had to withdraw their Summer Time Bill, and to introduce it in this House to-day. That shows how great a blockage there is in the House of Commons. Then we are all aware that the sword of a General Election is hanging over the head of the House of Commons, and of the present Parliament, and if this Bill is not speedily introduced and passed through both Houses the allotment holders will have to wait a much longer time before they will be able to get the security they require.
The recommendations which I ask the Government to introduce here are embodied in the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House. That Committee made many recommendations as to the amendment of the present law in favour of allotment holders. It advised that the tenure of allotments should be made more secure, and that, as far as possible, the allotment holders should have such security of tenure as can be given in existing circumstances. An excellent provision was also introduced into that Report providing that co-operative allotment associations might obtain loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. That would be a great advan-
346
tage to the small allotment holder. At the present moment he has to pay very high rent for his allotment owing to the fact that the money has to be borrowed at a high rate of interest. A matter which is exercising the minds of allotment holders very much indeed is that they should have adequate compensation for disturbance. The Government passed a very stringent Bill giving adequate compensation to large tenant farmers if disturbed, and it seems only fair that the small allotment holder should be treated in the same way and have full and adequate compensation. We all know what a great advantage it was during the war to have the amount of food that the allotment holders produced. These men are now being threatened that they will be turned out with little or no compensation. But what they fear most is the loss of allotments which have been a credit to themselves and a great advantage to the country.
Allotments are wanted now even more than in the old days, owing to the fact that shorter hours of labour are worked. All classes of working men have a holiday on Saturday afternoons, and it is better that they should be engaged upon these allotments rather than spend their time in the public house or looking at a cricket or football match. I know very well how much the railwaymen and miners and others in industrial areas would appreciate it if the Government would introduce this Bill, and carry out the valuable recommendations of the Departmental Committee which was presided over by the noble Earl. Such an Act would be received with great satisfaction, and would be a deed of justice to a most deserving and a large body of men in this country. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us that this course will be adopted, for I cannot see that there is any objection to it. We have plenty of time in this House to proceed with a Bill. There would then be no risk of losing it for want of time to discuss it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I hope to introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House before Easter, and I trust I am not over sanguine in anticipating that it will be given a Second Reading.
House adjourned, at half past seven o'clock.

LEGAL AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]

  MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

  Trafford Park. [H.L.]

  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply. [H.L.]

  Shepton Mallet Waterworks. [H.L.]

  South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company. [H.L.]

  Black Country Tramways and Light Railways. [H.L.]

  Yorkshire Electric Power. [H.L.]

  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CARDIFF EXTENSION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

E. Chichester,

E. Strafford,

L. Kenyon,

L. Monteagle (M. Sligo),

L. Newton (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 15th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

RIOT (DAMAGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off sine die.