Sitting of 14 March 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills,—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, introduced pursuant to the Provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Railways (West Scottish Group) Bill (Substituted Bill).
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 ease 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:
Bristol Tramways Bill.
South Staffordshire 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:
Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills,
1938
That, in the ease of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords](Standing Orders not 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 Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Croydon Gas.
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a Second Time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    DISTURBANCE, CHAURI CHAURA.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that in the attack on the police post at Chauri Chaura on 4th February, when 22 policemen were murdered, soaked with oil, and burnt, by a mob led by Gandhi volunteers, the police when first attacked fired in the air, the only effect of which was to infuriate the mob, who at once closed in with lathis and spears; and, if so, will he give orders that all firing in the air is to be prohibited in future?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am aware of the fact. The standing orders for the conduct of the police throughout India strictly prohibit firing in the air, and the Government of India have called the attention of local governments to these orders.

    REPEAL BILLS.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the

    1939
    present state of India, it is his intention to sanction the Bills about to be introduced into the Indian Legislature for the repeal of what are denominated by the agitators and rebels in India as repressive laws?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The two Bills referred to have already been introduced, with the approval of the Secretary of State, and, as I understand from reports in the Press, have beer-passed by both the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly; but copies of the Bills as passed have not yet reached me.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when they come, consider the inadvisability of weakening the power of the Central Government?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They have not yet reached me, and, therefore, I have not been able yet to consider the matter, but I will when I am in a position to do so.

    PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (OFFICIALS).
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the Secretary of State for India in what respects, if any, the status of the officials in the Public Works Department has been altered or modified by recent administrative action; and, in particular, whether there has been any alteration in the terms of service as regards pay, pension, and promotion?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In 1920 approval was given to the amalgamation of the Imperial and Provincial Services of the Public Works Department into a single Indian service of engineers; the effect of this amalgamation was to improve the status of the provincial service. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, the scales of pay and pension for this service have recently been improved, and, if he desires, a detailed statement of the old and new scales will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The only recent alteration in promotion is that an assistant executive engineer now qualifies for substantive promotion to the rank of executive engineer after nine, instead of 10 years' service.

    BEHAR AND ORISSA (GOVERNORSHIP).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary pf State for India when an announce-
    1940
    ment will be made regarding the successor to Lord Sinha as Governor of Behar and Orissa?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Shortly.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WAR MEDALS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disappointment caused by the delay in granting a home service medal; and, having regard to the fact that medals have already been issued to special constables for less onerous services, can he now say how soon he will be able to make a definite pronouncement on this matter?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret to say that, after careful reconsideration of the question by the Army Council, the decision not to grant any home service medals must be adhered to.
    Mr. THOMSON: Does not the fact that medals have been issued to special constables affect the question?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Medals to special constables are not Army medals. Every consideration has been given to this question from every angle, and the decision is as stated.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to state the considerations that led to the imposition upon the issue of the Territorial war medal of conditions other than the one that the recipient should have mobilised with his Territorial unit on 4th August, 1914; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction with the conditions now imposed upon the issue of this medal, he is prepared to vary the conditions, so that it shall be issuable to all members of the Territorial Force who were members of the Force on 4th August, 1914, and mobilised with their units upon that date?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is impossible, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, to reply fully to the first point raised, but the proposal suggested would have the effect that some Territorial soldiers would earn as many as four medals for the War, which is one more than the

    1941
    maximum that can be earned by any regular soldier. One of the main reasons for laying down the present conditions was to obviate this result. The conditions governing the grant of this medal have been the subject of very full consideration, and I do not think that a case for now varying them in the manner proposed can be made out.
    Mr. THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for War what men, classified either by date of enlistment or discharge, should have now received their war medals; and, if any such recipients have not received their medals, can they have them on application direct to the War Office?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is not desirable to classify men, whether by date of enlistment or discharge or otherwise, so as to endeavour to secure for any given category priority of issue of their medals. Any attempt to do this would slow up the whole distribution. In regard to the last part of the question, the medals, except in the case of officers, are distributed not by the War Office but by Record Offices, to which application should be made by any man entitled to a medal who has reason to think that his address is not already known.

    TEMPORARY OFFICERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War how many temporary officers are at present employed in His Majesty's Army?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number chargeable to Army funds is at present 1,767.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before regular officers are disbanded, will these temporary officers be got rid of?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Obviously we shall endeavour to get rid of all temporary officers before the regular officers are dealt with. There may be some cases in which the technical knowledge of temporary officers will be a convenience.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not a circular been sent to Aldershot that a very large number of artillery officers will be disbanded, and why will temporary officers remain?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It does not follow that these temporary officers are artillery officers at all.

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Secretary of State for War what was the total strength of the National Reserve before the War; what was their annual cost; and how many were re-enlisted for the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The strength of the National Reserve on 1st January, 1914, was 217,680 and the Estimates for 1914–15 provided £43,500 for 250,000. No figures are available at the War Office as to the actual number of re-enlistments for the War, but the number who had previously registered as undertaking to enlist on emergency either in the Regular Army or Territorial Force was about 150,000, and these men, in general, carried out their undertaking.
    Brigadier-General COLVIN: Is there any intention of re-constituting the National Reserve?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think that we had better deal with that tomorrow on the Estimates rather than today.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War what is the present establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The present strength of the Royal Army Medical Corps is 1,321 officers and 4,990 other ranks. The establishment estimated as being required for 1st April, 1923, is 1,045 officers and 4,516 other ranks.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Why is it necessary to have so very much larger an establishment than before the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will raise the question to-morrow so that I may have an opportunity of dealing with it in debate.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Debate will last only from four o'clock until a quarter past eight, and that therefore a

    1943
    great number of Members will not have the opportunity of speaking? Will he answer some of the questions now?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the establishment figures be affected by the proposals of the Geddes Committee, which is accepted by the Government, for the amalgamation of the Army, Navy and Air Force medical services?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That proposal has not been accepted. It is the subject of an inquiry which is about to be commenced. Of course, I am very sorry that we shall not have more time tomorrow, but I understand that we can go on after eleven o'clock if the House so desires, and I shall not shirk my part.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not all the more important when the time of Debate is curtailed that the right hon. Gentleman should give answers to questions now.
    Mr. SPEAKER: May I point out to the hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman has answered definitely the question put on the Paper. He has given the exact figures which were asked for in the question. It is only the arguments on the question that he has declined to answer to-day.

    HOSPITAL SHIP.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to retain the Army hospital ship which costs £172,000 a year.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer is in the negative.

    ARTILLERY (DISBANDMENT).
    Major M'LEANasked the Secretary of State for War what brigades of field artillery and batteries of horse artillery have been selected for disbandment; if consideration is being shown to the seniority of brigades and batteries; and what steps are being taken to maintain the traditions of the brigades and batteries being disbanded?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It has not yet been decided what brigades of field artillery and batteries of horse artillery will be selected for disbandment. Consideration will be shown to the seniority of brigades and batteries.

    OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).
    Major M'LEANasked the Secretary of State for War what inducements, if any, will be offered to officers to retire, in view of the proposed large reduction in establishments; and, in cases of compulsory retirement, how these officers will be selected?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the same subject on 8th March to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife. As I then stated, I cannot deal with the subject within the limits of a Parliamentary Answer, but I propose to do so in the course of my statement on Army Estimates to-morrow.

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War whether time-expired soldiers returning from foreign service are entitled to any leave or bonus in lieu irrespective of whether they are retained beyond their time or not; and whether soldiers are given the opportunity to purchase or retain their warm clothing, if necessary?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Under present rules a soldier returning from foreign service for discharge is entitled to leave only if it can be granted within the period of his engagement. He is not entitled to bonus in lieu of leave. The question whether any change should be made in these rules is at present under consideration. In reply to the second part of the question, a soldier on discharge is entitled to keep all his personal clothing, e.g., boots, service dress trousers, underclothing, etc., but he cannot take away with him any article of public clothing, such as a uniform, greatcoat or foreign service helmet. He may, however, purchase a civilian suit (including a civilian greatcoat) from the Government or elsewhere, and he receives a money allowance towards the cost of this.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that soldiers returning from tropical countries will not be discharged minus a greatcoat and without money to purchase one?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is exactly the question I have answered.

    1945
    The discharged soldier is entitled to purchase civilian clothes, including a greatcoat, either from the Government or from other sources, and he receives an allowance towards the cost of it.
    Viscount CURZON: What is a soldier to do if he has no money? Cases have actually happened this winter where soldiers have been discharged without greatcoats.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not aware of it, and I would be much obliged if the Noble Lord would give me information that would enable me to identify any cases in which that has happened. It ought not to have happened.
    Mr. A. SHORT: What is meant by "an allowance"?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Without notice, I cannot tell the hon. Member the exact figure in shillings and pence, but it is an allowance towards the cost.

  BRITISH MILITARY MISSIONS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War in which countries British Military Missions are now employed; when they will be withdrawn; what is the total number of officers and other ranks, respectively,

  LIST OF BRITISH MILITARY MISSIONS IN MARCH, 1922.

  Establishment on 1st April, 1922.

  Description.

  Officers.

  Other Ranks.

  Annual cost.

  £

  British Military Mission in Poland

  3

  5

  8,000

  British Military Mission in Chile

  2

  Nil

  2,400

  British Military Mission in Baltic

  1

  1

  2,000

  British Section of Allied Military Committee at Paris.

  5

  9

  9,800

  Commission of Control for Germany*

  95

  211

  96,000

  Commission of Control for Hungary*

  13

  25

  8,000

  Organ of Liquidation in Austria

  1

  Nil

  1,400

  Organ of Liquidation in Austria Bulgaria*

  1

  5

  1,600

  Commission of Organisation in Turkey

  8

  2

  7,100

  Duration of Missions.—The Mission in Chile is for a period of 12 months which will terminate in July, 1922.
  No date can be fixed for the termination of the other Missions. The reduction of their establishments and their complete withdrawal depend on circumstances which cannot be foreseen at present.
  * The cost of these is recoverable from the countries in which they function.
  employed in these Missions; and what is the total annual cost of the Missions?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to this question can be most conveniently given in the form of a tabular statement, which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question—when will they be withdrawn?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I cannot promise when they will be withdrawn. If the hon. Member will look at the Paper he will find all the information which I can give him as to the facts.
  Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that in some cases you do not keep the cost?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the Paper which I am about to circulate the hon. Member will find a description of the missions, the number of officers and other ranks, and the full cost.
  Mr. SWAN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me a fortnight ago that he-did not keep the cost of the men in Egypt?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a totally different question.
  Following is the statement promised:

  PALESTINE.

    IMMIGRANTS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many English and/or French and/or American Jews have emigrated to settle in Palestine during the last 12 months; and if he is aware that the large majority of the Jewish emigrants to Palestine have been released from the ghettos of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and are saturated with Bolshevist ideas?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The information at my disposal shows the following distribution of nationalities among immigrants into Palestine for a period September, 1920, to December, 1921:—

    Per cent.

    Polish

    33

    Russian

    15

    Rumanian

    5

    Ukrainian, etc.

    11

    British

    3½

    Central Asia

    10

    United States

    2

    Other nationalities

    20½

    I do not think that the bulk of Jewish immigrants from Eastern and South-Eastern Europe are saturated with Bolshevist ideas, which are quite foreign to Zionism.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that we are undertaking this enormous expenditure in Palestine for 3½ per cent, of Jews from this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not admit that the expenditure is enormous, though it is serious. The object of the Zionist colony is certainly not limited to providing entirely for Jews from this country.

    CONSTABULARY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what pay and allowances are being offered to the various ranks of the new constabulary for the Middle East; whether this force is to be mounted or unmounted; whether motor transport is to be provided; if so, to what extent; and whether it has yet been decided who is to pay the cost of this force?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The force to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is, I presume, the British section of the Palestine Gendarmerie, which is being formed at present. The proposed rates of pay of this force are as follow:

    Per day.

    s.

    d.

    Constables

    10

    0

    Sergeants

    12

    0

    Head Constables

    15

    0

    Junior Inspectors

    20

    0

    Senior Inspectors

    22

    0

    with free rations, quarters, arms, equipment, and clothing or an allowance in lieu thereof. In addition, there is a commandant with salary at the rate of £1,000 a year and one or two headquarters officers with pay at appropriate rates. The force will he unmounted, motor transport will be provided on the scale, two light lorries and two box cars for each platoon. The incidence of cost is still under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this Middle East Constabulary to be employed only in Palestine or is it to be used elsewhere?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Only in Palestine.

    HONG KONG, TREATMENT OF CHILDREN.
    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?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to say that the industrial situation in Hong

    1949
    Kong has greatly improved since last week, but the Governor has not yet been able to answer my inquiries owing no doubt to continued pressure on the Chinese Secretariat and himself. In these circumstances I fear I must again defer the statement I had hoped to make, but hon. Members may rest assured that there will be no avoidable delay.

  IRELAND.

    OUTRAGES.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that during divine service on Sunday evening last, 5th March, Kilmanaheen Rectory, Ennistymon, county Clare, was entered by a gang of robbers and property to the extent of £200 stolen; and whether the Irish Free State have made any arrests or restored any of the property to the rector?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter has been brought to the notice of the Provisional Government, but I have not yet received a report regarding it
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to protect these unfortunate loyalists beyond bringing cases to the notice of the Provisional Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I am not doing anything beyond bringing it to the notice of the Provisional Government. I think that that is the best thing I can do, and I am not sure that the situation has not improved.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Provisional Government doing anything, or having anything done?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that they are doing their best, and that they are gradually succeeding.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a Royal Irish Constabulary convoy consisting of several motor cars and motor lorries with Government stores and private luggage, when on their way from Cork to Gormanston Camp on or about the, 25th or 26th February, were taken possession of and looted by officials of the Provisional Government at Maryborough; what is the value of the cars and Government stores taken, as well as of the private belongings of the Royal
    1950
    Irish Constabulary officers and men; whether compensation has been paid to the latter in respect of the losses which they have sustained; and what action the Government are taking in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The facts of the incident referred to are that at about 7 p.m. on Saturday, 25th February, a convoy of Royal Irish Constabulary en route from Cork to Gormanston Camp halted at Maryborough for the night, and the officer in charge, by arrangement with the local representative of the Provisional Government, placed certain stores, including the boxes and kit bags containing the personal property of the men, in the military barracks of the town which had recently been taken over by the forces of the Provisional Government. On the following morning it was found that the men's boxes and kit bags had been opened and that a considerable quantity of their personal property was missing. The local representative of the Provisional Government was at once communicated with and a search was made with the result that some of the missing property was found at the back of the barracks. No articles of public property were missing, and the convoy proceeded on its journey and arrived safely at Gormanston on 26th February. The Provisional Government have promised a full investigation into the matter and inquiries are now proceeding.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will these unfortunate men, who were not men of any means, and many of whom have lost the whole of their personal belongings, be compensated by someone?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that inquiry is proceeding, and I am certain that it will be pressed with all their power by the Provisional Government. Obviously, this is a very petty and disreputable affair. As to compensation, I prefer to know a little more about the facts first, but in principle I am inclined to think that they should receive compensation.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Surely the House is entitled to know that the right hon. Gentleman is doing something more for the protection of life and property than merely making representations to the Provisional Government, while nothing is being done from day to day.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, no.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the Royal Irish Constabulary at present isolated in Ireland are to be immediately withdrawn from that part of Ireland, in order that these attacks—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise from the original question.

    PUBLIC SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the assurances given by His Majesty's Government as to guaranteeing the pensions and compensation of the officials, members of police forces, and other public servants in Ireland, who are discharged or retire in consequence of the change of Government effected by the Treaty, extends to the pensions and compensation for officials employed in services which were reserved by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; whether the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Irish Free State, as to the terms on which the persons mentioned in Clause 10 of the Treaty may retire or be discharged, are now concluded; and what those terms are?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second and third parts, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave to a question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Pontypool.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    KIDNAPPINGS AND MURDERS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the persons kidnapped by the forces of the Irish Free State are yet unaccounted for or have not yet been released, including special constables; and, if so, for what reason; and whether he has yet reached any decision with reference to the suggestion by the Irish Free State Government that a joint inquiry should be instituted into the murders of Lieutenant Genochio, Captain Meade, and Sergeant Cunliffe?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question I am informed that
    1952
    with the exception of the special constables arrested at Clones railway station on the 11th February, all the persons kidnapped by the Irish Republican Army during the recent border disturbances have now been released and have returned safely to their homes. I am not yet in a position to make any statement in regard to the ease of the Clones special constables whose continued detention is still the subject of correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Provisional and Northern Governments. In reply to the second part I would point out to the Noble Lord that in my reply to his question of the 7th instant I stated that the Provisional Government had suggested a joint inquiry into the case of Lieutenant Genochio there has never been any such suggestion in the other two cases referred to by him. I am waiting a further communication from the Provisional Government regarding the former case; regarding the two latter I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave on the 7th instant.
    Viscount CURZON: As regards the special constables captured at Clones, does His Majesty's Government recognise the capture as legal or illegal?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The position in which these men are placed at the present time cannot, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be justified, because they have been apprehended, but have not, so far as I am aware, been brought up before the magistrates, or brought to trial in the ordinary way. They are merely being detained.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Were these men still alive, when last heard of?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never heard any suggestion to the contrary.

    POSTAGE STAMPS.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the surcharged stamps issued by the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State were first submitted to the bureau of the International Postal Union at Berne, Switzerland; whether the script and character of the surcharge or inscription is in accordance with the regulations of the International Postal Union;

    1953
    whether Continental countries have agreed to recognise these surcharged provisional stamps in prepayment of postage; and whether these stamps can be used for the postage of letters from England to Ireland?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The international regulations do not require that the designs or overprints of postage stamps should be submitted to the International Postal Bureau at Berne; but the rule that specimens of new issues should be sent to Berne for distribution to other postal administrations has been complied with. The Convention of the Universal Postal Union prescribes that prepayment of postage on every description of article transmissible by post can be effected by means of postage stamps valid in the country of origin. In these circumstances there would be no ground for objection on the part of other postal administrations. The stamps in question are intended for use in Southern Ireland; but, as the Post Office revenue in Southern Ireland is still part of the general revenue of the Post Office, no instructions have been issued that these stamps should be surcharged when used on correspondence posted outside Southern Ireland.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Are these stamps available for replying from this country to Southern Ireland? I understand they have been refused at several post offices.
    Mr. PEASE: That is so. If my hon. Friend will let me know cases where they have been refused, I will inquire into them.

  SOMALILAND.
  Major-General SEELYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the recent events in Somaliland; and can he state what is the present position?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: On 25th February the Governor of Somaliland telegraphed that an affray between tribesmen had taken place at Burao on the previous day, in the course of which Captain Allan Gibb, D.S.O., D.C.M., the District Commissioner at Burao, had been shot dead. Captain Gibb had advanced with his interpreter to quell the disturbance, when
  1954
  fire was opened upon him by some riflemen, and he was instantly killed. The murderers escaped under cover of falling darkness.
  Captain Gibb was an officer of long and valued service in Somaliland, whose loss I deeply regret. From the information available, his murder does not appear to have been premeditated, but it inevitably had a disturbing effect upon the surrounding tribes, and immediate dispositions of troops became necessary in order to ensure the apprehension and punishment of those responsible for the murder. On 27th February the Governor telegraphed that, in order to meet the situation which had arisen, he required two aeroplanes for purposes of demonstration, and suggested that two aeroplanes from the Royal Air Force Detachment at Aden should fly over to Berber a from Aden. He also telegraphed that in certain circumstances it might become necessary to ask for reinforcements of troops to be sent to the Protectorate.
  The Air Ministry entertained some doubt whether this flight from Aden to Berbera could be accomplished, as, having regard to the range of the aeroplanes at Aden, the risk involved was considerable, but on 2nd March a further telegram was received from Somaliland, stating that the flight had been successfully made and that the aeroplanes had arrived at Berbera on that day. Telegrams since received from Somaliland report that the arrival of the aeroplanes and a demonstration which they made on the following day have had a profoundly satisfactory effect upon the local situation. The Governor now considers that the despatch of troops to the Protectorate will be unnecessary. The leaders of all the tribes concerned have come in and undertaken to carry out the terms imposed upon them, and the situation is well in hand.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have these aeroplanes actually dropped bombs, or have they not?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; they did not drop any bombs.
  Sir J. D. REES: Have any of these rebels any connection with the party of the late Mullah—the "Mad Mullah—the methodically Mad Mullah"?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir—it is an entirely new firm.

  AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRATION).
  Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the reported statements of Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of Australia, that no scheme of immigration can succeed unless there is co-operation between Great Britain and Australia, he will take an early opportunity of informing the House of the policy of the Government on this important question?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. I hope to be able to announce the policy of the Government at an early date.

  APPLICATION FOR RELEASE (GUY ALDRED).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Guy Aldred is not to be released till 21st June although, owing to his confinement awaiting trial, his imprisonment will then have lasted 16 months instead of the 12 months to which he was sentenced, the maximum to which he could be sentenced; and whether, seeing that the fear of Communism has declined, Guy Aldred will now be set at liberty?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have been asked to reply to this question. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that 12 months' imprisonment is the maximum sentence for the offence of which Aldred was convicted. I have ascertained that, in determining the sentence to be pronounced, the judge took into account the time which Aldred had spent in prison before trial. I see no ground on which I would be justified in advising any interference with the sentence.

  ALIENS (NATURALISATION)
  Mr. KILEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to give special consideration to an application for naturalisation made by Mr. J Goldstein, of 8, St. Thomas's Road, Hackney, who has been in this country 37 years, whose wife and children are British-born,
  1956
  and whose children are not allowed to take up scholarships under the London County Council although their father has lost his original nationality, having come to this country when a child?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I regret that the circumstances of this case would not justify me in giving the applicant preference over others, many of whom have prior claims.
  Mr. KILEY: In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has in his office applications extending over several years, and that the staff is inadequate, can he not have these applications dealt with and the additional expenditure involved debited to the applicants?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that an application for additional staff in these circumstances would not be well received.
  Mr. KILEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Barnett Bonzer, who was born in Poland, but who came to this country as a youth and whose wife and children are British-born, made an application for naturalisation which has been in the possession of his Department for nearly a year; and can he give any prospect of this case being dealt with in the near future even if any additional expenses over and above the usual £10 are entailed would be paid by the applicant?
  Mr. SHORTT: Barnett Bonzer applied for a certificate of naturalisation in 1912 and was refused. He applied again in August, 1914, and this is no doubt the application referred to. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

    PER-CENTAGE GRANTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he has arranged for an inquiry into the feasibility of abolishing the per-centage giant system at an early date?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to set up a Departmental Committee or a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into and report upon the advisability of altering the

    1957
    system of making grants to local authorities from the per-centage to a block basis; whether the terms of reference will include an inquiry into the methods of making grants for education purposes; whether it is proposed to reach a decision so that it may operate for the year 1922–23; and whether local authorities will be represented on the Committee or will be heard by the Committee?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): It is proposed to set up a Departmental Committee, on which some Members of this House will be invited to serve. The necessary steps are now being taken, and I hope to be in a position to announce the appointment of the Committee shortly. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative. It would be obviously impossible to apply a new system to the Votes of the financial year which begins in three weeks, but the course adopted by the Government, on consideration of the Geddes Report, puts an effective limit to expenditure on many grants. As regards the last part, it is not the intention that persons taking an active or prominent part in local government should be included on the Committee, but it will be competent to the Committee to take evidence from local authorities.

    STATIONERY AND PRINTING.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the sum of £2,679,937 required for stationery and printing for 1922–23 is distributed among the several public Departments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Provision for the stationery and printing requirements of all public Departments is contained in the Vote for stationery and printing 1922–23, and a statement showing in detail the distribution of the Vote among all these Departments would probably take up several pages of printed matter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With the hon. Member's permission, I will, therefore, have the statement communicated to him privately in the course of the next two or three days.
    Mr. MARRIOTT: May I expect that statement quite soon?
    Mr. YOUNG: In the course of the next two or three days.

    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1913–14.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a paper supplementary to Paper No. 33 (Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments) showing, under each item, the total net Estimate for 1913–14?
    Mr. YOUNG: The hon. Member will find the figures of audited expenditure 1913–14 prefixed to the full Civil Service Estimates of any recent year, and they will be repeated in due course in the Estimates volume for 1922–23.

  MOTOR VEHICLES (DUTY).
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that large numbers of ex-service men have invested all their available savings and earnings in buying motor lorries and similar vehicles, and now find that, owing to the heavy tax on such care, coupled with the high duties on petrol, they are unable to earn a living, whether he will consider the advisability of granting them some relief before introducing his next Budget?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question. I think my hon. Friend's question is based on a misapprehension. The present system of taxing vehicles is in substitution for, and not in addition to, the petrol tax, which was abolished in 1920.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will it not be possible to review the whole system of motor taxation before the next Budget?

  FOREIGN COUNTRIES (DEBTS TO GREAT BRITAIN).
  Mr. G. DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the regularity with which Great Britain is paying the interest on her war debt to the United States and the declaration of France that she is not prepared to follow this country's example, and also con-

  1959
  sidering the abnormal burden of taxation imposed on British taxpayers to the manifest injury of trade, if he will state what steps he proposes to take to induce Russia and the other States of Europe to pay the interest, if not the principal, of their debts to this country?
  Sir R. HORNE: The supposition on which the hon. Member bases his question, i.e., that Great Britain has already been regularly paying interest on her war debt to the United States Government, is incorrect, and the rest of the question is therefore hypothetical.
  Mr. WISE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any statement as to the Paris Conference?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

  INCOME TAX (SOLDIERS' WIDOWS).
  Major HILLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where the widow of a soldier killed in the War can prove that she spends all the allowances for children upon the actual maintenance of those children, such allowances are free from Income Tax?
  Sir R. HORNE: The answer is in the negative. At the same time I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to previous replies which have been given on the question of the liability to Income Tax in respect of the increase of pension which an officer's widow receives by reason of the fact that she has children, and I would remind him that the Income Tax allowances in respect of children—£36 in respect of one child, and £27 in respect of each additional child, for whom the relief is due—apply equally in these cases as in the case of other taxpayers.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' RETURNS (FEES).
  Mr. CAIRNSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the intention of the Government to charge 10s. for registering the annual Return each year for friendly societies and for the quinquennial Report of the committee, for which a charge is made of 10s.; and is he aware that this is the first time a charge has
  1960
  been made and that such a society as the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows would have to pay over £2,000?
  Sir R. HORNE: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for West Houghton on the 9th instant, and as regards the second part, to the reply to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme on the 13th instant.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling which exists in the country against this change?
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that in the case of societies like the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, having numerous branches, this charge will impose a very heavy burden?
  Sir R. HORNE: All these matters will be taken into consideration.

  DEATH DUTIES (PAYMENT IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES).
  Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Victory Bonds or other Government stocks held until drawn or paid off by the National Debt Commissioners in respect of payments for death duties; and how much has been drawn or paid off?
  Sir R. HORNE: The nominal amount of securities tendered for Death Duties and transferred to the National Debt Commissioners is £19,730,975 4 per cent. Victory Bonds, and £1,510,357 4 per cent. Funding Loan, of which £109,795 Victory Bonds have been drawn. The balance is held by the Commissioners in accordance with the terms of the prospectus.

  TREASURY BONDS (INTEREST).
  Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the decree, signed by the French Minister of Finance, in which it is announced that on and after 10th March the rate of interest on all categories of Bons de la Dèfense Nationale and Bons de Trévor will be reduced by ½ per cent.; and whether he is now pre-

  1961
  pared to give consideration to a similar or larger reduction in British Treasury bonds?
  Sir R. HORNE: The securities to which the hon. Member refers are comparable to British Treasury Bills, the discount on which already varies with market conditions. The decree, of course, only refers to the rate of interest for bonds issued in future, and not to existing securities not yet matured for payment.

  MONEY EXCHANGE.
  Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount the Government has gained or lost owing to money exchange in the years 1918–19, 1919–20, 1920–21, and 1921–22?
  Sir R. HORNE: It is impossible to give figures on this matter.

  WAR LOANS.
  Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the various categories of the War Loan; the rates of interest paid on each; and the price at which they have to be redeemed?
  Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Finance Accounts and also to Command Paper 1438 and House of Commons Papers 142 and 249 of 1921.
  Mr. MACLEANasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware that an Act was passed in 1749 authorising the Government to reduce the rate of interest from 4 per cent, to 3½ per cent., and later to 3 per cent.; that a time limit was fixed in the Act for the holders of 4 per cent, stock to subscribe their consent to accept the reduced rate; that an Act was passed in the following year extending the time limit, and giving the Government power to borrow money at the reduced rate of pay off those holders of stock who would not consent; that the scheme was so successful that only £3,000,000 of stock had to be paid off; and that a reduction of the interest on the present War Loan by one per cent, would effect a saving equal to the amount proposed in the Geddes cuts; and whether he is prepared to bring in legislation in this Session on the lines of Pelham's precedent?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am fully aware of the conversion scheme to which the hon. Member refers. The advantages of conversion are obvious; but its practicability at any particular moment depends not on Acts of Parliament but on market conditions and on the terms of the contracts made with subscribers to outstanding Government loans.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that the Bank rate has now fallen by 3½ per cent., is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to put this particular scheme into operation to-day, as it worked so successfully 150 years ago?
  Sir R. HORNE: I shall attempt a conversion scheme when I think the moment favourable.

  RUSSIA (INDEBTEDNESS TO BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the amount of the indebtedness of the Russian Government upon the outbreak of War in August, 1914, to British investors in Russian guaranteed bonds?
  Sir R. HORNE: The answer is in the negative. There is no available information which could be furnished to the hon. Member on this subject.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not the amount about £180,000,000 owing to British investors in Russian Government loans?
  Sir R. HORNE: I cannot get any figures which are reliable on the subject.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Might I have the privilege of sending some particulars to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am always glad of information.

  TOBACCO DUTY (WORKHOUSE INMATES).
  Mr. KENNEDYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a request from the Thetford Board of Guardians for a refund of duty paid on tobacco consumed by the workhouse inmates; and whether, in view of the fact that if there are 50,000 inhabitants of the workhouses who consume one ounce of tobacco each per week, this means that it costs the ratepayers

  1963
  £82,600 to provide £28,500 worth of tobacco for the comfort of the destitute poor, he will consider the advisability of allowing in future a total remission or a substantial reduction of the duty on all tobacco grown in this country and supplied to boards of guardians, and thus encourage the development of the industry in this country and at the same time bring some relief to the already overburdened rates?
  Sir R. HORNE: There is no provision in the law under which this request could be granted, and I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion contained in the concluding part of the question.

  INCREMENT VALUE DUTY.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the legal fees payable to the legal profession by the public in order to carry out the provisions of Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, amended by the Finance Act, 1920, under which particulars of sales and leases have still to be delivered to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue?
  Sir R. HORNE: The delivery of the particulars referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend does not necessarily involve expenditure on legal assistance: and I have no information as to the amount of fees which may be paid in cases where such assistance is sought.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is estimated that £500,000 per annum is paid in this way?
  Sir R. HORNE: I cannot say whether that is a reasonable figure or not.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is not it great tyranny on the public, keeping this on, and quite unnecessary?

  INCREMENT VALUE DUTY.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of documents stamped with the particulars-delivered stamp in the first 11 months of the financial year ending 31st March, 1922; and what is the annual
  1964
  cost of the Inland Revenue staff in connection with Section 4 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by the Finance Act, 1920?
  Sir R. HORNE: Exclusive of Scotland and Ireland the number of document? stamped in the 11 months referred to was 320,000. The annual cost of the staff employed in the work in question is approximately £6,000.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Is it absolutely essential that these 320,000 documents should be stamped in this way?
  Sir R. HORNE: I should think so.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMANY (FINANCIAL POSITION).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the German Government is proposing to raise a loan with a view to stabilising its country's finances; will this loan be an internal or a foreign one; and, if the latter, will it be issued under the auspices of, or guaranteed in any way by, the Allied Powers?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have no information as to German plans in this matter.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the scheme for placing Germany on a sound economic basis, submitted to his Government by the Chancellor of the German Republic, has been considered by the Government of this country; if so, has the scheme their approval; and, in the event of it proving unsuccessful or abortive, is it his intention to urge the Allied Powers that, in the interests of Germany herself, a temporary joint control and direction of German finance and taxation by Great Britain, France, and, if possible, the United States, is the only solution?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Chancellor of the German Republic addressed to the Reparation Commission, on 28th January, a Note containing the proposals of the German Government for reform of the Budget and of the paper circulation, and I presume it is to this Note which the hon. and gallant Members refers. The Allied Governments have decided that this Note shall be dealt with by the Reparation

    1965
    Commission. Accordingly, the second part of the question does not arise. The third part of the question is hypothetical.

    REPARATIONS (GERMANY).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the fall in the value of the mark from 6d. at the time of the Armistice to less than ¼d. has had the effect of enormously reducing the real amount of taxation paid to-day by the successful German trader, who is paying taxation not at the rate of 38 per cent, of his profits as laid down but at the rate of 12 per cent, only, while the taxation borne by fixed incomes in Germany is proportionately the more crushing; and is this being taken into consideration in fixing the amount which Germany can pay?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am unable to verify the percentages quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I entirely agree with him that depreciation of the currency is a form of taxation which crushes that part of the community which depends on fixed incomes while letting off the trader (so long as the process of inflation can be continued) much too lightly. The Reparation Commission is giving full consideration to this aspect of the problem of German taxation in assessing Germany's capacity to pay.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the next financial year all that Germany will raise in the way of taxation is just over £100,000,000?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is a matter to be dealt with when the Reparation Commission examines the figures.

    SCOTTISH FISH CURERS (SEIZED STOCKS).
    Captain W. BENNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the failure to settle the claims of Scottish fish curers whose stocks were seized in Germany during the War; and whether it is possible to take any action in this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him on the
    1966
    17th February with regard to the claims of Messrs. D. Davidson, Gray and Company, to which I have nothing to add.

  MURDER CHARGE (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Linney, the deaf labourer from Hancastle, who was acquitted of murder after being 11 weeks in gaol; and whether, in view of the fact that the man's wife, with her baby, suffered both financially and mentally during those 11 weeks and that the man is now free but without his job, there is any fund from which such eases can be compensated?
  Mr. SHORTT: My attention has been drawn to the case, but I regret there is no fund out of which compensation can be paid to persons charged with offences and subsequently acquitted.

  WOMEN POLICE PATROLS.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary what cause is to be assigned to the women of the Metropolitan police women patrols for their dismissal; and whether any compensation, and, if so, what amount, is to be paid to them?
  Mr. SHORTT: As I have already stated, the disbandment of the Metropolitan police women patrols has been decided upon as a measure of economy. Their engagements are terminable at any time by one month's notice, and no question of compensation arises.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that the Metropolitan women police patrols were made pensionable by Act of Parliament in the Police Pensions Act; is the Home Secretary aware that his statement in this House last week that they were not entitled to pensions has been challenged by legal authority; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all know perfectly well that it is not economy getting rid of these women? I should like an answer to these questions.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are these ladies entitled to pensions as well as pay, allowances and unbecoming uniforms?
  Mr. SHORTT: As far as pensions are concerned, I gather I must wait for a decision of the Courts before replying; but undoubtedly it will save a very large sum of money to disband these women.
  Viscountess ASTOR: What about your promise? What about the House of Commons having passed a law?
  Mr. BRIANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that the Irish Constabulary, with less than one year's service, are to receive pensions, and these women, who have got longer service, are not to receive pensions?
  Captain BENN: When these women were engaged, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they understood that their terms were to be comparable to the engagement of ordinary men constables?
  Mr. SHORTT: Certainly not; quite the contrary.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, oh!

  EXPLOSION, TIPTON.
  Mr. A. SHORTasked the Home Secretary the wages paid to those employed in the department of a Tipton factory where an explosion recently took place resulting in the loss of many lives?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have no definite information on the subject at present, but the particulars will no doubt be brought out in the course of the investigation.
  Mr. SHORTasked the Home Secretary the number and ages of those employed in the department of the factory at which an explosion recently took place resulting in the loss of many lives?
  Mr. SHORTT: According to my present information, there were 23 girls employed in the shop on the day of the explosion and one man. Four of the girls were aged 13, 18 were between 14 and 16, and one was 16.
  Mr. SHORTasked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry into the recent explosion at Tipton, when 15 girls lost their lives and others were seriously injured?
  Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry into the recent explosion at Tipton, when 15 girls lost their lives, and others were seriously injured?
  Mr. SHORTT: In addition to the investigation which will take place at the coroner's inquest, and at which the Home Office will be represented, I have directed His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives to make an inquiry into, and to report to me upon, the circumstances attending this explosion, as provided in Section 66 of the Explosives Act.
  Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this inquiry will be public?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is a preliminary inquiry by the Chief Inspector for the purposes of the Act, and for the moment I forget whether it is public or not. It will be absolutely in accordance with the Act of Parliament.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make inquiries into the rates of pay these unfortunate girls were receiving, in consequence of the statement that appears in the Press this morning?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, I will make those inquiries. I have information, but as I am not sure it is accurate, and as it is very deplorable, I will make inquiries.
  Mr. J. E. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether periodic inspections have been made by the factory inspectors of this place?
  Mr. SHORTT: Before it came into the hands of the present tenant, who was responsible for the explosion, it was used as a factory, and inspected as late as a month before he took it, i.e., last January, but as no licence was applied for we knew nothing about it being used for its present purpose, and therefore it was not inspected.
  Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us later in the day whether this inquiry will be public, when he has had an opportunity of looking up the Act?
  Mr. SHORTT: Perhaps the hon. Member will look up the Act for himself.

  SCOTLAND.

    UNEMPLOYED, GREENOCK (SENTENCES).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the sentences of three months' imprisonment with hard labour imposed upon four unemployed workmen named Murphy, M'Daid, M'Guire, and Ross at Greenock Sheriff Court for taking possession of the Greenock Parish Council offices and preventing the staff for about 20 minutes from proceeding with their duties; whether he is aware that these men were part of a deputation from the unemployed demanding a revision of the amount of relief being granted; that there was no destruction of property, no personal injuries, and although a sum of money was lying in one of the rooms no attempt was made to touch it; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will consider the possibility of a remission of the sentences?
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the sentences of three months' imprisonment with hard labour passed by the Greenock Sheriff Court against James Murphy, Patrick M'Daid, Robert M'Guire, and Joseph Ross, members of the Greenock Unemployed Committee; whether the offence with which these men were charged was that they entered the Greenock Parish Council offices on 9th February at the head of a deputation to request a special meeting of the parish council to consider the payments being made to the unemployed; whether the evidence of the inspector of poor and of the clerks to the council was to the effect that previous to that day there had been no complaint against the accused, who had always been quietly disposed, that no violence was done, and that though there was a large sum of money in the office it, was not interfered with; whether the witnesses, with one exception, stated that no threats were made: and whether he will consider the revision of the sentences imposed by the sheriff on these men?
    Mr. MUNRO: My attention has been drawn to the case referred to, and I am making inquiries. I shall communicate the result to the hon. Members.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman finds, on
    1970
    inquiry, that these men have been punished very largely on account of their opinions, will he have the case reconsidered?
    Mr. MUNRO: I will consider the case very carefully when I have the Report.

    HEALTH VISITOR'S DISMISSAL, LOCHGELLY.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Nurse A. G. M. Millar, who was dismissed from her post of health visitor of the Lochgelly local authority; whether he is aware that in the notice of dismissal the local authority stated that the dismissal had the approval of the Ministry of Health; whether the Ministry of Health were aware of all the circumstances surrounding the case; whether the approval of the Ministry of Health was actually given; whether such approval was necessary; and whether he will have inquiries made into the whole matter?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the notice intimating that the local authority had resolved to dispense with Nurse Millar's services stated that the approval of the Scottish Board of Health had been obtained to this decision. The Scottish Board of Health were fully aware of the circumstances of the case. In reply to a letter from the local authority asking for the approval of the Board to Nurse Millar's dismissal, the Board stated that they would raise no objection to this course. In point of fact, the Board's approval was not required to authorise Nurse Millar's dismissal. The case is not one in which I have any authority to intervene, and I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Colonel Sir A. SPROTasked the Secretary for Scotland what was the cost of the land bought by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland at Thirdpart; how many small holdings are being formed thereon; how much is spent in equipping these; and what is the rent obtained?
    Mr. MUNRO: The purchase price of this estate was £29,000: Provision is being made for 30 holdings. The estimated cost of equipment is £50,695, of which £33,700 is repayable by the smallholders. A considerable reduction is,

    1971
    however, expected in the cost of equipment owing to the fall in labour costs, etc. The net annual receipts from the holdings are estimated at £1,938, of which £1,534 represents land rents.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      STATISTICS.
      Mr. W. CARTERasked the Minister of Pensions the total number of ex-service men drawing pensions, and the number that are on full pension pay?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The number of ex-service officers and men in receipt of retired pay, pension or allowance (excluding treatment allowances) is approximately 940,000. In about 33,000 cases the award is at the 100 per cent. rate.

      DISABLEMENT AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
      Captain BAGLEYasked the Minister of Pensions what are the pensions payable, respectively, to a totally disabled man, and a war widow with two dependent children at the present time, s compared with November, 1918?
      Major TRYON: In November, 1918, a totally disabled man would have received for himself and two children, 47s., as compared with 57s. 6d. a week at the present time; while for a widow and two children the figures for the same dates are 30s. 6d. and 44s. 2d.

      KING'S SHROPSHIRE LIGHT INFANTRY (T. GOODCHILD).
      Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-Private T. Goodchild, No. 17,868, 3rd King's Shropshire Light Infantry, after being discharged in February, 1918, as suffering from valvular disease of the heart and fainting fits, was granted a pension, which continued until February, 1921, when he was finally passed at Birmingham by the Ministry of Pensions as having fully recovered; whether he is aware that this man joined the borough police force and was afterwards asked to resign on the doctor's report that he was suffering from a strained heart, and
      1972
      as a result has been unemployed for a considerable time; and whether, in view of the contradictory decisions between the police medical officers and those of the Pensions Ministry, he is prepared to reopen this man's case?
      Major TRYON: This man was discharged in February, 1916, after 273 days' home service, on account of valvular disease of the heart, which, in view of his previous medical history, could not be admitted to have been caused by his service. Compensation was, however, granted on the basis of his disability having been aggravated by service until March, 1921, when aggravation was found to have passed away. I have no information regarding the police medical officer's report, but I can see no reason for assuming that there is any conflict between that report and the report of the Ministry medical board, which did not certify that the man had no disablement, but that the aggravation of his pre-War disability by service had passed away. Before the War, this man had a long and severe illness of a kind which frequently affects the heart; it left him before enlistment subject to the same symptoms that he complained of after discharge. This is the case that the hon. Member used in his attack in this House upon the independent Appeal Tribunals, as an instance of the actual experience of those who go before them. He was no doubt unaware that Mr. Goodchild had never been before an independent Appeal Tribunal.
      Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that this man was taken into the Army as an A1 man, and that he received a pension as a result of the trouble of his heart; and is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that he has now been turned down by the police force, in conflict with the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
      Major TRYON: This man served for about 200 days, all of them on home service. During a considerable part of that time he was employed as orderly for telephone work in this country. He suffered before the War from giddiness, and also after the War. It is obvious that, after having been enlisted, he was found not fit for the work, and he was discharged. Under those circumstances, it would have been clearly wrong to enlist him in the police or give him a pension.
      Mr. LAWSON: Is it a fact that he was an A1 man when he enlisted?
      Major TRYON: We grant pensions for disablement due to the War. This man was not disabled through the War. He is no worse now than before the War, and is not entitled to a pension.
      Mr. J. JONES: Why did you take him as an A1 man?

      AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (CONSOLIDATION).
      Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, for the convenience of agriculturists, he is taking steps to collect together into one Consolidation Act the measures connected with agriculture now upon the Statute Book?
      Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. It is proposed to introduce a Bill to consolidate all the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in England and Wales, and a similar Bill for Scotland; but it would not be practicable to include in these Bills the provisions of every measure connected with agriculture, many of which apply also to other industries.
      Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when that Bill will be introduced?
      Major BARNSTON: I cannot.

    TENANTS' CUSTOMS, CUMBERLAND.
    Major C. LOWTHERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, according to a survey taken in the 12th year of Queen Elizabeth's reign by the direction of Her Majesty, there is a custom in the manor of Holm Cultram, Cumberland, which directs that every tenant appointed by the jury or collector for his turn for the year be the lord's grave, i.e., bailiff, and shall yearly collect and gather the rents, revenues, and issues within his charge within the said lordship, and further that tenants are liable to pay the running gressom at the end of every five years according to the ancient custom of the said lordship,
    1974
    which the grave has also to collect; that this custom is still in force; and whether, in view of the fact that a tenancy is rendered very irksome by the obligation to collect rents and gressom, he will introduce legislation for the compulsory enfranchisement of all lands held upon that or similar customs?
    Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. There is in the Ministry of Agriculture some information as to this manor, but I cannot state whether the custom referred to is in force. The compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds is included in the Law of Property Bill, which was introduced in another place on the 8th instant.
    Major LOWTHER: If I bring to the notice of my hon. and gallant Friend a case where this custom is in force, will he look into it, and see that the land is compulsorily enfranchised?
    Major BARNSTON: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.

    PRISONERS' FINGER-PRINTS.
    Captain BENNasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a statement by Mr. Pope, magistrate to the North London Police Court, on the 20th February, that it was a Regulation now that finger prints should be taken; whether the magistrate directed the remand of a prisoner on that date for the purpose of taking finger prints; and, if so, under what statutory authority?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have no information as to the case, but it is a common practice for prisoners to be remanded, and to have their finger prints taken. The authority of the magistrate to remand is derived from the power under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and the authority of the prison officers to take finger prints is derived from the Regulations of the 20th June, 1896, made under Section 8 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his statement to me that the authority to take finger prints only comes into force after the conviction of the prisoner?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think I said that.

    CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce a Regulation making the carrying of a rear lamp by cyclists compulsory; and what is the purpose of the Regulation, having regard to the fact that cyclists with long experience are of opinion that a rear lamp is not an aid in the avoidance of accidents?
    Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on the 15th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), and on the 28th February to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). I am sending copies of these answers to him.

    POST OFFICE.

      NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
      Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider his refusal to grant official recognition to the National Federation of Postal and Telegraph Clerks, seeing that it is an undoubted fact, supported by a mass of documentary evidence, that this trade union came into existence chiefly because of the objection its members had to the revolutionary political propaganda carried on by the Union of Postal Workers?
      Mr. PEASE: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on this subject on the 14th February last, but I must not be taken as admitting the accuracy of the statement made in the last part of the question.

      TELEGRAPHIC DELAY, PATHHEAD.
      Mr. WALLACEasked the Post master-General why delivery of telegrams from Pathhead Post Office, Kirkcaldy, has been stopped; and whether he is aware of the delay and inconvenience caused to business firms in the Pathhead area who frequently receive telegrams 50 minutes after their arrival at Kirkcaldy?
      Mr. PEASE: The delivery of telegrams from Pathhead Post Office has been withdrawn in connection with a scheme recently introduced for the concentra-
      1976
      tion of delivery at the larger offices. This system is less costly and generally as expeditious as forwarding telegrams by wire from the head office to the local office for delivery thence by messenger. I am informed that a delay of 50 minutes in the delivery of telegrams in the Path-head area is exceptional, and that only one complaint of delay has been received. Further inquiries, however, are being made with a view to ascertain whether any improvement in the service is possible, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

      TELEPHONE SERVICE.
      Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to extend the toll area for telephone calls, and to what radius?
      Mr. PEASE: There is no intention at present of altering the areas covered by the local fee.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Major KELLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any fresh outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have been reported in South Yorkshire during the past week; and when he expects to be able to declare that area free of the disease?
    Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. One case of foot-and-mouth disease was reported to the Ministry during the week ended the 13th instant, inclusive, in that part of Yorkshire south of a line through Bradford, Leeds and Selby. Although the outlook has greatly improved in the district in question, I am not yet able to give any indication as to when the district may be regarded as free from disease.

    CANADIAN STORE CATTLE EMBARGO.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received a copy of the resolution which was passed unanimously by the Lancashire Council of Meat Traders, protesting against the continuance of the embargo on Canadian store cattle; and whether he intends to remove the embargo, and so carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission?
    Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. The answer of the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but as my right hon. Friend explained, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Rhondda East, on the 9th instant, the Government do not propose to introduce legislation to remove the embargo on Canadian store cattle.

    ALLOTMENTS BILL.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now give an assurance that the Allotments Bill will be introduced before Easter and every opportunity be taken to pass it into law this Session?
    Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. I hope that the Bill will be introduced in another place before Easter, and that it will be passed into law this Session.

    NORTHAMPTON PRISON (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the particulars of the Act of Parliament under which ex-Engineer Blight, Northampton Prison, was refused compensation for injuries received in the execution of his duties?
    Mr. YOUNG: Under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, regard is to be had, in fixing the amount of a weekly payment of compensation, to any payment allowance or benefit which the workman may receive from the employer during the period of his incapacity. Mr. Richard Blight has been awarded non-effective benefits in excess of his average weekly earnings for the twelve months preceding his accident, and no weekly payments can be made to him under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

    LIFE ANNUITIES.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that in the last periodic review of the business done in life annuities through the National Debt Commissioners and the Post Office
    1978
    Savings Bank (Cmd. 298, 1912) no statement is made as to the actual profit or loss arising, he will arrange that in the forthcoming periodic review this profit or loss is clearly shown calculated on the ordinary insurance actuarial basis?
    Mr. YOUNG: The Noble Lord's comparison is not feasible. The moneys received for the purchase of life annuities are by Statute applied forthwith to the purchase and cancellation of debt, the life annuity becoming a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Consequently no life annuity fund (comparable to that of an insurance company) exists, and it is therefore not practicable to present an account relating to Government life annuities in the form prescribed for life assurance companies' accounts. The mortality investigation now proceeding is undertaken mainly for the purpose of estimating the financial effect of the annuity operations, and the Report to be presented to Parliament will give the results of the examination.
    Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand from that answer that the Govern-in doing this business, keeps no account as to whether profit or loss arises? Why are not accounts kept in a similar manner to that in which insurance companies have by Act of Parliament to keep their accounts?
    Mr. YOUNG: I think the answer to that riddle—if I may say so—
    Earl WINTERTON: It is not a riddle, it is a fair question.
    Mr. YOUNG: Well, I will substitute "difficult" question. No accounts of profit and loss are kept, because no profit or loss accrues.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not clear that there may be a considerable loss to the taxpayer?
    Mr. YOUNG: The case is stated in the annual statement; other information as to mortality experience will appear in the report to which I have referred.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the report in question there is no statement of profit and loss at all; is he aware that in the opinion of the best actuarial experts in the City, the result of the Government's business in life annuities is to give them

    1979
    a very heavy loss which they have hitherto succeeded in not disclosing to the public through this House?
    Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as to the second part, no. I have not yet had any such body of opinion brought to my attention.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to introduce a deputation to see him on the subject?
    Mr. YOUNG: Yes.

    CUSTOMS (CLEARANCE OF GOODS).
    Mr. KILEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that cases of goods under marks 2,900, 340, and 134/6 arrived in Hull, per ss. "Schwalbe," on the 6th December, and that the same were not delivered till 28th February, when the customer refused to accept delivery as the goods were required for Christmas, 1921; can he give any explanation of the delay in getting these goods cleared through the Customs; and can he say if His Majesty's Treasury have a fund out of which they can pay compensation in such cases where the delay can be shown to be due to the collection of duties and tariffs?
    Mr. YOUNG: Inquiries have been made, as a result of which it has been ascertained that the goods in question were entered on the 16th December, produced for examination on the 19th December, and delivered out of Customs charge on the same day. The subsequent delay in delivery of the goods is a matter with which the Customs Department is not concerned. In these circumstances, the last part of the question does not arise.

    EDUCATION.

      NECESSITOUS AEEAS (GRANTS).
      Major KELLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to continue the system of special grants to the education authorities in necessitous areas?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I do not propose to discontinue provision
      1980
      for additional grant in highly-rated areas, but it must not be assumed that the basis of the calculation of this grant will be the same for 1922–23 as for 1921–22, and I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the publication of the draft Regulations.

      CHOICE OF EMPLOYMENT (SCHEMES).
      Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that no announcement has yet been made on the Chelmsford Report on the Education (Choice of Employment) Act; that the period between now and the date fixed, 1st July, does not allow sufficient time for local education committees to prepare their schemes; and whether, such being the case, he will further postpone the date of decision of local education committers till 1st April, 1923?
      Mr. FISHER: The adoption by the Government of Lord Chelmsford's Report was announced by the Board of Education in a Circular of the 11th October, 1921, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. I think that the interval between that date and the 30th June, 1922, gives local education authorities sufficient time to pass resolutions indicating whether they do or do not intend to exercise their powers in accordance with the Report. They will not necessarily be called upon to have their complete schemes ready to be brought into working by 1st July, and a reasonable interval for setting up the necessary machinery will be allowed.

    ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.
    Mr. ERSKINE(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information as to the engineering lock-out; whether, in particular, the Government have suggested arbitration, and whether the proposal has been rejected by one of the contending parties?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): As my hon. Friend will be aware, the efforts made last week to reach a settlement of this dispute were, unfortunately, not successful, and the lock-out has begun as far as the members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union are concerned. In the case of the other unions a ballot is in progress. I am, of

    1981
    course, continuing to keep in close touch with the progress of the dispute, but I do not think it is advisable that at this stage I should make any statement. I have not suggested arbitration.
    Mr. J. JONES: Did not the men ask for arbitration?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I think not.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how an hon. Member can get an oral answer from the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the President of the Board of Education? Though I have pursued both Ministers with unrelenting industry ever since the House resumed, they are both entrenched behind so many other Ministers that on no single occasion have I ever got within about 100 on the Paper. After long waiting I have been constrained to accept the always-offered but never-welcomed Paper answer. How can some disposition be made so as to enable a Member to get at these two Ministers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think I can suggest a very simple remedy, and that is a little more self-restraint and a little more consideration for colleagues in the putting of supplementary questions. It is quite easy for us to get through a hundred or more than a hundred questions each day if hon. Members will be good enough to have consideration for their colleagues. On the particular case named by the hon. Baronet I find that the questions of the Ministers he refers to were reached. The Home Secretary's questions stand fourth on Tuesdays. They were reached to-day. They were reached and passed on Tuesday of last week. With regard to the Minister of Education, his questions stand third on the Monday. They were reached and passed yesterday. The hon. Baronet, I think, has not shown his usual industry in finding out the best way to put down his questions, and in discovering the days on which Ministers have an early place.

    FLOUR AND BREAD (STANDARD QUALITY) BILL,
    "to regulate the composition of flour milled as standard flour and of bread sold
    1982
    as standard bread," presented by Mr. HASLAM; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Raw and Major Molson; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharges (Rates) Bill): Sir Ryland Adkins, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr. George Edwards, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Lieut.-Colonel Nail, Mr. Pretyman, Mr. Royce, Sir William Seager, Sir Robert Thomas, and Viscount Wolmer.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B; Sir Ryland Adkins, Mr. Ammon, Mr. Barrand, Sir Charles Barrie, Sir Francis Blake, Mr. Briant, Mr. Britton, Mr. Campbell, Mr. William Carter, Mr. Casey, Sir Davison Dalziel, Mr. Denison-Pender, Mr. Grattan Doyle, Major Entwistle, Major Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. Fildes, Mr. Gillis, Mr. Holman Gregory, Mr. Hallas, Mr. Hay-day, Lieut.-Colonel Hilder, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Captain Hotchkin, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Jellett, Mr. Jesson, Mr. John, Mr. Joseph Johnstone, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Charles Percy, General Sir Ivor Philipps, Major Sir William Prescott, Mr. Raffan, Sir William Seager, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Mr. Tickler, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Townley, Major Ward-Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Major Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel Willey, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Wills, Viscount Wolmer, and Mr. Woolcock.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [2nd ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [13th March].
  Resolution reported,

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £148,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for certain Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, namely:
  [For details of Vote on Account, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 13 th March, 1922, cols. 1821–4.]
  Resolution read a Second time.

  EGYPT.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move to leave out "£148,300,000," and to insert instead thereof "£148,299,900."
  I move this reduction in order that we may discuss the Government's policy in Egypt and the position there to-day. I understand that we are not to have any further elaboration of the statements made by the Prime Minister and the White Papers which have been issued, so that the remarks I shall make to the House will be based upon the published Command Papers, the statements of the Prime Minister himself, and such information as we are able to glean from the state of affairs in Egypt. I propose to divide what I have to say roughly into three heads. In the first place I shall make some remarks about the status of Egypt itself, the rights of Egypt, the Government policy and the British policy in the past, including the various pledges which have been given.
  In the second place, I propose to deal with the present policy of the Government, which is a reversal of their former policy, and I propose to try and show that at least on three occasions since the Armistice the solution proposed by the Government could have been effectively put into force. I also propose to say a word or two about the present situation, and to make my own suggestions as to the lines on which that settlement may
  2010
  be obtained. It is common knowledge that in the old days, in the eighties, the fixed policy of the British Government was the evacuation of Egypt. I am now speaking of the time before the Sudan was reconquered and before the Egyptian and British troops were driven out of the Sudan. In those days pledges were repeatedly given that we were to evacuate Egypt. I am quite aware of the weakness of the argument that can be brought to bear against laying undue emphasis upon the statements of Mr. Gladstone in connection with this matter, but even in the pledges made repeatedly by British statesmen, diplomats, and in the Gracious Speech itself, the status of Egypt has been defined in a way which made the continuance of the Protectorate by this country impossible. In 1887 Lord Salisbury said:
  "It was not open to us to assume the Protectorate of Egypt because His Majesty's Government have again and again pledged themselves that they would not do so."
  Further on his Lordship referred to the
  "sanctity of the obligations which the Government have undertaken and by which they are bound to abide."
  That was in 1887. After the Sudan had been reconquered, by the Anglo-French Convention of 1904 it was declared that this country
  "has no intention of altering the political status of Egypt."
  In 1914, at the beginning of the War, a Proclamation was made declaring a Protectorate in Egypt, but it was accompanied by a letter from the Sultan, in which he spoke of overcoming all the influences which are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt. I refrain from referring to the many declarations of our War aims and our expressed opinion that we were fighting the War in order to maintain the rights and independence of small nationalities, but I will quote the Anglo-French Declaration of November, 1918, which stated expressly the conditions as regards the Turkish Empire. It said:
  "The end which France and Great Britain have had before them in this War has been the complete and definite liberation of the people who have been so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of National Government and administration, basing their authority on the initiative and free advice of the native peoples."
  That was the declaration in pursuance of which the Arab State and the Iraq State

  2011
  were set up. The importance of those declarations is that they are not only pledges of honour, but the House should bear in mind the effect which it produced on the minds of the Egyptian people themselves. They assisted us very materially in the War and supplied many hundreds of thousands of men for the needs of the War, and they have been thanked by our own Commander-in-Chief, and yet they saw a Protectorate which had been declared purely for diplomatic reasons continued from day to day. Is it any wonder that, as Lord Milner's Report says, their view was that England had in fact broken her word. That is the summary of Egyptian opinion as given in that very illuminating and admirable Report. Those are the declarations which have been made, and the pledges which have been given in the past.
  Now we come to the new policy of the Government as announced by the Government. It is to declare that Egypt is independent, that martial law is to be abolished, that free institutions are to be inaugurated and that His Majesty's Government is to negotiate with the new independent power a treaty with four points specifically reserved in the Declaration. This is a great change. It is a great alteration of the policy which the Government has pursued during the last three years. The effect of the Curzon-Adly negotiations was a literal Declaration of an independent State, in consideration of certain rights which the Egyptians were to concede to our demands. Therefore, a plain statement that Egypt is independent is in fact a reversal of the policy of the last three years. The Prime Minister, in his speech, spoke of it being
  "in pursuance of the principles laid down in December last."
  4.0 P.M.
  Everybody who has read the correspondence will see that there is a vast difference between the position taken up by the Government to-day and the position taken up during those negotiations. What was before a bargain has become a declaration of the Egyptians' right. I am taking the declaration as being a bonâ fide declaration which it is intended to carry out in the spirit of its own terms, that martial law will in fact be abolished, and that the free exercise of their political rights will in fact be permitted; and, except for the reserved points, in fact they
  2012
  will be an independent people. The first question that I am going to ask is: Why was it necessary to wait until March, 1922, before making a settlement on these lines? I am going to submit to the House that there were at least three occasions on which such a settlement might have been made, and that all those three occasions were missed. Let me take the first, in December, 1918, when Zaghloul Pasha asked permission to come to London. It may be well if I remind the House of the character and record of this man. He was a Minister many years ago under Lord Cromer, which itself is no mean recommendation; he became Vice-President of the Egyptian National Assembly; and he was a man of such preeminence that Lord Milner said that
  "no scheme to which he and his party were hostile stood any chance of favourable consideration much less of general acceptance."
  This was the man who, after the termination of the Armistice, asked permission to come to London to consult the Government. His demand was supported by Rushdi Pasha, who, as Prime Minister in Egypt, had shown the greatest helpfulness and friendliness towards this country. The demand was enforced by Adly Pasha, another Egyptian Minister, and we understood that it was supported by Sir Reginald Wingate, whose name in Egypt can be compared with the name of Lord Kitchener. He is a man who understands the country and whose record is well known. What was the demand which Zaghloul Pasha himself wished to put forward when he came to London? We had it in the terms of himself and his friends. He wished to ask for autonomy, which is the offer which is now being made to Egypt. He regarded the matter as urgent. Why did he regard it as urgent? Because the Peace Conference was meeting at Paris, and he supposed that the International status of Egypt was to be decided at that Conference. The League of Nations was also being set up, and he wished his own country to be a member of it. I assume that under the present arrangements Egypt will become a member of it. What was the reply to this extremely reasonable and opportune demand that he and his friends should come to London to consult with the Government? The reply was a series of polished, worn-out clichés. "The moment was not opportune." "No useful purpose would

  2013
  be served." "The Foreign Secretary was busy." Does the Leader of the House or the representative of the Foreign Office say that if Zaghloul Pasha and Rushdi Pasha had been permitted to come to London—when Zaghloul Pasha was refused Rushdi Pasha himself refused to come—in Christmas, 1918, and had been offered the terms now offered, they would have rejected them? I say, "No," and I say that, in refusing in that very curt and unwise way to receive these men, the Government missed their first opportunity of settling this question.
  This refusal was followed by the resignation of Rushdi Pasha. What did Zaghloul Pasha and his party do then? Did they raise a not or make inflammatory speeches, or organise a dangerous demonstration? Not at all. They went to the Sultan and presented a petition that there should be formal recognition of the independence of Egypt and the abolition of martial law—two of the terms of the declaration of the British Government to-day, the Government which is always most strong when it is most wrong, and which deported Zaghloul Pasha and his friends to Malta. The consequences were exactly what might have been expected. The movement of which Zaghloul was the head was a national movement, backed by the sympathy of all parties and creeds. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs deny that fact? It is the opinion of Lord Milner. This national movement was met by the deportation of its leader to Malta. That was followed by insurrection in all parts of the country, in which lamentable casualties occurred to Europeans, and in which lamentable and far more numerous casualties were inflicted upon the inhabitants of Egypt. There were 800 killed and 1,500 wounded, and the most that the Milner Report can say about the repression of that insurrection was that it was conducted on the whole with moderation. It was followed by a speech by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords in which he referred to the leaders of the movement as
  "self-appointed and irresponsible leaders with whom there is no common ground for discussion. Their presence would only serve to embarrass those discussions with representative and responsible Egyptian opinion—"
  to which he was hoping to turn later. This man, whose knowledge of Egypt had extended over many years, and whom
  2014
  Lord Milner declares to be a powerful leader, without whose assent no settlement could be arrived at, is described by the Foreign Secretary as a "self-appointed and irresponsible" person. There we have some measure of the ability of the Foreign Office, and of the head of that office, to judge of the situation and the terms in which these difficulties can be solved. In face of that national demand, in face of a national rising, in face of the Government's own intention ultimately to grant independence—of course, we know that the policy of the Government is as fixed as a Northern star—a new High Commissioner, Lord Allenby, was sent out. It was, of course, an excellent choice, but his orders were to take such steps as were necessary for "maintaining the King's Protectorate." His first and very wise action was to permit Zaghloul Pasha to leave Malta.
  Then the second chance arrived. The Government, after much pressure in this House, determined to send out a Mission—a Mission of very high personnel, but, even so, instead of giving the Mission a free hand to investigate and decide, they stamped it with the words that they were to consider what could be done, "under the Protectorate." What possible chance, in view of what we know concerning Egypt, and in view of what everybody acquainted with Egypt knew to be the circumstances of the case, could such a Mission have of succeeding, or, at any rate, of succeeding easily? Of course, when they went to Egypt with that hallmark "under the Protectorate" on them, they were avoided, but they overcame their difficulties with most remarkable perseverance and ability. The chief stumbling block, as they themselves saw, was the War cry of the past eighteen months, namely, the demand for the abolition of the Protectorate. But by private inquiry, by continual perseverance and tact, and by coming into conference with Zaghloul himself, with the "irresponsible and self-appointed leader," with whom no discussion was possible, they did arrive at something which, I believe, would have been accepted by the Egyptian people. They made proposals and some members of the Zaghloul Mission returned to Egypt to submit them to the Egyptian people. It is a most remarkable fact that out of 5l surviving members of the Legislative

  2015
  Assembly in Egypt, no less than 47, or more, gave their approval to the terms which were proposed in the Milner-Zaghloul conversations, with some reservations which were not insurmountable, and always with the reservation that the Protectorate must go. Here was Egypt, united, moderate and willing to come to an agreement, and for some reason nothing came of it. I do not know why, and I do not know that any member of the Mission knows why. That was the second occasion on which a chance was lost.
  I come now to the third chance, the conversations between Lord Curzon and Adly Pasha. Adly Pasha was invited to come to London, but it was most unfortunate that at the very moment when he was invited to come to London the Colonial Secretary went to Cairo. It is not quite clear why he went to Cairo. Cairo is not within the ambit of his authority. However, he went there and made a speech, which, in its way, I submit, was quite as unfortunate and as damaging to the interests of this country as the Foreign Secretary's own speech after the riots of 1919. The Colonial Secretary in that speech explained the liberal intentions of the present Government. He referred to our present difficulties in Ireland and in Egypt, and hoped that in a few years they would be found
  "managing their own affairs and unfolding their own destiny peacefully and prosperously within the elastic circle of the British Empire."
  What words could possibly have been more unfortunate? Everybody knows that Egypt is not, and never was, a part of the British Empire, and if anyone will read the Milner Report he will find that perfectly familiar historical fact set out with complete emphasis. Adly Pasha came to London, and, as illustrating the essential unity of the Egyptians in their demand, despite differences between Zaghloul Pasha and Adly Pasha, Adly Pasha was able to bring members of the Zaghloul Party, including Ismail Sidki, who himself had been deported to Malta, and who might have been expected to entertain bitter feelings. They presented a united front when they came to this country, because the Egyptian people believed that Adly Pasha would succeed where Zaghloul Pasha had
  2016
  failed in abolishing the Protectorate. Zaghloul Pasha himself, in an interview in the Press, stated what he called his terms, and practically outlined the proposal which presently became the policy of the Government. I pass over an important incident at this stage, i.e., the Alexandria riots, only just remarking that the Alexandria riots illustrate the repercussion of the Government's policy in another part of the world—the north side of the Mediterranean.
  As the Curzon-Adly conversations proceeded, as everyone who reads the papers will see, the terms became more and more different, and finally the delegates were informed that the Government had no responsibility and did not accept the findings of the Milner Mission, and the most that they were offered at the end of their negotiations was that the Protectorate should go in consideration of various demands, much stiffer than anything the Milner Mission had laid before them. Adly Pasha returned to Egypt and, of course, resigned, and the first opportunity of carrying out the policy the Government now proclaim was lost. The resignation of Adly Pasha was followed by a lecture published to the Sultan and to the world, on what the Foreign Office conceived to be the position of Egypt. Egypt became then a part of the Empire's communications and Zaghloul's policy was described as fanatical and purely disruptive Nationalism. Anyone who reads the essay will fail to find, from the beginning to end, a single word about the rights of Egypt and the welfare of Egypt except as far as it touches British interests. The result was again what might have been expected. The country became greatly disturbed. Zaghloul Pasha was a second time deported—this is the stable policy for which the Government is renowned—and the position of the High Commissioner became absolutely impossible.
  We come to the fourth effort, which is a reversal of the policy to-day. It is a declaration of the independence of Egypt, coupled with the announcement that negotiations will take place later on with independent Egypt on four reserved points, so that in 1922 we have arrived at the point of conceding the demands made by Zaghloul in 1918. But at what a cost to our prestige! This matter has been debated all over the world. Speeches have been made

  2017
  in Congress about it, and in every part of the world the enemies of the Empire have exploited our difficulties in Egypt to our disadvantage. And then the cost in life! Many Europeans have lost their lives. So, too, have many Egyptians. There have been thousands of casualties among the population of the country, and all this has been one of the results of this policy of the Government. Then, again, the cost in money. The Colonial Secretary recently referred with approbation to the austere and prudent financial policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What has the Government's policy in Egypt cost us? I do not know exactly, but in the first financial year it cost us from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000, in the second year £8,000,000 or £9,000,000, and in the present year £6,000,000, and all this very largely, one might say mainly, aggravated by the policy which the Government have pursued.
  That is the position to-day. Nationalism in Egypt has established complete dominance. These are the words of the Milner Report. Irresponsible and self-appointed persons are masters of Egyptian national opinion. No Government is possible in the face of a hostile people. That is a truism to which attention is also drawn in the Milner Report. We have still to make a treaty on the four points reserved on which ordinary negotiations have taken place during the last three years. The Treaty is to be made, not with a few Egyptian Ministers anxious to serve our interests and help us, but with an independent State and with, perhaps, a Constituent Assembly called together for the purpose of negotiating the said Treaty. In this Assembly Zaghloul Pasha and his party will have a substantial if not an overwhelming majority. That, again, is a quotation from the Milner Report. We are faced with a situation of making terms, not in an easy way, as might have been done on any of the three occasions I have referred to, but in face of the national demand voiced by a National Assembly. The first question they will ask will he, what about Zaghloul Pasha himself? Is he to remain in exile, or will the Government put any obstacle in the way of his return? I do not know whether I can put that question to the Leader of the House now. Perhaps he will answer it
  2018
  when he comes to speak. Egyptian public opinion no doubt demands with an overwhelming voice the return of Zaghloul, and the President of the Assembly has himself protested against the deportation.
  It is important therefore the Government should state what is their policy in reference to Zaghloul himself. They have said that they are going to permit the Egyptians to enjoy the free exercise of their political rights. Do they mean it? I do not want to give offence, but is that a sincere declaration which they intend to implement in the spirit as well as in the letter? If they do, I conceive it is impossible for them to put any obstacle in the way of the demand for Zaghloul's return. If he returns to Egypt it will be an added embarrassment. Zaghloul's presence in Egypt is no doubt embarrassing, but his absence is a danger. Suppose Zaghloul should die, a not impossible contingency. What would be the effect if he were to die in exile on public opinion in Egypt? Have the Government forgotten the Lord Mayor of Cork? Is there anyone who read the debates in Dail Eireann on the negotiations to see whether it was possible to accept a Treaty on which the welfare of this country and of Ireland depended, who did not wish that mistake in the ease of Mr. McSwiney had never been made? Are they intending to trust the people they now declare to be an independent nation? After all Egyptian nationhood is now an established fact, and it is impossible to go behind it.
  The Milner Report says that any solution that is attempted must be adopted wholeheartedly and in a spirit of hopefulness and sympathy. Nothing is more likely to meet with failure than to overload the policy with timorous restrictions. If the Government keep faith in the terms of their own declaration with the people of Egypt they can solve the problem. I think the effect might be to split the extreme party, as we have seen done in Ireland. If you have a united Egypt against you it is a fertile breeding ground for anti-British intrigue in every other country. It has proved so in the past. But if you have a friendly Egypt, and I believe the Egyptian people are inspired with feelings of real goodwill towards this country, it might become a source of very great strength as an Allied country.

  2019
  Above all I think we should hear less about British interests in Egypt and more about Egyptian interests in Egypt. This argument about Imperial communications can be pushed too far. It was the argument the Germans used in Belgium. They said Belgium was a necessary communication between their own country and their objective. Let us hear more of the old British declarations about Egypt such as that by Sir Eldon Gorst who declared it was the policy of this Empire to place before all else the welfare of the population. The real strength of the British Empire has always been that it has been regarded by the world as the guardian of the rights of weak nations. We have done a great deal materially for Egypt. There are some things in which we have opposed the material interests of Egypt, and the Suez Canal would not have existed at all had we had our way. But in many ways we have benefited that country materially as the Egyptians will admit. Still we have not created the wealth of Egypt. The wealth of Egypt consists of her climate, her water, and the tireless industry of her peasantry. Did Lord Curzon command the Nile to flow or the sun to shine? Egypt belongs to the Egyptians. The same Being who gave us our country gave them theirs and by that title they are right to enjoy it.
  Sir CHARLES TOWNSHEND: May I, on my part, as one who was sent to Egypt by Mr. Gladstone in 1882, and who stayed there for many years under Mr. Gladstone's rule, give a few reasons why the Government are correct in not scuttling out of Egypt in a hurry? I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), and I was glad to find him admitting that we had done something for Egypt in these many years. My memory goes back to Egypt and to the Sudan at the time we tried to save Gordon. I hope our efforts were not all wasted, that our work there is not to be thrown away. I do not wish to profess any sentiment at all, but I do wish to give a few reasons why we should be careful about leaving Egypt now. You must remember that as long as we have not peace in the Near East there is the greatest danger in our moving out of Egypt. Egypt has always, as this House
  2020
  knows, invited invasion. The people are a docile race. I do not know a race more docile than the Egyptians. They have always invited invasion. But we could never see anyone else go into Egypt. It is a very probable contingency that may happen again. As the Prime Minister said in this House, what would have happened had we not been occupying Egypt when the Great War came on? Nobody knows better than the hon. and gallant Member that the problem of the defence of Egypt was one of our most serious problems in that War. The hon. and gallant Member will also, no doubt, remember that Egypt was occupied in 1779 by Bonaparte, and that England had to send an expedition under Sir Ralph Abercrombie, as a result of which the French were forced to surrender at Cairo. The Abercrombie expedition was helped by one from India under Sir David Baird.
  Why did we go to Egypt in 1882? There was anarchy in the country. Mr. Gladstone sent us to Egypt, but, although he himself proposed that we should go away again, it was not possible to do so in his time. Let me put in a few sentences the strategical point, and try to give some reasons for the exercise of care by the Government in this matter. At the end of the Mediterranean bottle, so to speak, is Egypt. A British fleet stationed at Gibraltar puts the cork into that bottle, and I cannot see, as long as that British fleet remains unbeaten, how any strategist, even a Hannibal or a Bonaparte, could darn to conduct an expedition from any place in Mediterranean waters to conquer Egypt. To the north-east, however, the land frontiers of Egypt could easily be invaded from Palestine, and to the west from North Africa; and that is where the danger has been. As I said just now, if we had not been in Egypt our problem in the War would have been far more serious. A Turko-German expedition, with the Turkish flag in its van, would have been welcomed with joy in Egypt, and it would have cost us a bloody struggle with a great army to get a footing in Egypt again. We cannot afford to see another power in Egypt. We must retain our hold upon it as long as the Near Eastern question is unsettled, and we must remember what the danger is.

  2021
  The thing that moves me most is the danger that exists until we make peace with Turkey. As soon as peace is made with Turkey, it is common sense that we can then turn round and see what we can do on the question of withdrawing from the Protectorate of Egypt; but even then I do not see, as a strategist, how we can give up holding the zone of the Suez Canal, and I would go further and say also a landing base in Egypt at Alexandria. I do not see how we can give up those guarantees for holding the communications between our Western and our Eastern Empire. It is all very well to say that it does not count as communications, but really you must allow the strategist to say that it does count. That canal, projected by Napoleon in 1799—it is a very interesting fact that he did project the cutting of the canal—has enabled us to realise the principle of rapidity and economy of direction. It is, no doubt, our quickest and most judicious avenue of approach to the East, and I have always said that Australia is as much interested as we are in keeping up and paying for that line of communication. I have made a long study of Egypt and have served many years there, and I look back with especial pride to the work of Lord Kitchener, on whose staff I was. I have made a strategic study of the defence of Egypt, and I feel it very much that we have come to the time when the Protectorate is going to be given up. Whether the Government will give it up at once I do not know, but all the Field Marshals in Europe would not persuade me that this moment, when the clouds are dark in the Near East, in Ireland and in India, is the moment for us to take ourselves out of Egypt. I should look upon myself as mad if I said that it was.
  Mr. LUNN: I should like, first of all, to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) on the very clear and methodical way in which he has recited the various incidents that have happened in Egypt for so long a time past. May I also say that I would not attempt, in what I have to say, to pit my knowledge of Egypt against that of the hon. and gallant Member for the Wrekin (Sir C. Towns-hend) and many other hon. Members of this House. I have no desire to roam over the history of Egypt, nor do I even wish to discuss in detail the suggested terms of settlement. My own view is,
  2022
  that if the obstacles now in the way of a settlement could be removed, and if a free independent election of a Constituent Assembly could take place, even the suggested terms are not too great a difficulty for the Egyptian people to get over. I do feel, however, that it is for the Egyptian people themselves to discuss those terms, and the conditions under which Egypt is to be governed in the future. My reason for taking part in this Debate is, that I hardly accept the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government's policy is as fixed as the North Star. I have seen it change so often that I Have yet a little hope that oven this Debate may bring about some change in their policy as it is at this moment, and I desire to make a few suggestions in order to try to create the best possible atmosphere in which a discussion can take place between British representatives and properly accredited representatives of the Egyption people. Egypt, as has been said, is, unlike Ireland or India, not a part of the British Empire, nor do any of her people desire that she should be. Ever since our provisional occupation in 1882, every statesman in this country, who has spoken on Egypt, has promised that under certain conditions we would get out of that country. Upon those promises that Egypt would be given her independence, we saw, during the War, a million and a quarter of the men of Egypt take their stand by the side of the Allies. They believed that Britain would be as good as her word after the War. They believe to-day that they have been betrayed, and I am anxious that in this Debate we should endeavour to remove some of those suspicions, some of those doubts that are in the minds of the people.
  They have to-day no form of government in Egypt, and I think I should be safe in saying that the Ministry of Sarwat Pasha, which has now been set up by the British Government, is just as much bound to fail as was the Adly Pasha Ministry of 1921. There is no possible hope, so far as I can see, of any success for that Ministry. As I have said, they have no form of Government. The Legislative Assembly has not met since 1913, and they have been living under Martial Law since that time; but, despite the restrictions on the Press and the restrictions on freedom of speech, there has grown up a movement in Egypt

  2023
  which embraces nearly the whole of the people, who are determined to achieve complete independence. I am satisfied that they will achieve that object, and I ask, is there any crime in any country seeking to obtain its freedom and its liberty to govern itself in its own way? Was it not stated many times on the side of the Allies that that was one of the objects of the War? Can our policy in Egypt since the Armistice be declared to have been a success? I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that it was a blunder, when appointing the Milner Mission, to insert in the terms of reference that they should inquire into What form of Government there should be in Egypt within the Protectorate. That was the blunder that spoiled the great opportunity which was given to Lord Milner at that time. It is well known in this House how the Milner Mission were received in Egypt. They were boycotted, they were despised; no Egyptians were prepared to meet them or to discuss anything with them. Yet, after they returned and were able to meet the real leader of Egyptian opinion, Zaghloul Pasha, they were enabled to put forward what was an admirable report on Egypt, despite its limitations.
  I should like to quote one or two observations which Lord Milner's Mission made, in that Report, upon the political status of Egypt. They said that no man standing in Egypt would have dared to say to them that he was not in favour of complete independence. To all outward appearance, independent opinion was solidly nationalist, and, in their judgment, was likely to remain so. Again, they said that the remarkable association known as the Wafd ("Delegation"), under the leadership of Zaghloul Pasha, which claims, not without many credentials, to speak in the name of the nation, does not consist merely of extreme men; that they gradually came to the conclusion that no settlement could be satisfactory which was simply imposed by Great Britain upon Egypt, but that it would be wise to seek a solution by means of a bilateral agreement—a Treaty—between the two countries; that it had always been a fundamental point in their plan that the Treaty should not be allowed to come into force unless it had been approved by a genuinely representative Egyptian assembly; and that in any such assembly,
  2024
  they were assured on all hands, Zaghloul Pasha and his associates would command a substantial, if not an overwhelming, majority.
  That, I think, is the position as it was in Egypt, and I believe it to be the position as it is to-day. We remember the scenes of enthusiasm when Zaghloul Pasha returned to Egypt after the Mission had reported. The welcome given to him was of a kind unknown to have ever been seen in Egypt before. But even these scenes were not sufficient to convince the British Government as to who was the real spokesman of the Egyptian people. It seems as though we must ever pass through blood and murder and destruction before they will see. And so we had another Ministry under Adly Pasha brought here to negotiate, but alt the people of Egypt were satisfied that nothing would happen as the result of those negotiations. The Egyptian people had no confidence in the Ministry of Adly Pasha, and it was commonly said, even in the Lobby while they were here, that on their occasional visits to the Foreign Office it was to listen to bullying lectures by the Foreign Secretary. I do not know the Foreign Secretary, so I cannot confirm that position, but I often heard it during the time Adly Pasha was in this country.
  It was during the time that Adly Pasha and his Ministers were in this country that I and a few of my colleagues went to Egypt. We had not a great knowledge of Egypt. We had not had, perhaps, the opportunities of education that some people have had and a taunt may be thrown upon us because of that matter. Of course, I can afford to leave it. No one knows better than myself, no one feels more than myself the lack of the opportunities of education which have have been the favour of some people. But we went out to Egypt as practical men, desiring to see what we could see in a very short time, because our experiences were only of some few weeks that we spent in the country, but during that time we had opportunities perhaps which had never been given to Europeans before of seeing what was the condition so far as we went. It was a wonderful experience. We covered nearly every town and every village in lower Egypt, and had we had the time we might have done the same in upper Egypt. Wherever

  2025
  we went we saw wonderful crowds of people, passionate, enthusiastic, declaring for the independence of their country and their love and fervour and devotion to their leader, Zaghloul Pasha. There were people who were a little concerned as to our safety. The Foreign Secretary wrote a letter to us before we went warning us against the great dangers there were in going to Egypt. I remember being on a delegation to Ireland a year before and similarly the Chief Secretary was concerned about our welfare. We are very grateful to them for their consideration, because it is not only ourselves but our wives and families who are concerned in this matter. But we had nothing to fear there, and we had nothing to fear in Ireland from the Irish people. We saw nothing to fear in Egypt, despite the fact that we were in the midst of thousands of people. We were prevented from visiting certain places by British officials, but in all our negotiations in Egypt we were met with unfailing kindness by these officials, and I wish to pay a tribute to them for that. We proved that they were wrong in one case. On three occasions when we went to Benha we saw the military and police in charge, but the fourth time we were able to persuade them to withdraw the military and the police and on that occasion, although the streets were crowded and we had to pass through them, we saw nothing wrong whatever on the part of the people.
  When we arrived in Egypt the first speech I heard was of a type that I listened to all the time we were there, and I should like to quote from a speech of Ahmed Yehia Pasha made in Alexandria. He said:
  "The Egyptian people have expressed the desire to come to a cordial agreement with the British people, but it is not with repression and coercion that such a happy end can be brought about. We have it in us to become List friends with you because firstly, we are a loyal people by temperament, and secondly, we have considerable intellectual, moral, and economic associations with you which will render our alliance a matter not only of necessity but of sheer inclination, and when a treaty is based not only on interest but on mutual goodwill as well it is bound to last. Complete independence is our goal, Zaghloul is our faithful national leader and spokesman, and the régime of force is the worst enemy to a proper understanding between our people and yours."
  2026
  That was the kind of expression we heard during the whole of our visit. None of us ever heard a word of reproach to Britain. We put our heads, as it may be said, into the lion's mouth, but we had no fear. Zaghloul Pasha accompanied us on some of these visits. He is the greatly loved leader of the Egyptian people. He is a towering personality, and absolutely fearless. In one or two respects he is more typical of the Prime Minister of this country than any man I have seen. He has a sense of humour, and he is very quick-witted, but I am not going further because he is not an opportunist. In his determination, his loyalty and his devotion to the national claims of his country, I should say he is more like the late Mr. Parnell. There is no doubt in my mind that he is trusted by the mass of the people of Egypt, literate and illiterate, as the man who can speak for them, and he has around him most capable supporters. I should like to ask what is the reason for deporting him. He is either a power or he is not. If he is not a power, what danger is there in him being in his own country? If he is a power, why do not this Government, who said so much during the Irish discussion, and claim that they wish to meet those who can deliver the goods, meet him as the man more likely to deliver the goods than anyone I know? I believe the first step towards peace in Egypt is to be found in the return of this great man. During the last few weeks I have seen in every newspaper in this country protests in abundance from Egypt showing that practically the whole of the people, moderate or extreme, educated or uneducated, are taking steps, either of a mild or a severe character, against his deportation. But I noted in the statement of the Prime Minister on 28th February, in reply to the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) that he laid the blame absolutely upon Lord Allenby for the deportation of Zaghloul Pasha. You can never have peace in Egypt until you see that this man is returned to his home and his friends, and if he should die in the land he has been deported to this Government will be proclaimed with murder.
  Leaving Zaghloul Pasha for the moment, my second point with regard to creating an atmosphere for peace would be that we should abolish martial law.

  2027
  What we are doing in Egypt is not in accordance with civilisation. It is barbarism. When you issue an order that bombs shall be dropped from aeroplanes upon innocent people with whom we are not at war, there is no justification for it. There is no justification for taking people, intelligent citizens, from their homes and sending them away without any trial of any sort. There is no justification for suppressing newspapers. Seven were suppressed last year and six have been suppressed this year. You ought to have a clear, full expression of all sides of opinion, and the same may be said with regard to freedom of speech. To prohibit it in my opinion is an insensible policy. If we want peace in Egypt, if we wish to negotiate a Treaty, the first thing is to see that Zaghloul Pasha is returned to his home and his multitude of friends and supporters, who comprise nearly the whole of Egypt, abolish martial law, and, thirdly, give the right to the Egyptian people to elect a constituent assembly, from which a delegation may be elected to negotiate with British representatives. I may also suggest that we could and should leave the question of an Act of Indemnity until the people have elected their own Parliament. With these conditions I am convinced that you will have got an atmosphere which will enable a Treaty to be established of a satisfactory character between this country and Egypt. The question of the lines of communication, the safeguarding of the rights of foreigners and the Sudan, I think, might be left to the Egyptian and the British representatives to discuss, and I believe I should be safe in saying there would be no obstacle in the way of a settlement if that were the position. The Egyptian people are out and determined to obtain their complete independence. At the same time they are anxious to establish a friendly alliance with this country. I am quite sure it would not only be in the interests of Egypt that their independence 'should be conceded, but from every point of view in the interest of Britain. We want trade. We have millions of unemployed. I remember a statement made to me by the representative of one of the largest firms in this country whilst I was in Egypt, that if only peace could be restored immediately it would be possible to give orders for at least £1,000,000 of goods by
  2028
  him alone. I have seen a letter in the "Times" by Sir Valentine Chirol. He says:
  "Would it pay, from the point of view of economic reconstruction to disturb once more the prospects of reviving trade in one of our chief surviving Mediterranean markets?"
  5.0 P.M.
  That is the question he asks with regard to the policy of this country in Egypt. If you are going to create such a state affairs in Egypt as will necessitate an army large enough to subdue a rebellion all over the country, who is going to pay for it? Is that not a matter of some concern to the British taxpayer? Is the policy of the Government to be that as one door closes another one is to open? If we are to bring away troops from Ireland, are they to be found a place for their operations in Egypt or elsewhere? That should not be so. If there is one way in which we can economise it should be in this direction, and thereby save the British taxpayer many millions of pounds which we are wasting. I commend my suggestions to the representative, of the Foreign Office; they are made in all sincerity. I hope that we may, as a result of this Debate, Jay down such a means-—because I am not hopeless, even yet, that there is not a possibility of laying down some means—as will be satisfactory to Egypt as well as Great Britain upon which we can negotiate a satisfactory Treaty. I do urge that we should not go through the same blunders in Egypt that we have gone through in Ireland to reach the goal which we all desire to reach.
  Earl WINTERTON: The only words contributed by the hon. Gentleman which seemed to give the slightest sign of constructive statesmanship were contained in the last sentence he used. I can only describe as a most abusive attack upon the administration in Egypt his statement that our administration in Egypt was not in accordance with civilisation, but was barbarous.
  Mr. LUNN: When I used the word "barbarous," I was speaking of the dropping of bombs from aeroplanes upon innocent women and children.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad to have that qualification. I entirely accept the explanation. It is only fair to say that the bulk of the hon. Gentleman's

  2029
  speech was couched in very moderate terms, but I did regard the reference to barbarism, which I thought was applied to the whole of the administration, as being abusive. I am glad that it referred only to a particular instance. I am sure that all who have the interests of Egypt and of the British Empire at heart will be glad of the hon. Member's explanation, because nothing could be worse than that it should go out to the world that a Member of this House, speaking with all the responsibility appertaining to membership of this House, had said that our rule in Egypt was not in accordance with civilisation, but was a relic of barbarism. Nothing could be worse for Egypt or for the British Empire.
  I should like to say at the outset that, so far as the policy of the Government in Egypt in the past is concerned, I am certainly not going to attempt to attack it at the present time, for the very reason that those who sit on these benches, as much as anyone, from the beginning have urged upon the Government the need for coming to a definite understanding as to what their policy in Egypt was going to be. It is all very well to attack a certain Noble Lord, who is a sort of Aunt Sally at which people throw bricks, but there is another set of people just as responsible. I refer to the Prime Minister and his Secretariat. I always try to remember and to follow the well-established rule not to attack civil servants, but the members of the Secretariat are not civil servants. They are people who were brought in from all sorts of places. Some are journalists, some are philosophers. They belong to every type and kind. These people from the beginning, in their dealings with Egypt and Middle Eastern countries have exercised a degree of interference which they ought not to have had, and ought not to have been permitted under our Constitution. I am given to understand that now, at any rate, the matter is being run through properly accredited channels, and not through the Secretariat. I feel very strongly in regard to this matter, and I have protested again and again against the influence of the Secretariat in foreign affairs.
  While it is easy to attack the policy of the Government in the past—indeed, it is so easy that anybody can do it—it is not useful to do so at this moment. What we have to do is to bring our minds to
  2030
  bear not so much upon the mistakes of the Government in the past, and they have been very bad, but to see how we can arrive at a common policy which will be accepted both by the leaders in Egypt and by this country. I do not go so far as some of my hon. Friends in thinking that the present attitude and policy of His Majesty's Government is a bad one. I think that the suggested solution, because it goes no further than that contained in the last dispatch, is a solution which might eventually be found to be a perfectly good and feasible one. At any rate, I think it should be given an opportunity
  I now turn to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn) and the hon. Member who has just sat down. I have observed after a long experience of the House of Commons that in all questions where this great Empire, where the Imperial Government, touches the interests, as it must necessarily and naturally touch the interests, of native people—I say it in no offensive spirit—in any part of the world, there is always a set of critics in this House who either openly or furtively sympathise with every agitator in that country who defies the authority of His Majesty's Government. The first type of these critics to-day is to be found in the person of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, who is a Gladstonian Liberal of the old school. He does not go so far as his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) who paid him such effusive compliments—possibly an indication of a new form of alternative government—in praising Zaghloul Pasha who, to judge from what the hon. Member for Rothwell says, is the greatest man that Egypt or any other country has ever produced. The whole of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was an attempt to hold up to the world at large this country and the Government of this country as a tyrant, and Egypt as an oppressed and downtrodden country. The hon. and gallant Member is a lineal descendant of Mr. Gladstone. I have great admiration for the hon. and gallant Gentleman and for the ability with which he presents his case, but I would point out that exactly the same sort of speech was made, in perhaps more eloquent terms, by Mr. Gladstone on hundreds of occasions when he sat in this House in Opposition, but

  2031
  as often as he made such speeches it happened that when he got into power he undid everything that he had said. The same is true of many Members of His Majesty's Government to-day. They have made speeches in the past and now that they are Members of the Government they realise that they cannot carry out what they advocated.
  The hon. Member for Rothwell quite openly sympathises with the extreme agitation which Zaghloul has been conducting in Egypt, and I trust he will not feel himself in any way irritated when I make as strong an attack as I can upon his friend and ally, Zaghloul. He told us nothing of the circumstances which led to the brutal and horrible murders of British soldiers and British nursing sisters, murders directly due to the speeches and influence of Zaghloul. Zaghloul is the type of weak agitator which you get all over the world—of which there are some even in the Labour party—who make speeches, and when those speeches are translated into action, as is now being done in Johannesburg, they hold up their hands in horror and say, "We never intended you to do that." [HON. MEMBERS: "Bolshevists!"] The Bolshevists have the courage of their convictions. They are prepared to risk their own lives. They are in a very different position from Zaghloul and members of the Labour party in this country.
  Mr. LUNN: Or you.
  Earl WINTERTON: I have risked my life quite as often as the hon. Member did in the War.
  Mr. LUNN: I have risked mine more than you.
  Mr. J. JONES: He is an aristocrat. One of the Lie-hards.
  Earl WINTERTON: We will not pursue that purely personal argument. What has been the record of Zaghloul Pasha in the last two years? He has never put forward a solution which the people of this country, having regard to their Imperial responsibilities, could possibly accept, and I resent the way in which his name has been brought forward as a sort of saviour of the situation in Egypt. Zaghloul Pasha is a dangerous and mischievous agitator who has, very properly, been deported to the Seychelles,
  2032
  where I hope he will remain for the rest of his life. When the hon. Member suggests that if Zaghloul dies—I hope he will not die at Seychelles—that that is going to have the slightest effect on the relationship between this great Empire and the people of Egypt, he is absolutely mistaken. I hope, at any rate, that Zaghloul will be detained in the Seychelles until the immediate danger of his agitation is removed.
  The hon. Member made no reference whatever, and that is one thing of which I complain, of the great responsibility which this country, as the head of the British Empire, has towards Australia, India and other countries to which Egypt is the line of communication. Imagine for a moment the position of the people of Australia. A small white people, of less than six million inhabitants, surrounded by black and yellow races, to whom the Suez Canal is a matter of vital importance. I can assure the hon. Member and other Members of the Labour party that if they approach Members of the Australian Labour party, who are very numerous, they would find that they by no means share their views. They would say: "We have to hold on to the Suez Canal if we are going to remain there at all.'" It is one of the most practical questions in the whole problem. A person from the planet Mars, or a person from a foreign country, listening to the hon. Member's speech, would never suppose that in the 40 years that we have been in Egypt we have been of any benefit at all to the country. One would never suppose that before we went there the hon. Member's friends, the Pasha class, who entertained him and his colleagues so lavishly in Egypt, trod their fellow Egyptians under foot, extracted the last ounce of gold out of them, ravished their lands, mishandled the Government and got the finances of the country into such a state that the Powers of Europe were compelled to intervene. Those are the type of people with whom hon. Members opposite are in strange alliance. To see the Labour party in alliance with the Pasha class is one of the strangest spectacles. Anyone who knows anything about Egypt knows that the Pasha class is loathed, and that although they have a certain amount of popular support at the moment for certain reasons, they represent everything anti-democratic and everything against which the Labour

  2033
  party in this country has voted. Yet these are the people with whom they are in alliance. We never heard a word about the condition of Egypt before the British went there. "We never heard a word about the position of the foreign communities. If it were a question only of the British community, it would be a comparatively simple matter. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that there are in Egypt, relatively to the whole population, vast numbers of foreigners, Italians, Greeks, Maltese and French, who have been established there for generations. He is aware that these foreign communities are, so to speak, rooted in the soil, in the sense that they own property there and remain there, and they are, I admit frankly, one of the difficulties in the situation.
  I am not suggesting that all their demands are demands to which we should agree, nor do I deny that on many occasions they have acted injudiciously. The point is that they do exist, and that they greatly aggravate the problem, and one would have thought that any person of common intelligence would have dealt with the position as the result of his visit to that country. I would call the attention of the House to a matter which seems to be very far-reaching. When there was an inquiry into the Alexandria riots, it was pointed out very clearly in evidence that one reason why the British troops alone were at last called in to save the situation was that the foreign Consuls representing the Greeks, Italians and French, went to the Governor and said, "We are not going to stand the murder of our nationals any longer." Though this is not brought out in the Report, it is common knowledge, that they said that if we did not take action they themselves would endeavour to land men from an Italian warship in the harbour. It says in the Report that the Italian, Greek and French Consuls gave evidence before the Court of Inquiry and solemnly protested against the attacks on their nationals, and stated that they would never consent to endure it. A large proportion of the skilled artisan class in Alexandria are Greeks, Armenians and Italians, and these men are honest working men. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith may throw off that portion of Gladstonian policy and say: "Who are the Armenians? A wretched race. Better that they and the Greeks should be murdered than that I should
  2034
  be deprived of the rhetoric of my peroration in attacking the Government." However much he may think that it is a laughing matter, it is not thought a laughing matter by the relatives of the unfortunate people who were murdered by the Egyptians after they had been incited by that arch conspirator and villain Zaghloul.
  Nor is that the only matter on which the hon. Gentleman opposite failed to bring out the salient fact of the situation. I have already made a passing reference to the fact that the people with whom he was associated were mainly of the Pasha class. But there are vast numbers of people in the country districts who have no sort of community of interest with those persons whom he saw, and he has not referred to them at all. He has never referred to the question of justice. He has never referred to the terrible scandals that arose under the old administration because of the exactions of these Pashas. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend), who is one of the few people in this House who remember the country before the occupation, must regard the aspersions of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) as a kind of mosquito attack which is directed always by people like them throughout the British Empire against the administration, which does very little harm sometimes, and at other times a great deal of harm. I have not the least hesitation in saying that these attacks are not the best way to bring about a better state of affairs in Egypt. Neither is it the best way of improving the situation to call attention to the obvious faults of the Government policy in the past.
  There were obvious faults. Everybody probably would agree to that. But there is no good in suggesting, as the hon. Member for Rothwell did, that the Egyptian agitators are all angels, and that those who attempted to suppress, their agitation have adopted methods of barbarism. What we have now got to do is to see whether it is not possible, as I believe it is, to arrive at a common policy which will produce a settlement. May I say one word to those who have taken up what I may call the Die-Hard policy, which is represented by the "Morning Post"? I was sorry to see very few of the representatives of that school in the House when the Debate began, and I am glad to see one or two of them here now. It is

  2035
  really unfair to suggest that Egypt ever has been, in the technical sense of the word at any rate, a part of the British Empire. I admit that you cannot therefore regard it from the same point of view as a place which has always been part of the British Empire. But we have got certain inalienable rights. We have been there for many years. We are the predominent partners there. We have obligations to ourselves and to the Egyptians. I believe that it is possible to arrive at a common policy, and I think that the last set of proposals which have been made by the Government do give hope that that policy may be arrived at. I do hope that we shall all remember that after all an immense amount of British blood and Egyptian blood was spilt in the deserts and on the borders of Egypt during the War.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And Egyptian blood.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not know any instance of an Egyptian being killed in action, while in my -own personal experience I know of thousands of—
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the Egyptian artillery commended by the Commander-in-Chief?
  Earl WINTERTON: That is not the point. I do not wish to deal with the matter from a frivolous point of view, but when I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the battle of Gaza alone, there were 10,000 British casualties, and so far as I know, the only Egyptian casualties during the War were three or four wounded in action, he will realise the amount of burden that was carried respectively by the Egyptians and by ourselves. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that an enormous amount of British blood was spilt in defence of Egypt and of the Empire, and it would be a very grave action for this or any other Government, even to get themselves out of a temporary difficulty, to forget that that blood was spilt, and that we are in Egypt, not as part of the British Empire, but because of the things which we have done there for the last 40 years. There was a phrase used by the great Lord Salisbury when criticising Mr. Gladstone's policy immediately after the original occupation, and it applies to the situation to this day:
  2036
  "Let this country never forget that we are the dominant power in Egypt. Why should we allow diplomacy to fritter away what the valour of our troops has won?"
  Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I desire to associate myself with many of the remarks which have fallen from the lips of the Noble Lord. He has referred to several points to which I desire also to allude in order to emphasise what he has said. He said that the Government committed many mistakes in the past, and that was done not only by this Government but by its predecessors. The first misunderstanding is due to words which were used, first of all, by Lord Dufferin, and afterwards by his successors. They all said that Egypt should be granted autonomous institutions or freedom when she is fit to govern herself. For many years past the Government have been pretending that the Egyptians were fit for self-government, and at the same time they were putting up extra safeguards. Whether or not they are fit for autonomous institutions it is indeed difficult to say. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle, accompanied by his friends, did a notable tour in Egypt last autumn, and I would like to call his attention to a few salient facts. No doubt he visited the ancient monuments of Egypt, for which that country is so celebrated, and he saw on the sculptured walls gangs of men working under the whip. That was in the days of Semiramis and the Pharaohs. We come down to the days when Egypt was invaded by the Arab under the leadership of Amru, the Caliph Omar's lieutenant. Amru invaded Egypt from Gaza and conquered Heliopolis and Cairo. Then he wrote to his chief in Palestine. I will not read the whole letter, but I will, if I may, read one extract from a translation of it:
  "O Commander of the Faithful! Egypt is a compound of black earth and green plants, between a pulverised mountain and a red sand—"
  and then after a poetic description of the Nile, he continues
  "The retreat of the inundation deposits a fertilising mud for the reception of the various seeds. The crowds of husbandmen who blacken the land may be compared to a swarm of industrious ants, and their native indolence is quickened by the lash of the taskmaster and the promise of the flowers and fruits of a plentiful increase. Their hope is seldom deceived. But the riches which they extract from the wheat, the barley and the rice, the legumes, the fruit trees, and the cattle, are unequally shared

  2037
  between those who labour and those who possess."
  That was written at the end of the seventh century. If the student cares to refer to much more recent history, to the days of Mahomet Ali and Ismail Pasha, he will find exactly the same rule of oppression in Egypt. And the oppressors were the Pashas and the Beys and the Effendis whom hon. Members now so enthusiastically applaud, and with whom they have thrown themselves into joyful union. Have we made that state of affairs better or worse during the British occupation of Egypt? I submit that we have made it much better. Justice in the Courts has not been openly bought and sold. The native fellah who has been oppressed, has often, at any rate, had a chance of having his grievance redressed. Under the new arrangements—which I welcome, as I see no other course—will the lot of the fellahin in Egypt be better or will it be worse? I submit that we have no reason to be enthusiastic about the future. I have often discussed the matter with people of a liberal turn of mind, who say that it is far better to have a Government of your own, be it bad, than to be under alien domination. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "Hear, hear," but I do not know that their feelings of enthusiasm would be quite so keen if the soles of their feet had been pretty well beaten off with palm branches, and their last piastre had been taken from them by the oppressor.
  I do not suggest that that will happen, but at any rate history, tradition and the general feeling of the country point that way, and, whatever arrangements are made between Lord Allenby and the Egyptian Government, it will be a very bad day if the interests of the fellahin are forgotten. It is said, and perhaps with some truth, that the fellahin themselves clamour for a constitution. What are the conditions? Among the villagers, how many of the fellahin can read? A very small number. What is their means of getting news? They get their news through the pulpits of the mosques, and the mosques get their preachers from El Azhar University, of which Zaghloul Pasha was not an undistinguished member. The University has some 12,000 pupils annually, of all races and all creeds of Mahommedans, and many of them are violently anti-European or anti-British
  2038
  and fanatical to the last degree. The other source from which the illiterate fellahin glean their Views is the village scribe, who in the market place reads the vernacular papers. An hon. Member has complained of the suppression of the vernacular papers. I will not burden the House by reading any extracts from them, but in the reports of the Alexandria massacres of last year hon. Members will find plenty of documents of the character I have described, particularly on pages 235 and 236 of the Report. It will be noticed that it is printed in Leipzig.
  In the Milner Report is an indefinite and insufficient allusion to the fact that for years past anti-British propaganda, and, to some extent, anti-European propaganda, has been sedulously promoted by the enemies of this country in Egypt through foreign agency. It is owing to these circumstances that the fellahin have been misled. They are in precisely the same position as the frogs of Æsop's Fables. The frogs asked for a king; a king was sent to them. He happened to be a stork. That may be their fate. An hon. and gallant Member quoted the words of Sir Eldon Gorst "to place before all else the welfare of the population." He should ponder carefully and deeply before committing himself to an irreparable step. I welcome the fact that Lord Allenby and his advisers have been invited to settle these affairs. They are the men on the spot. It is a common tendency not to trust a dog when you pay it to bark for you, and to try to do the barking yourself. It is a mistake; it is not economical. If you cannot trust your representative, remove him; but if you can trust him, give him all the confidence and support in your power. Lord Allenby is assisted by men of ripe experience and good intelligence, and I am certain that if they cannot evolve a satisfactory and honourable solution, and if ultimate chaos comes, they will not be to blame, but other factors behind the political and diplomatic world, of which we at present are unconscious.
  Mr. A. HERBERT: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him closely in his speech. I will merely say that I welcome that speech as coming from him. I welcome the fact that he accepts the proposals of Lord Allenby. In this Debate I speak with a good deal of deference

  2039
  because I do not pretend to be an expert on Egypt. There are many hon. Members who know more about Egypt than I do. There is in particular the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. A. T. Loyd) who, I feel sure, will delight the House later on with a speech. He was the Secretary to the Milner Committee, and is as qualified as any Member of this House to speak on the whole question. I shall not attempt anything in the nature of a lecture on Egypt. I will content myself with a glance at the recent history of the country. We were driven to Egypt in 1882. Egypt was then a part of the Turkish Empire, but it owed only a very shadowy allegiance to the Sultan. We went there, and Lord Cromer took the country in hand. His administration was the admiration of the world. When we went to Egypt, if I may use the language of metaphor, Egypt was a child of, say, 12 years old. On the material side we looked after our ward extremely well. He was well fed and well dressed, and his affairs were thoroughly looked after. He had the benefit of the very best advice. But morally we did not educate him in the same way. We gave a certain amount of education, but I do not think that all of it was useful.
  What happened, as time went on, was this: Liberty in Egypt grew less, and posts to which Egyptians thought they had a right, were not given to them. When Lord Cromer was in Egypt you had on the whole very few Englishmen working in that country. They devoted their whole lives to their work. The creation of Egypt was their joy and pride and, they made it. Later on they went and a different class came, a class which, though there is no doubt a great deal to be said for it, had nothing like the same passionate interest in the well-being of the country. In 1914 came the War. Then the very great majority, in fact every man who could go from the Egyptian service, went to the War. That was extremely patriotic. I am not quite sure that it was very wise, because it obviously was detrimental to the good government of Egypt. Very great praise is due to all those Anglo-Egyptians who at the beginning of the War either went to the War or stayed and did their best. And a very hard time they had in Egypt. As far as I know very little praise has been given to them.
  2040
  At the time of the War there came the Protectorate. We had a triumvirate in Egypt—Sir Ronald Graham, Sir Milne Cheetham, and General Maxwell. It was under their auspices that the Protectorate was founded. Given the circumstances and the difficulties of the lime, I do not believe that any other course was possible. At that period Egypt, on the whole, was very friendly to us. I cannot remember the attitude of Zaghloul Pasha, but people like Adly Pasha, Rushdi Pasha and others were doing all they could to help us. There followed various residents who governed Egypt. There was, first of all, Sir Henry M'Mahon. He was a man with a very distinguished career behind him in India. He had been nominated by Lord Kitchener. He went to govern Egypt under very much greater difficulties than Lord Kitchener had ever known. He was like a man asked to paint a picture, but his patron, that is, the Government, refused to define the picture, and he had to paint it in an old frame. There followed General Wingate. He had made a great reputation in the Sudan, and more than a great reputation, because he had helped to make the Sudan. He was a very great civil servant who set a splendid example of industry, activity and pluck, and showed great sympathy to the people of the country. There followed General Maxwell. As a matter of fact he had been there throughout the War. General Maxwell was loved and trusted by Egypt. His advice was not taken by the people at home. The Egyptians wanted to come and state their case in London after the War. After all the speeches of the Prime Minister it was perhaps not to be wondered at that the Egyptians thought it reasonable that they should state their case, but they were not allowed to come to London.
  There followed the Milner Report, That Report may or may not be a promise. I will not speak about that. After the Report was published in Egypt there was practically unanimous opinion in Egypt that the Report was a promise. When I say "unanimous feeling." I am not speaking of the fellahin of Egypt, but of our own distinguished Anglo-Egyptian servants out there, many of whom I have the honour to call my friends. The Government in any case would have had to face very great difficulties, but its worst difficulties are always the difficulties of its own

  2041
  creation. What this Government does is this: It creates its difficulties first and then it surrenders to them. It speaks to us the whole time about its infallibility and indispensability. When it is defeated, what the Government says is, "We have conquered." When it is beaten it says, "We have won." If they had to go through the Caudine Forks they would say it was a triumphal arch. Three years ago the Egyptian question could have been settled very easily. Two years ago it could have been settled less easily, but to-day the difficulties have increased and are very great indeed.
  Perhaps it is not for a humble Member like myself to apportion the blame, but I will say this, that the last culprit is generally supposed to be my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. I should like to say about the Secretary for the Colonies that his talents might possibly give him an unique place in history but for one defect. If only his second thoughts were his first thoughts he would be one of the greatest men in history. Unfortunately his second thoughts limp a long way behind his first thoughts. The truth of it is with him that he remains too long the captive of his own brilliant phrases, and the phrase that has haunted his mind lately is the phrase "to scuttle." With my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies it is never a question of to do or not to do. "To do," with him, is not a motto but an instinct. It is only long afterwards, when his phrase has become operative, that "to undo" becomes the obvious and necessary thing. That may be a penance to him, but it is a great disaster to all of us.
  We heard the hon. Member who spoke last saying that what the Government ought to do was to trust the men on the spot, and as he said also they never do trust the men on the spot. Had they trusted any of the governors of Egypt of whom I have already spoken, we should not be in the trouble we are to-day. Had they trusted Lord Allenby long ago, we should be more out of the wood than we are to-day. Just take the case of Lord Allenby for a moment. There is a man who is not a politician but a soldier with a very great record behind him. It was his army which won victory after victory and swept the enemy before them. That and the fact that he takes advice from the people who know Egypt and that he
  2042
  possesses the spirit of patience, ought to have been considered as assets in his case, by the Government, but they were not considered as assets. The Government did not take his advice. It is rumoured, and I believe it, that when Lord Allenby saw that his advice was not being taken he tendered his resignation. I go further and say, that I believe the Government would have accepted his resignation as they have accepted other resignations within these last few days, if they had considered their position sufficiently powerful. They knew it was not sufficiently powerful, otherwise Lord Allenby would have been treated just as others have been treated.
  With regard to the present position in Egypt, I can only say that, looked at from whatever angle you like, the mismanagement of the Government has made it a lamentable spectacle. I would ask hon. Members to remember that we should not make the task of Lord Allenby harder by ourselves taking sides in the internal politics of Egypt. They are good men and bad men in Egypt, just as in other lands, and they all have their followings, and at the stage at which we have arrived the only honest thing we can do is to wish God-speed to the present settlement. One thing I should like to say, and I do so in the belief that anything said by a humble Member like, myself can do no harm to Lord Allenby. It is that I hope the moment circumstances permit Zaghloul Pasha will be released. I hope his exile will be of short duration. I only say this about Zaghloul Pasha. I do not know how mischievous or how innocent may have been his activities. I do know that in the past, when you had a different Government in England, and when you had people like Lord Cromer, Zaghloul was highly spoken of. The last point I make is with regard to our own particular interests in Egypt. They seem to me to be quite definite and clear. First, at all costs we must hold the Suez Canal. I will not elaborate that, because it is perfectly obvious. Secondly, we cannot have anybody else in our position, or in anything approaching to our position, in Egypt. Those are the two great material points. The third point and the moral point is that what we really want in Egypt is good will and a settlement. We want an arrangement. If I am told that there are. a number of other questions, I such as cotton and corn and many other

  2043
  things of that kind, my answer is that all are covered if you have good will and a settlement which you can get in Egypt.
  Mr. SWAN: I hope nothing I say will embarrass the situation between Britain and Egypt. I want to see good relationship and harmony established between this country and Egypt, and I am quite convinced the policy which we have pursued is not likely to have that happy ending. The speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has not made the situation any easier for us or for the Egyptian people who are anxious to have a settlement. It was one of the most violent and, I consider, one of the most indiscreet speeches that could possibly be uttered on such a momentous occasion as the present. It widens the gulf and embitters the situation, and is likely to lead to even a greater breach than exists to-day. However, I was pleased to hear the Noble Lord's appeal on behalf of the fellahin, and to notice how deeply sympathetic he is towards that class in Egypt. I wish some of the tender mercy and generosity of the Noble Lord and his friends could be given to the same class in this country. Our position might then be brighter and better than it is.
  Earl WINTERTON: I was elected by them to Parliament, and have been elected by them for 17 years.
  Mr. SWAN: It is because of the difficulties and the embarrassments created by reactionaries like the Noble Lord that the situation in this country is as it is. I am anxious in this Debate to speak on behalf of that class to which I and my colleagues belong. We are eager that something should be done on behalf of that class. An hon. Member has asked what did we see when we went to Egypt? Did we go to see the monuments? Certainly we did, and one of the greatest monuments we saw was the monument of misgovernment by Britain for the last 40 years and the total disregard shown to the fellahin. In spite of the fact that we have been there for 40 years what do we find in Egypt to-day? The fellah to-day is as he was in the days of Moses, dressed in his blue cotton gown, and he and his class are swept away like flies in the frost. They are working in the most fertile land in the world, giving three crops a year, and we cannot find a penny
  2044
  for their education. We cannot find a penny for the upkeep of their health or to give them the essentials of life and well-being. Those are the fellahin for whom the Noble Lord has such generous sympathy. We saw something else. We saw the fine feeling displayed towards this class by some of our Noble Gentlemen there. We heard about the admiration which some of the chosen of the British officers had for the fellahin, and we had ocular evidence of the estimation that these people had for some of the Noble Lord's friends.
  What we want to see is something being done for them. We want to see an arrangement made and a treaty established, whereby the Egyptian people themselves can grapple with the social and economic conditions which affect the fellahin and the whole Egyptian people. We associated with them, and we got their message, and their message was, "When you go back to Britain do not forget the poor fellahin who are of the same class as yourselves." We saw their children, and anyone with eyes who has visited Egypt must have observed among these children the signs that they have, by nature, wonderful artistic and scientific powers, but they have not had the leisure nor the kind of home which is essential to develop powers and qualities of that kind. They are dragged away from their homes, if you can call them homes, at an early age, and they graduate working in the fields among the cotton—what to do? [An HON. MEMBER: "To be Zaghloul Pashas."] I will deal with that interjection. Zaghloul Pasha wants to do something for them, and they recognise it.
  Mr. MILLS: He is one of themselves.
  Mr. SWAN: He wants to do something to give these children opportunities in life, and, as I have said, anyone with eyes can see the wonderful powers and potentialities which exist among these children. The national movement of Egypt wants to sec conditions under which they will develop their faculties, instead of being taken away at a tender age and set down in the midst of the fields to work until they fall exhausted in the heat of the day and slumber away the siesta, and grow old, as they have been growing old all through the centuries. That is what they are doing even under our control. All we have been

  2045
  doing is contributing to the wealth of that country and of the Empire. My colleagues and I desire to see a settlement between Britain and Egypt, so that the social and industrial and economic problems of Egypt may be tackled by the Egyptian people themselves. In the light of the attack made by the Noble Lord upon us, and his references to the conditions of the fellahin, I think it is clear that the Egyptian people alone have that knowledge and experience essential to deal with these problems. Our very education and endowments, as I think I have heard my hon. Friend say on more than one occasion, have unfitted us to deal with this question. I remember the hon. Member who sits next to the Noble Lord (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) using the quotation
  "East is East and West is West, And never the twain shall meet."
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Who said that?
  Mr. SWAN: I have heard the hon. Member repeat it on more than one occasion. It is a nonsensical line of Kipling's, in the light of the whole of British history.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Member tell me when I quoted that, because I do not recollect doing so?
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. SWAN: My hon. Friend must look over his speeches again, and I hope he will repudiate that quotation as he has gathered wisdom from experience. I do not agree with that phrase. I believe that by approaching these problems in a proper way, we have something to learn from the East and the East has something to learn from the West. If it were the case that East is East and West is West, and the twain can never meet, then what is the economic utility of seeking to place our institutions, our habits, and our customs upon a people who resent Western ideas, Western habits, and Western institutions. If it were the case, we ought to adjourn further westward, where our inclinations, usages, and habits would be responded to in a more harmonious manner, but I believe that it is possible for us to establish an agreement and a Treaty which will be harmonious both to us and to the people of Egypt, and which will weld our interests closer and better together. We can learn from them, and they can learn from us. What we are anxious to see is that some of the
  2046
  pledges and promises that Britain has made during the last 40 years, and especially in the last seven years, shall be honoured, and that we shall seek a form of government based upon the consent of the governed, sustained by the organised opinion of mankind. That was a pledge that was practically made to the Egyptians in 1914, and they are asking us to-day to honour that pledge, but instead of honouring it and bringing peace between us and Egypt, the Government are pursuing a course which is likely to widen the breach between us. Some time ago I put a question to the Prime Minister as to who was likely to negotiate the Treaty with Egypt, and he said he would reply to that question when the opportunity came for us to discuss the Treaty. The question which I put to him then was:
  "Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that the Egyptian people will have an opportunity of choosing their own delegation to negotiate this Treaty between Egypt and Britain, instead of its being appointed either by the High Commissioner or by our Cabinet?" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1922; cols. 276–7, Vol. 151.]
  I hope the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will give us some light on that aspect of the situation. As we view it, instead of the Egyptian people having the right to choose their own representatives, evidently they have a Cabinet selected which does not represent the opinion of the Egyptian people, or only a very small and microscopic amount of the sentiment of Egypt and not likely to be able to face the formidable problems or to elucidate the complex problems with which they are confronted. We think the best and most effective way to get a settlement between the two countries is, as I said some five weeks ago, to declare a general election, free from martial law, censorship of the Press, and so on, and out of the Assembly then elected to let the Egyptian people choose their own representatives to negotiate that Treaty of Alliance between the two countries. I maintain that that is the only effective and sure way to establish goodwill between us and the Egyptian people. Another point I put to the Prime Minister was as to whether it was the intention of the British Government to bring back to Egypt the real mandatory of the Egyptian people from his exile—he and his colleagues—in order that they might take part in the Assembly and the nego-

  2047
  tiations, and again the Prime Minister replied that he would deal with that when the Debate took place. I hope we shall get some reply to-day. A violent attack has been made on the character of Zaghloul Pasha. I will quote the observations of a man who ought to know what his merits and qualifications are. Lord Cromer, in his last statement in Egypt, made this observation.
  Lord E. PERCY: How long ago?
  Mr. SWAN: In 1908. This is what he said:
  "I should like to mention the name of one with whom I have only recently cooperated, but for whom in that short time I have learned to entertain a high regard. Unless I am much mistaken, a career of great public usefulness lies before the present Minister of Education, Saad Zaghloul Pasha. He possesses all the qualities necessary to serve his country, he is honest, he is capable, he has the courage of his convictions, he has been abused by many of the less worthy of his own countrymen. Those are high qualifications. He should go far."
  He has gone too far for the desire of the Egyptian people, and the Egyptian people want to see Zaghloul Pasha, their mandatory, not banished, but in their midst—the man who voices their aspirations, the man in whom they have confidence to negotiate their claims. During the last six weeks, if I have had one cable I have had 150, stating that the policy which we are pursuing is a foolish and a mad policy that can lead to nothing but disaster. If we want to succeed, we have got to bring back to Egypt the only mandatory they have, and that is Zaghloul Pasha. What should we think if, by some peculiar misfortune, another Government and another people took possession of our estates? What would the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs think if a foreign gentleman came into his house and you, "Your estates are getting into bad order; you are not well, and I will manage your estates for you and look after them for you and see that they are squared up"? The estates ultimately get squared up with the assistance of this alien gentleman, and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs says: "The estates are squared up now, and I can do very well without your help any further." "Ah, but," says the alien, "we will manage them better than you can, and we are going lo stay
  2048
  on." That is precisely the position of Britain in Egypt to-day. We went there 40 years ago to straighten up the affairs of the Egyptian people and to suppress local disorder. That disorder has been removed, but we are still there, and we refuse to go reasonably. The Treaty that we are now seeking to establish is not likely to give the people their independence, although it is mentioned in the Treaty that we are going to make Egypt a sovereign State. We are going to have armies of occupation all over Egypt, and we cannot afford that. We can neither afford the men nor the wealth. We want peace in Egypt in order that we might have time and means for grappling with economic questions at home, in order to rehabilitate our industries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wrekin (Sir C. Townshend) told us that he was sent to Egypt by Mr. Gladstone, the then Prime Minister, in 1882, but if he will refresh his memory he will remember that we only went there very provisionally. Speech after speech made by Mr. Gladstone was to the effect that we ought to evacuate Egypt as soon as possible and give her her independence, and not to annex her or establish a Protectorate. He said in 1893 that on the first available opportunity we would clear out of Egypt and allow Egypt to govern herself, and so on.
  Sir C. TOWNSHEND: He never did it.
  Mr. SWAN: No; I do not know why he did not, but the Egyptian people expect us to-day to honour the pledge which we gave in 1914. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what we did in 1882. Well, we might have quelled disorder, but what we know, and what the Egyptian people know, is that the British Government took sides, when there was a great national movement in 1882, against the will of the people. The national movement under Arabi Pasha, who was then sent to Ceylon, recognised all the evils of the fellahin and the mal-administration of the country. They wanted a popular Government to represent their interests, so that they might grapple with the-social and industrial problems themselves and straighten out their affairs. I see here in the White Paper are set forth these items:
  "(a)The security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt;
  (b)The defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, direct or indirect."

  2049
  That, we believe, can be obtained, but not in the manner proposed by the Government. We have got to approach the people who can supply the goods, the people who have got the will of Egypt behind them, whereas those to whom we have gone are a mere microscopic amount, without the nation behind them. Another remarkable thing is the next item—
  "(c) The protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities."
  What we want to know, and what the people of Egypt are asking, if the protection of minorities is one of the fundamental issues, is, What about the protection of the will of the majority? Instead of the will of the majority being considered, the chief consideration seems to be given to the minority. We hope that we shall appeal to the will of the majority and get into negotiation with the majority of the people in Egypt, in order that a peace might be established with them that will stand to our credit and to the credit of Egypt. In regard to the talk about the delicate situation of the Suez, that comes under an international agreement, and we need have no fear about that. That can be surmounted by negotiations with the proper people and not with the people who cannot supply the goods. We hope that when the day comes, they will bring back to Egypt the chosen leader of the Nationalist movement, Zaghloul Pasha, and his colleagues, and establish peace there, and that, at the same time, there will be no martial law or censorship of the Press.
  The Noble Lord said we must have our Army of Occupation there. Of course we must, if we are going to pursue the same senseless and irritating policy that has been pursued in the last three years. One only wonders that there has not been more trouble. Under martial law, on every flimsy pretence, men have been taken from their homes and deported without any charge being made against them. Others have been allowed to languish in prison. That is not calculated to add to the dignity and honour of this country. Their Press has been censored, and they have not been able to put their own point of view either to their people or the world. I hope these things will be put an end to, and that there may be a free election to their own assembly. We stand by the indisputable right of Egypt to govern and control her own destiny.
  2050
  We want to see this Government honour the pledges it made. Instead of their being the chief custodians of those pledges, we have been. The Government have turned their back upon them, but we stand loyally by them, and hope to see them carried out to full fruition, so that Egypt and the countries to which we have made promises will take their place in the progress of civilisation. We know that the Egyptians have been amongst, the most tolerant of all the people we have had under our control. They have given us the least trouble of any people who have come under the control of the British Empire.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They never have.
  Mr. SWAN: They have been protected by us, or supposed to have been protected, and they have given us less trouble than any others we have had within the ambit of our control, either legally or otherwise. In the light of their consistent service to Britain, we should be consistent, and carry out our pledges. They believe in their glorious future, and they have got attributes which will render service to mankind in the days to come, when they have their freedom and opportunities to develop their powers and faculties. They see in their fellahin that they have got minds to develop, manhood to sustain, and the interests of the nation to preserve. We hope that you will assist them, so that they may take their place amongst the chosen of the world, as in days gone by, and it will be to our benefit and the benefit of the whole world if they' get their freedom, and that can only be by giving them full opportunity to negotiate.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I had hoped, when this Debate began, that whatever might be our opinion as to the Government's record in this matter, there would be, at least, unanimity in all parts of this House in wishing God-speed to this present settlement and to the Egyptian Ministry. I can imagine nothing more fatal to any hope for the Egyptian people than that this settlement—this half-settlement, if my hon. Friends opposite prefer it— should be despised and scorned, and that Members of the Parliament of this country should take an attitude rather of members of a particular Egyptian party. My hon. Friends opposite believe —and they are perfectly entitled to hold

  2051
  the belief—that a certain prominent public man in Egypt is, as the hon. Member who spoke last expressed it, the only mandatory of the Egyptian people They are entitled to believe it, but I cannot understand why, if they believe that, they should want a General Election in Egypt at all. If the Egyptian people have so pronounced their opinion already, why should the hon. Member ask for a General Election? I am not controversial, but surely the only possible line that any part of this House can take in this matter is that we recognise no parties in Egypt and do not discriminate between public men in Egypt, but we accept the Government of Egypt for the time being as representing the Egyptian people. If you are going to restore independence to Egypt, as my hon. Friends opposite wish, and as the Government propose, how can you treat Egypt differently from any foreign country, namely, refrain absolutely from any interference in the party affairs of that country, and accept the Government for the time being as representing the people? How can we expect peace in that part of the world if we have hon. Members in this House telling the Egyptian people that they are not entitled to have confidence in the particular Government they have at the present moment, and that they ought to elect another one?
  That is my regret about the course of this Debate, but I think, as a matter of fact, the appearance of opposition by hon. Members opposite in this Debate has only been superficial. I do not think my hon. Friends opposite really wish the idea to go forth that any part of this House wishes to hinder and obstruct the course of the new Government of Egypt which has just come into power. If no section of this House wishes to make their path difficult, we can take no other attitude than that they are the Government of Egypt, who have a great and most difficult task before them. Surely it does not lie in the mouths of any section of this House to make that task more difficult, or to try to undermine the confidence which any section of the Egyptian people may feel. I do not think I need enlarge on any criticism which might be directed against the settlement from the more or less reactionary point of view, as that reactionary point of view has not been put forward in these Debates, and I do not
  2052
  think it needs to be answered otherwise than to point this out. It is very easy to mistake, if I may say so, compendiousness of description with definiteness of status. The status of a Protectorate is a compendious description easily communicated to a foreign power, but the status of a Protectorate includes every shade of State from the absolute Government of East Africa to the relations which have existed between the Government and the Sheikh of Mohammerah or Koweit. There is no definiteness in the word, and I believe His Majesty's Government, from that point of view, have gone a considerable distance in defining by this settlement what are the exact limits of our status, and what are our powers in connection with the settlement.
  I cannot sit down without referring to the other question which is before the House to-day, and that is the record of the Government. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said in Debate the other day that there was very great danger at the present moment of throwing our hats in the air, and huzzahing before we were out of the wood. But I think there is another great danger, and that is the tendency of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to wash their hands in innocence when they speak on these questions, and come before us wearing, as it were, "the white flower of a blameless life," instead of sackcloth and ashes, and so it is in the case of Egypt. We have made innumerable mistakes in the last few years, but the roots of these mistakes lie deep in the policy of the Government over which the right hon. Member for Paisley presided. In the first place, the mistake was made— and I am going to speak not so much about policy as of that important thing administration—the first administrative mistake the Government made about Egypt was the sending there of Sir Henry M'Mahon with no definite and permanent status, but only as a temporary locum tenens for Lord Kitchener, and having thus first weakened his position, they then practically dismissed him, not as the result of any difference in policy, or after proper consideration, but as a result of something which I can only describe as a local and departmental intrigue. Then came the appointment of Sir Reginald Wingate.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: When was M'Mahon dismissed?
  Lord E. PERCY: In 1916, if I remember rightly. The dismissal of Sir Reginald Wingate followed, because he recommended the very things that Lord Allenby advocated as soon as he went out. This Government was responsible for that and so we come to the administrative sins of this Government. They realised it was essential that some effort should be made to come to an agreement with the leaders of Egyptian opinion. They realised, what they so seldom seem to realise, that, after all, diplomacy is part of the machinery of Government, and that you cannot carry on a foreign policy of an Empire unless you do have close consultation with people who may not agree with you. But did they entrust the representation of their interests and the task of consulting with the leaders of Egyptian opinion to their accredited representative in Egypt, Lord Allenby, who was responsible to them? They thought it better to appoint an independent Mission, which was calculated to cut the ground from under Lord Allenby's feet at the very moment of his entering, into office, at the very moment when it was most important that he should have complete and undivided prestige. Having done that, the results might have been extremely bad, much worse than they were, if it had not been for the extreme tact and extreme ability shown by both the Milner Commission and Lord Allenby. But I think the results of the Government's initial mistake were very clearly seen when, after the long negotiations of the Mission, its Report was published before it had been considered by the Government. Without any consultation it was thrown on the world as the Report of an independent mission, as an appeal to British public opinion and Egyptian public opinion to bring some pressure to bear upon His Majesty's Government to take some action. That was done by the Noble Lord who was at that time head of the Mission, by Lord Milner, who was actually a Member of the Government at that time. He apparently found it so difficult to induce the Government to take any action, or to give any guidance, or to work with him in any way, that he was obliged to appeal to-the public in order to get the question considered at all by the Government.
  2054
  After the publication of that Report, the Government delayed from week to week and month to month to come to any decision of what they could or ought to offer to the Egyptian people. Week after week and month after month they were receiving reports from the Residency at Cairo, recommendations too, and they were being urged by their official representative to come to an early decision. May I say this? The Government, I think, have no reason to complain of the manner in which their interests have been represented in Egypt. It is, I think, the unanimous opinion of every responsible English business man or resident that the Residency at Cairo has never been so ably staffed as during the last three years. I believe, whatever opinion may be held as to the policy pursued by the gentlemen who are now advisers to the various Egyptian" Ministries, that it will be generally admitted that the body of advisers has never before included so many men who had intimate knowledge and a close friendly touch with so many sections of Egyptian opinion. The Government did not lack advice or coaching, but they delayed for months before they could even bring themselves up to the statement that they were prepared to agree that a Protectorate was not a convenient or suitable form in which to express the relation between this country and Egypt. It took them many months to work up to that. When they had found that out the Adly Delegation came along and spent much time—on the doorsteps of the Departments.
  The Government, for once in a way, I think, determined to leave the negotiations to the Minister responsible for Egypt, to leave them to Lord Curzon. That is not the usual course. They usually leave foreign affairs to anybody rather than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, preferably to two or three different people if they can. This apparently was not the case here. The Government appear to have believed and have been content to assume that, without giving voice to any very definite policy, without giving the Minister responsible any clear guidance, that probably the minds of the members of the Adly Delegation would be progressively softened by the somewhat portentous blandishments of the Foreign Secretary. The result we all know. It was a deadlock and a failure. That deadlock and failure may have been

  2055
  necessary. I am not prepared to say with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) that agreement could have been come to. I think it is fair to point out that the draft Treaty presented to Adly. Pasha was, with some exceptions, only in substance what had already been agreed to in the Milner Memorandum, with the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed. I shall be prepared to show—but I do not want to weary the House—that there is no provision in the draft Treaty presented to Adly Pasha which does not come under one of the general and vaguely indicated provisions of the Milner Memorandum. I think that can be shown, but the real charge against the Government is that having broken off the negotiations with Adly Pasha, having presented him with a draft Treaty constituting a quite clear and definite offer, they immediately proceeded to muddy the water by an explanatory note which did everything but explain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith points to this as an extraordinary instance of the incapacity of the Foreign Office. Would I be making a very bold guess if I were to ask the Leader of the House or the Under-Secretary whether the authorship of that document should not rather be traced to No. 10, Downing Street? Lastly, Lord Allenby, having gone back, tried to convince His Majesty's Government that certain steps were necessary. We can all read between the lines of the White Paper, and see the interminable delays and cross-purposes which existed between the Government in London and the "Residency in Cairo. Why?
  I have no doubt the Government will say that Lord Allenby did not express himself clearly. Perhaps. But Lord Allenby had been in this country before Christmas. He had had every opportunity of personal consultation. What the Government never seem to realise is that if they ever find themselves at cross purposes with their representatives abroad it means that the organisation of the Foreign Office is administratively incompetent; there ought to be no question of cross purposes. In a well-managed office there is no question of cross purposes. What is the reason? Everyone knows the reason is two fold. First, we have no Department responsible for foreign affairs. Foreign policy at the present day is cooked in a garden suburb, dished up by the Cabinet
  2056
  Secretariat, and served out to a dozen different Departments. The Foreign Office has only got to clean the plates. I know the Foreign Office too well to make any great claims for it. I know its difficulties. I know its deficiencies. I do not say that the Foreign Office should be the Department responsible for the foreign policy of this country. But you must have one executive Department responsible. The garden suburb is not an executive Department. The Cabinet Secretariat is not an executive Department. Every single one of these failures of the Government have been due to the fact that between the two sides of Downing Street there is a great gulf fixed, and however much our representatives abroad may report, recommend, warn, or prophesy, those reports, warnings, recommendations, and prophesies die away into futile echoes in this gulf between the two sides of the street. However much they may report, however frequent may be their reports, be they never so nicely and cunningly filed by the Foreign Office and printed and circulated to the Cabinet, yet when once they get into that Sibylline cavern on the other side the strange wind which blows through its recesses can be relied upon to reduce them to meaningless and disordered heaps of paper in the shortest possible time. I make no great claim for the Foreign Office. I believe it has been weakened— incredibly weakened—and enfeebled by the administration under which it is at the present time, but so long as you have this farrago of different agencies dealing with your foreign affairs so long will you have the succession of errors and delays that you have had in the present case. So long as your only armour of defence is a stately procrastination so long will you make these mistakes. When I think of our foreign policy, and of the administration of that foreign policy, I cannot help being reminded of the description in Homer of the death and burial of Sarpedon. When I see our foreign policy in the hands of the Prime Minister and of the Foreign Secretary I cannot help seeing before my eyes that solemn procession when Sarpedon was carried to his distant burial by Death and Sleep.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): When His Majesty's Government undertook that they would not act upon the declaration of policy in respect to Egypt until this House had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion

  2057
  upon it, when an early discussion was pressed for, I understood it was in order that a serious challenge might be offered to the policy of that declaration. That has certainly not been done to-day. I do not think it has been challenged in the sense we had expected by any hon. Member who has spoken. There has been a good deal of criticism. No doubt it is very good that my colleagues and I should receive this kindly chastisement from our friends. I know we are admonished on very high authority, and very often, to confess our sins. I observe, however, that the Parliamentary reading of that obligation is rather different. The Noble Lord and others confess other people's sins with an effusion and amplitude that would indeed be a Christian virtue if only they were thinking of their own weaknesses and failures. I shall have something to say about that criticism of the foreign policy of the Government a little later. I would like first of all to say a word or two about the speeches which have come from the opposite benches. I was intrigued the other day by a sentence in a letter which my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. Thorne) wrote to the electors in West Wolverhampton. He said between the Liberal Members who sit upon those benches and the Labour party there was very little difference—
  Mr. G. THORNE: May I just explain—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I finish my sentence first—between the Liberal Members who sat upon those benches and the Labour party there was very little difference, but a desperate need to destroy the Coalition. Now I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. THORNE: I am afraid my right hon. Friend has made one of those mistakes that he does sometimes make. I did not say anything of the kind. I never referred to my hon. Friends. I never referred to the Labour party. I wrote a personal letter to the Labour candidate (Mr. Walkden), whom I know personally, and whose views I know, and said that between him and myself there was very little difference as to what was possible and practical in the immediate future.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The new Coalition is breaking up almost before it is formed. The hon. and gallant Member
  2058
  for Leith (Captain Benn) and the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) have both taken part in this Debate, and there is very little difference between them, except that the former hinted at what the latter openly stated. Both of them thought it impertinent for the House of Commons or the Government to consider British interests in regard to a matter such as that which we are now discussing. Both of them were ready to assume that anyone who differed from the British Government or British representatives abroad must necessarily be in the right, and that their own country must equally necessarily be in the wrong. That is an old doctrine intimately associated with an ancient party of which these hon. Members are surviving representatives. That doctrine was never very acceptable to this country, and it is less so now than ever it was before.
  What was the case made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith? He began by a reference to pledges made by the Government and to the Anglo-French declaration. I suppose the hon. and gallant Member has read the Anglo-French declaration, and if so I am unable to understand his reference to it. On the face of it, the references are to countries which are to be completely and definitely freed from the long oppression suffered from the Turk, and it goes on at once to say to what countries it refers. It specifies, in particular, Syria and Iraq, and refers only to the countries which were then being freed, or had then just been freed, from the rule of the Turkish sovereign and Turkish oppression by the success of the British Army. Egypt had long been saved from Turkish aggression, and was defended from Turkish oppression throughout the War by the British Empire, which took upon itself the sole defence of that country. It was explained in the declaration, and stated to the people of Egypt, that the rights of Turkey had lapsed to His Majesty the King, and it further explained in what spirit and with what object he would exercise those rights.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Leith proceeded to try and build up a case to the effect that the policy now pursued by the Government was right, but that it ought to have been, and could have been, pursued with success on three previous occasions but for the unfortunate refusal of His Majesty's Government to receive

  2059
  Zaghloul Pasha as the authorised spokesman and representative of the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian people. The hon. Member behind me spoke with equal enthusiasm and less caution about Zaghloul Pasha, but I think we should always speak well of those whose host we have been. That is the best defence I can give in answer to the hon. Member for Rothwell. I wonder if he has any idea of the record of the one Egyptian whom he picks out for absolute trust and confidence and as the sole representative of the people.
  I will give a brief sketch of this gentleman's activities. Zaghloul gave an early indication of the trend of his mind by participating as a young man in the military revolution in Arabia, for which he suffered imprisonment. Lord Cromer, towards the end of his great career in Egypt—a career in which Egypt was rescued from bankruptcy, and in which it developed the subsequent prosperity which it now enjoys—did his best to give Zaghloul Pasha a real opportunity of serving his country, because he was introduced into the Ministry, and became Minister of Education and Minister of Justice. I may say that he was not a very convenient Cabinet colleague, and finally, as the result of quarrels with his colleagues in the Ministry, he left office, and did his best to prevent the formation of any other Ministry of which he did not form a part. When war broke out, Zaghloul Pasha did not disguise his desire for the success of a Turkish invasion in Egypt. I wonder if the hon. and gallant Member for Leith knows that.
  Captain BENN: All I did was to quote the opinion of the Milner Report, which said that he represented the views of Egypt.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will proceed with the record. Zaghloul changed his mind again, and towards the end of 1917, he was making desperate efforts to secure office in the Ministry of the day, but in that attempt he was unsuccessful. Towards the end of 1918, he initiated the violent campaign which culminated in the serious disturbances of March, 1919, and he was afterwards deported to Malta. After his release, he spared neither pains nor money to encourage every anti-British element in Paris and
  2060
  throughout the world, although his efforts were not crowned with the success attributed to him by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Zaghloul organised and inspired the boycott of Lord Milner's Mission, and it was a public and ostentatious boycott of the Mission, but that did not prevent Lord Milner from receiving all the prominent Egyptians. Zaghloul subsequently realised his failure, and again changed his tactics.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can we have the document from which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted laid on the Table?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to give the hon. and gallant Member my notes.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a document?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is not a document.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then I beg your pardon.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is the information which I have had prepared for my speech to-day, apparently in intelligent anticipation of the kind of case I should have to meet. I was taking up two allegations made by the hon. and gallant Member that we could have settled with Zaghloul Pasha on those terms had we allowed him to come into the Cabinet at the time of the negotiations with the Milner Mission. At that time the Mission refused to see Zaghloul, who was not friendly. He had not disguised his desire to see the Turkish invasion successful, and they advised the Egyptian Government that they should not receive him. At that time both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were just going to Paris. They would be pre-occupied with all the great questions raised at the Peace Conference, and could not hope to give the attention which the Egyptian Minister would deserve if he came to this country.
  On the second occasion, Zaghloul, finding his boycott unsuccessful, thought he would take a hand in negotiations with the Milner Mission. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith says at that time Zaghloul would have accepted such a settlement as that which is now proposed, but Zaghloul refused to sign the

  2061
  agreement which Lord Milner offered to him. I will not go any further into Zaghloul's record, which is a bad one. He continuously exercised intimidation over individuals, as also over the means of the expression of public opinion in Egypt, and I venture to say that a sigh of relief went up from all responsible quarters in Egypt when Lord Allenby ordered his deportation. I have been asked whether Zaghloul will be brought back again. My answer is not so long as he is in any danger to the peace or good order of Egypt, or to the effective protection of essential British interests in that country. If Lord Allenby thinks at any time he might be allowed to return without danger, that is another matter, but we are not going to exercise any sort of pressure on Lord Allenby to bring back a man whose career has been so changeable and so mischievous, whose return at this moment would probably destroy the chances of peace which I think we may entertain with reasonable hope under the Government which the Sultan has now formed, and the prosecution of the policy which His Majesty's Government have declared.
  Captain BENN: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, what becomes of the Government's pledge to abolish martial law, and give the Egyptians the free exercise of all political rights?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the proposition I have just laid down conflicts in any way with the declaration of policy which we have announced through Lord Allenby. My Noble Friend, in dealing with the Milner Mission, blames the Government for the publication of that Report before they had themselves considered and adopted the policy in regard to it. Well, I admit that at once. I and my colleagues have been very sensible of the inconvenience of the publication of these things. Why did we order it? Because all that was contained in that Report practically had been the subject of conversation, because, I think, copies of the Report, or the essential parts of it, were in the possession of a great many people, and of the Egyptian representatives, and because it was quite certain that much, if not all, of it would leak out in Egypt if we did not publish it here. In these circumstances, we
  2062
  decided, as the lesser of two evils, but admittedly an evil, that it was better that the whole document should be published at once.
  May I now call the attention of the House to the fact that all this time the policy which we were pursuing was one for the concluding of a Treaty between Egypt and this country, which would lay the basis for the abolition of the Protectorate and for the independence of the Egyptians in their own land, and at the same time would give us the guarantees that were essential for the discharging of our obligations to Europe, for the protection of British interests in Egypt, and for the security of what are vital communications of the Empire. Our policy was to secure a Treaty, and we were unable to do it. No Egyptian Government—and for this I think Zaghloul's agitation was largely responsible—dared make a Treaty giving us the essential securities. Accordingly, when the negotiations with Adly had broken down, he went back and received Lord Allenby's proposal that we should give up the idea of a Treaty, and that we should proceed by way of a unilateral declaration, a policy which we have ultimately adopted.
  I come to what I regard as the more serious question—the suggestion made, I think, by both my Noble Friends in their very interesting speeches, and certainly directly charged by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. A. Herbert) in a speech that was not only interesting, but entertaining. The hon. Member said that we did not take Lord Allenby's advice. We had our responsibilities, and of course if we had taken his advice, we should have been responsible for acting upon it. What was the difference, or what appeared to be the difference, between us and him? Anyone who will turn to page 32 of the Papers—the despatch from Field Marshal Lord Allenby to the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, dated 12th January, No. 24—will see the proposals which Lord Allenby made. In the early part of the despatch he was endeavouring to remove misconception as to the policy of His Majesty's Government which had taken root in the Egyptian mind. Then he goes on, in paragraphs 9 and 10, to explain the intention of His Majesty's Government—
  "Without wishing in any way to exercise pressure on the free will of Egyptians to adhere to this or that Treaty, His Majesty's Government desires, nevertheless, to clear

  2063
  the way for a régime for mutual understanding which will result, they are confident, in a satisfactory and final solution of the Egyptian problem.
  With this object in view I am happy to be able to announce to Your Highness that His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to British Parliament without waiting for conclusion of a Treaty, abolition of Protectorate and recognition of Egypt as an independent sovereign State."
  He defines the freedom which is to be given in internal administration following the abolition of martial law, as soon as an Act of Indemnity has been passed, and he states in paragraph 13:
  "As soon as this new state of affairs has been established His Majesty's Government will examine in concert with Egyptian Government, and in most friendly spirit, the conclusion of an agreement regarding on following points which will remain for settlement:—(a) Security of the communications of British Empire, (b) Defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, (c) the protection of foreign interests in Egypt and protection of minorities, and (d) the Sudan."
  When His Majesty's Government came to consider that proposal, the objection they felt to it was that we were to abolish the Protectorate, to give up our whole juridical position in Egypt, and only after we had done that, to negotiate with the independent State, which we had created for the protection of our essential interests, and for the discharge of our essential obligations. That was the difference between us and Lord Allenby, as we saw it, when Lord Allenby was at Cairo, and we were over here. We invited him to send over his advisers As the House sees from the document, he thought that was undesirable and inexpedient. We then invited him to come to this country, and discuss the matter with us. I am glad to say that the moment we came together, after we had given him that invitation, all differences were removed. He agreed that it was, essential that those British interests and obligations should be safeguarded as a part of the abolition of the Protectorate, and that they should not be left to the mercy of an agreement to be subsequently made.
  Earl WINTERTON: I would not like my right hon. Friend to think that I associated myself with the attack on the Government for not taking the advice of Lord Allenby. I said it was the duty
  2064
  of the Government to formulate their policy, and then to tell Lord Allenby to carry it out.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I did my Noble Friend an injustice. If the House has followed what I have said, and looked at the Paper, they will see the essential difference between the proposals Lord Allenby sent home to us and the declaration made by us to Egypt, which was as follows:
  "The following principles are hereby declared:

  1. The British Protectorate over Egypt is terminated and Egypt is declared to be an independent soverign State.

  2. So soon as the Government of His Highness shall pass an Act of Indemnity with application to all inhabitants of Egypt, martial law, as proclaimed on the 2nd November, 1914, shall he withdrawn.

  3. The following matters are absolutely reserved to the discretion of His Majesty's Government until such time as it may be possible by free discussion and friendly accommodation on both sides to conclude agreements in regard thereto between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt."

  The questions which are reserved are then repeated, and the document concludes:
  "Pending the conclusion of such agreements, the status quo in all these matters shall remain intact."
  I am happy to think that the moment we got face to face with Lord Allenby, our differences, or apparent differences, disappeared, because, as I say, he saw at once that we could not alter the status quo in respect of those matters until we had definite security that we should in future be able to protect our interests and fulfil our obligations. My Noble Friend who spoke last—I think I am right in attributing it to him—said there ought to be no misunderstanding, and that if there were a misunderstanding, it showed that our machinery had broken down. Did my Noble Friend never send a telegram? When your communication is by means of telegram over hundreds and thousands of miles, it is difficult to make your meaning clearly understood in complicated matters to the man at the other end, who, when he receives the telegram, is not perhaps in the same mind as yourself, and does not read it in the light of the same considerations. No perfection of machinery will save us from incidents of that kind,

  2065
  any more than we are able to prevent it in our own telegraphic correspondence. I am sure my Noble Friend, when he has experienced what seems to be incomparable stupidity in his correspondent, has found that his message has been misinterpreted when he has not been met at the train by which he is coming. But these misunderstandings are easily removed when we come face to face.
  Is there any man in this House who thinks we were wrong to insist, as Lord Allenby agreed when he came to see us we ought to insist, that the status quo in respect of these matters should remain until an agreement has been come to in regard to the other matters before the Protectorate was abolished and their independent State declared? No one sitting on this side of the House would challenge that doctrine, I am sure. That is left to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said we think too much of British interests. But Egypt owes a good deal to British interests. Egypt would not be in a position to enjoy an independent existence to-day if it were not that Great Britain had rescued her from disaster, and protected her from all other interference. Unless we preserve that measure of protection, she would not long enjoy the independence which we are prepared to give; she would not long enjoy it, because it is only the guarantee we give by these reservations for the safety and security of the foreign communities in Egypt, and our express determination to allow no interference by any other country except our own, which protects Egypt to-day, and will protect her to-morrow from intervention by some other country. It is not only British interests in Egypt, it is not only the foreign communities—all of whom and especially the British, Zaghloul declared his desire to expel—it is not merely that.
  This question, as the Noble Lord reminded us, is of vital concern to our Pacific Dominions. Communication through the Suez Canal, communication through Egypt is a sine quâ non, having regard to the way in which communications have developed the cohesion and strength of the British Empire. This is one of the subjects which, when the Dominion Ministers were last over here, they discussed with His Majesty's Ministers at home in the Imperial Conference as being
  2066
  a matter of common concern to the Empire, in order that we might be fully possessed of their views as to the necessity for maintaining their security in this respect, and that we might give them the assurances which were vital to their own safety and their own prosperity. I am glad that now this declaration of policy has been before the House for many weeks, and has come under discussion on the Moor of the House, there has been no serious challenge to the policy embodied in it, and I hope His Majesty's Government may take it that the House approves of that policy and authorises the Government to pursue it.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Leader of the House opened his remarks by pointing to the strange co-operation between hon. Members behind me on this side of the House, inspired by a desire to get rid of the Coalition Government. I can hardly think of any subject which would be more likely to inspire, not only hon. Members on this side, but hon. Members in all parts of the House, with a desire to get rid of the Coalition Government than this subject of Egypt, for if there has ever been a question upon which any Government has been more inconsistent or has muddled worse, I should like to know what it can be. Three times have they had peace within their grasp. Three times have they turned down the man on the spot. Three times have they had to climb down after taking up an intransigeant position. On the first occasion Rushdi Pasha and Sir Reginald Wingate, after the Armistice in 1918, had come to terms, and they approached this Government, which would not allow Rushdi Pasha to come to England. They told him and Adly Pasha that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was too busy to receive them. When they asked for Zaghloul Pasha to come with them, Zaghloul's presence was refused under any circumstances, and he was deported to Malta. That was the first chance thrown away by the right hon. Gentleman's Government through ignorance, pure ignorance. They did not know what Sir Reginald Wingate's plan was. They had different views as to the future of Egypt and they turned down the first chance of a settlement. The next chance came when Lord Milner, after having been boycotted in Egypt, finally came to

  2067
  terms with Zaghloul. The scheme was published apparently without Cabinet approval.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not true.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: It leaked out without the Cabinet approval.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not so. The decision which was published was a Cabinet decision.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The decision published in full was come to three or four months after the scheme leaked out in the "Daily Mail" and in other quarters. There again was an opportunity for peace. Lord Milner, who had had experience in Egypt as an administrator, as well as a pacificator, came to terms with this villain of the piece, whose character we have had placed before us by the right hon. Gentleman. They came together, and again there was a chance of settlement. The right hon. Gentleman says that Zaghloul would not sign. Of course he would not. He asked to have it remitted to Egypt with his recommendation so that the Egyptians could consider it. It is a cheap way of getting out of the obvious facts of the case. Undoubtedly a settlement might at that time have been arrived at, but again the Foreign Office turned it down. However, after that, Lord Milner, who was not exactly dismissed, retired. Again the strong iron hand in the furry glove was held out to Egypt, and again the Egyptian people, by a curious solidarity, inspired merely by the wonderful intriguing capacity of Zaghloul Pasha, turned it down and persuaded the Foreign Office that another attempt would have to be made at a settlement so that they might carry on. The third attempt came, and it was accompanied by that extraordinary letter which the Noble Lord thinks was indited at 10, Downing Street. It would be interesting to know whether that lecture, delivered to the Egyptian people three months ago, did come from the Foreign Office, or from 10, Downing Street, or from the Colonial Office. At any rate, it made things no easier in Egypt, It made the conditions for real British interests in Egypt no simpler than they were before. Then having nothing to suggest as to Egypt, the right hon. Gentleman turned upon my colleagues who went out to Egypt in order
  2068
  to see the country for themselves. There is no satisfying some people. We are told first by hon. Members opposite that the Labour party consists of a lot of second-rate ignoramuses who do not know anything, and then when they seize the opportunity of making themselves personally acquainted with the facts they are told that they are corrupt.
  Mr. STANTON: What could they learn in three weeks by a visit to Egypt, when none of them could speak the language?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: How many Members of this House speak the Egyptian language? I believe no one on the benches opposite can speak it, least of all the Colonial Secretary, who is always so anxious to hurl his jibes of ignorance at the heads of members of the Labour party.
  Mr. STANTON: If you are an ornament of the Labour party, God help that party.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope He will. The real point of the speech to which we have just listened has been that we in this House have to consider British interests first, and not Egyptian interests. I entirely agree. If I were not to look after British interests, I should not want a seat in the British House of Commons. What we differ about, and the only point on which we differ, is what are British interests. British interests, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying, are connected with our control over the Suez Canal. There is no doubt about that. But there is no suggestion from this side of the House to put an end to that vital interest. Our interests are directly wrapped up in the maintenance of the independence of Egypt from all other Powers as well as from ourselves. The real independence of Egypt is of importance to Britain, because if any other Power occupied it it would be in a position to threaten that artery of the Empire. There is no difference on that point. We want Egypt to be independent not only of us but of every European Power. That condition is accepted. There is a British interest in Egypt far more important even than the Suez Canal. It is the interest of our own good name. There is the interest of peace, no, not peace, but of something more than peace—of friendship. Our good name is involved in this. I do not like to

  2069
  amplify it. It is an unpleasant subject, but over and over again right hon. Members on that bench, for the last 40 years, have got up and pledged this country to evacuate Egypt. There never has been such a series of declarations on any one point as on that subject, and for the sake of argument it would be as well if we did what we said we were doing and settled this question in accordance with our honour. It is quite certain if we settle this question in accordance with our honour we shall be settling it also in accordance with our interest.
  Our interest is the friendship of the Egyptian people. It is quite true that we have done well by Egypt during the last 40 years, and indeed it would have been strange if it had not been so, bearing in mind the series of great pro-Consuls we have had in Egypt. A man like Lord Cromer does not live in vain. He and other administrators, not only those who are dead and gone, but some who are there at present. My friend Maurice Amos, Sir Reginald Wingate, the great engineers who have built the barrages, the great financiers who finally rescued that country from bankruptcy, all these Englishmen have done great work in Egypt. One could almost wish that the Egyptians were more grateful, but you must not expect too much from uneducated people. How are the fellahin to know what we have done? Surely our reward is the appreciation of the people in this country and not the appreciation of the people in Egypt. We appreciate Lord Cromer, and we appreciate the services of those great civil servants. We show our appreciation when we allude to all the things England has done for Egypt, the barrages, the administration, and the legislation. But let us remember it has not been only for the benefit of Egypt that that work has been done. Our finance has done well in Egypt. Our bondholders have done well.
  Mr. J. JONES: And they have done us well.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: British industry, British trade, and British commerce have benefited as well as Egypt. All that has helped Egypt has helped us. There could not have been a better example of the mutuality of benefit which comes from a good administration. If that benefit is to continue, then I do beg hon. Members to think twice before they
  2070
  put any more obstacles in the way of this co-operation between England and Egypt, which can only act when we give them the same sort of free hand as we have given to Michael Collins. You have there a problem very similar to that of Ireland, though fortunately it is not so bad in many ways. The same obstacles can be put in the way by Members of this House. I beg hon. and right hon. Members not to put any more obstacles in the way of a friendly settlement in Egypt. It is possible that such a settlement can be effected at present, but if Members like the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite use their position in this House to retail at length all their objections to a man like Said Pasha Zaghloul, they make the problem of a settlement far more difficult. I read into the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day the possibility that Zaghloul would return, and I hope that he may return, because I do not think you can get any really fair election, or any satisfactory settlement which will be accepted by the people of Egypt, unless Zaghloul is back. I do not believe for a moment that Zaghloul has that hold upon the propertied classes in Egypt that he has upon the agricultural classes—the fellahin; and I am not at all certain that, if he came back, the Constituent Assembly which would be formed would be entirely Zaghloulist in character. I am certain, however, that if he is not allowed to come back, and the elections to that Constituent Assembly are a fake in consequence, or are not obviously honest and aboveboard, while you will get peace, possibly, with a certain element in the Egyptian people, you will not get that really friendly settlement which is essential to the real success of the future of the Empire. We do not merely want to get out of this job in the best way possible; we want to get out of it on lines which will be a credit to Egypt and to ourselves, putting an end to 40 years of alien government—
  Mr. PERRING: Good government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: There are many people who would prefer to have bad government rather than alien government. If you are going to do that, you must have a settlement which will be obviously accepted. That depends upon a free election, and that, in turn, depends, to my

  2071
  mind, upon a preliminary recall of Zaghloul, so that he may be a consenting party to the Constituent Assembly which is to draw up terms of peace. It seems to me that the last settlement was only spoilt because it was ultimately decided that the British troops should remain in Egypt, instead of on the Suez Canal. To my mind, the protection of European interests in Egypt would be looked after just as well if the troops were at Suez and Kantara and Port Said, as if they were in Alexandria and Cairo. The threat of an armed force outside is likely to have a greater specific effect than the presence of these little packets of troops tucked away in all sorts of little towns all over Egypt. What we want is an avoidance of the risk of dispute, and an effective force to deal with anything that may actually happen. That you would get far better if the troops were on the Suez Canal. Indeed, I think it is worth considering whether it would not be possible even to have the troops on the Eastern bank of the Canal instead of on the Western bank, provided that the Palestine-Egyptian frontier were shifted from the Akaba line up to the Suez Canal. That shift in the frontier would put us on the Suez Canal, in a position where we could adequately protect that Canal, with a base in the mandated country of Palestine, where we should be permanently on the spot to protect the Canal and look after our interests.
  Colonel Sir C. YATE: How could you provide them with water?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: By a freshwater canal just alongside. There are military considerations, no doubt, as to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman can speak with authority, but we must remember that those considerations can now be met by wonderful engineering ability and development much more easily than they could 50 years ago when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was soldiering. I have explained, I hope adequately, why I think it is undesirable that right hon. Gentlemen opposite should make these violent attacks upon Zaghloul, and why I think it is undesirable that the Coalition Government should continue in power to carry on their Egyptian policy. I can only hope that, before this Debate comes to an end, we may have some hint from some member of the Government as
  2072
  to what actually is going to be the policy of the Government in connection with Egypt. They have at present put before the Egyptian people an ultimatum. They have got a Government formed by Sarwat Pasha with whom they can negotiate. What do they propose to do? At the present moment there seems to be no coming together of the two sides whatever, and if things are left to go on as they are there is no settlement. What do the Government propose to do? On which side of the fence are they going finally to come down, and what is going to be the solution of the Egyptian problem? It is doubtful up to now, but I hope that some other member of the Government will explain to us, before this Debate comes to an end, what is to happen in the future.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is to be thanked by us all for his very clear statement of the intentions of the Government with regard to this question. The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has found great difficulty in regard to interpreting it, and has told the Government that their only way of salvation is to listen to the advice and seek the co-operation of the one man whose career has clearly marked him out as an enemy of his own country—Zaghloul Pasha. After the long and elaborate statement which has been made with regard to the policy in Egypt, I am not going to detain the House for more than two or three minutes, but I wish to call distinct attention to what I think has been a wrong done by the Foreign Office to one of their own supporters. Various of my hon. and right hon. Friends have referred to the action of the Government with regard to Sir Reginald Wingate, but they have not pressed that matter as I hoped it would have been pressed, and as I shall venture to press it. Sir Reginald Wingate is a very old friend of mine. I have known him for five-and-twenty years, and have visited him in Khartum and seen his work both there and in Egypt. It is well, however, that I should say that not only has Sir Reginald Wingate not communicated with me in any way with regard to this matter, but that, even when I applied to him for some information, he refused to give it. That is a standard of action which has long characterised civil servants of the older type. I think Sir Reginald

  2073
  Wingate was right in acting in that way, but I cannot help looking at the plain facts as they are stated in the Blue Books and in the correspondence, and I would ask the attention of the Leader of the House for a moment when I beg him to consider, jointly with the Foreign Secretary, whether the Government and the Foreign Office do not owe some reparation to Sir Reginald Wingate. He has been for five and twenty years in Egypt, and I never saw, many as they are that I have seen of great administrators, one who, under the most difficult conditions, threw himself more heartily into the work of governing the Sudan. He was not only acquainted with the language and habits of the people, but he made himself their friend and intimate. When the first difficulties arose, Sir Reginald Wingate gave his advice. The exact nature of that advice we do not, of course, know, but it was advice to the effect that a certain form of independent government should be set up in Egypt, which did not go so far as the Government have now gone. That advice was not acted upon. After it had been pressed once or twice, Sir Reginald Wingate was summoned home, and I know—not from him, but from those connected with him—that when he did come home to give advice, he was not admitted to the presence of any representative of the Foreign Office for a fortnight after his arrival. I ask the House, is that proper treatment for a known and well-tried servant of the State?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it wise?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it wise, is it honourable, is it fair, that his advice should not be listened to, that he should be passed over in every way, and that another should be sent to take his place? He was told that he still held his office—that he was not superseded, but was only brought home to be an adviser. We want to know what his advice was. We can trace it through Lord Milner's Report. Lord Milner says that that advice, whatever it was—we are not permitted to see what it was—was excellent, and that it would have been well if it had been followed. And what is the blame that Lord Milner fixes upon Sir Reginald Wingate? It is that he did not with sufficient persistence press his own advice upon the Government. Is that fair criticism of a servant of the State? How
  2074
  is he to press his advice against a Government which will not listen to him, which will not even publish that advice after the whole thing is done? Is the present Foreign Secretary exactly the sort of man who is so easily to be pressed out of his own views, out of consideration for any servant of the State? I am sorry that I did not get an opportunity of intervening before the Leader of the House had risen, because I desired in this brief manner to press upon his attention, and, through him, upon the attention of the Government and of the Foreign Secretary, the fact that they have left, unfairly, as I think, and without due regard, an old and well-tried servant and soldier of the Empire absolutely out of work, at the prime of his strength, and that they refuse now to give him the fair concession of issuing as a Parliamentary Paper that advice which he gave, which we have not yet been allowed to see, but which the Milner Mission endorsed, saying that he was only to blame for not having urged it with greater persistency. I do not think that that is the sort of thing that increases the confidence of the servants of the Empire in His Majesty's Government, and I should have liked to be able to press it upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and to get from him some explanation, if there be any, of what I cannot but think is ill-treatment of one who has served the Empire well in its distant parts and under difficult conditions.
  Major BARNES: The Leader of the House was rather happy over a discovery that he made. He found out that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) were both supporting an old Liberal doctrine. That gave him great joy. If I remember that doctrine, it is that every nation in its own country has rights which the interests of another nation should not be allowed to override. If the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that, I do not know what was the point of his criticism. I understand that he detected a disposition in both my hon. Friends to think that Egypt had rights which were greater than British interests. That is simply an application of the general doctrine to which he referred. He said that doctrine had never met with much acceptance in this country. I think he does his countrymen injustice.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman entirely fails to understand. He is arguing on the assumption that I said something which I did not say.
  Major BARNES: I am in the recollection of the House as to what was said. If the right hon. Gentleman says that is not what he meant, I wonder what it was he did mean. The statement which was put forward by the two hon. Members was surely that there were rights which the Egyptians had which should not be overriden by British interests. That, I should have thought, was a statement to which the right hon. Gentleman would have given assent. It is a statement to which the whole country gave overwhelming assent when it was applied to another country. It was because the people of this country were penetrated by the conviction that the rights of one nation are not to be subordinated to the ideas of another that they rallied as they did in 1914 and later to take their part in the great War. The right hon. Gentleman passed from that to make an attack upon the Egyptian leader known as Zaghloul Pasha, and he taunted the hon. Member for Rothwell with supporting that gentleman because he had been his host and suggested that it was only because he was under obligations to his host that he made the speech he did to-day. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if there are obligations to one's host there are also obligations to one's guest, and it appears to me that after having received Zaghloul Pasha in this country, and after the close relationship that existed between him and a very prominent Member of the Cabinet to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, to say the least of it, the attack he has conducted upon Zaghloul Pasha is not in the best of taste. He began with references to the youth of Zaghloul Pasha. What happened then? We were told that in his youth he was concerned in the rebellion of Arabi Pasha. The right hon. Gentleman in his youth was a Liberal, but who would cast that up against him nowadays? Then he told us Zaghloul Pasha was a Turcophile—that he loved the Turks—and that was repeated again and again. He asked my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith, "Did you know that?" My hon. and gallant Friend has not the access to the archives of the
  2076
  Foreign Office which is possessed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he might be excused if he did not know it.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It was notorious during the War.
  Major BARNES: My hon. Friend helps me with my point. I was going to suggest that a more appropriate person to whom the question might be addressed would be Lord Milner, who might have been asked did he know that. Did the right hon. Gentleman know it when Zaghloul Pasha was allowed to come to this country and enter into the very close negotiations that took place?
  I think this Debate has ranged rather outside the scope of the declaration which has been made by the Government, so far as it goes. We all want a settlement in Egypt, whatever side of the House we sit on, and on that we are on common ground with His Majesty's Government, and if they have come to that rather late, better late than never. The real question is to consider whether they are promoting a situation in Egypt now which is going to lead to the settlement which they themselves desire or whether the action that they are taking is not calculated to defeat their own enterprise. That is really the point to which I think this discussion narrows itself and to which I desire to confine it. The Noble Lord very much deprecated the adhesion of Englishmen to any party in Egyptian politics. We are at one on that point, and I notice that to what he said the Leader of the House gave a profound "hear, hear." So that we all agree on the theory. All we differ in is the practice. The idea the Noble Lord has of not discriminating in Egyptian politics, an idea which is shared by the Leader of the House, is this. Non-discrimination in Egyptian politics means to them coming into Egypt, seizing the leader of certainly the largest party in Egyptian politics and deporting him.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I was speaking of recognising the Government for the time being as representing the people of Egypt. I was not talking about the question of deportation at all. Whether Zaghloul Pasha is or is not the leader of the Egyptian people and the question of deportation we may all discuss with perfect propriety, and it should be discussed, but it has nothing to do with the claim made that he leads the Egyptian people.
  Major BARNES: I am quite in agreement with the Noble Lord that the point as to whether this Egyptian leader represents a large or a small number of his countrymen is not the same point as discrimination in Egyptian politics. My point is the point of discrimination in Egyptian politics. I agree that it is not for Englishmen to take sides in the internal politics of Egypt, and it is precisely because the Government has done this, and because they have the support of the Noble Lord, that I differ from him.
  Lord E. PERCY: I did not say whether I agreed with the deportation or not.
  Major BARNES: What the Noble Lord did was to put before the House what he desired the House to take as a picture of the political situation in Egypt. He spoke of the Government there. He said we should give it our support. He spoke of it as a Government which had come into power. When the Noble Lord used the words "come into power," and used them in this House, he must have known perfectly well that the impression he would give was that the Government had come into power in the way Governments come into power here, as the expression of the will and the desire of the people they govern. If that is not so, it seems to mo that his whole argument goes. The only claim that any Government can have, surely, upon the support of its own people and people outside is that it expresses to some extent their will and their desire. That is a fantastic picture of the situation in Egypt, and it appears to me that, that being so, the mere existence of such a Government and the conclusion of the Treaty with a Government which does not represent the will and desire of the Egyptian people, is not the way to get the settlement we want to see.
  What we are concerned to press from this side of the House is that there shall be in Egypt what Lord Allenby desires there should be there, and what the Government has apparently desired should be there. I do not wish to go outside the scope of this correspondence. On 12th January Lord Allenby sent to Lord Curzon the draft of a letter which he proposed to send to the Sultan. These are the words of paragraph 11 of this letter:
  2078
  "As regards the internal administration of Egypt His Majesty's Government will view with favour the creation of a Parliament with the right to control the policy and administration of a constitutionally responsible Government."
  That is what Lord Allenby wants to see in Egypt and what we all want to see there, I gather—a Parliament with a constitutionally responsible Government. When the draft came to be approved, those words were slightly altered. In the letter which was actually sent to the Sultan they read as follows:
  "The creation of a Parliament with a right to control the policy and administration of a constitutionally responsible Government is a matter for your Highness and the Egyptian people to determine."
  The Government thought there was too much colour in Lord Allenby's phrase. They were not willing to put in the words "will view with favour." The Government was to be absolutely neutral, with no bias in the matter. That, I take it, is the wish of the Noble Lord, and it is my wish too, but it is a curious way of showing neutrality. It is a curious way of exhibiting your want of bias and a curious way of securing the election of such a Parliament as Lord Allenby wants, and as is set out here by the Government, to go into the country and to take the leader of one of the great political parties, deport him, and deport with him his principal associates, shut off his newspapers, and prohibit public meetings. That seems to be the most extraordinary way of showing their neutrality and want of bias in politics that could be conceived of. But that is a course which the Government has taken, and that, I think, places those of us who desire a settlement in Egypt—and we all do that—in a very great quandary as to what the Government's intentions are. Let me quote one expression used by the Government in this matter in the same letter from Lord Allenby to Lord Ourzon—paragraph 9. It is struck out of the letter actually sent. Lord Allenby's words were these:
  "Without wishing in any way to exercise pressure on the free will of Egyptians to adhere to this or that Treaty, His Majesty's Government desire nevertheless—"
  8.0 P.M.
  Clearly, Lord Allenby's intention was to leave the Egyptians free. How you are going to avoid exercising pressure on the free will of Egyptians if at the same time you send them notice to retire to their homes, to consider themselves under police supervision, and to refrain from taking part in public meetings, and if at the

  2079
  same time you prevent them writing to the Press, and take every possible means you can devise to prevent them communicating with each other—how you can maintain that attitude and at the same time get anyone to believe that you want to refrain from exercising pressure on their free will, I do not understand. What we have got out of the Debate—and it is not very helpful to the situation in Egypt—is a declaration by the Leader of the House that Lord Allenby is responsible for the exclusion of Zaghloul Pasha from participation in Egyptian affairs. The picture we had from the Noble Lord was that of the Government in power. Is the situation this: that the Egyptian Government is now free to allow Zaghloul Pasha and his associates to return to Egypt, and that it is free to remove the restrictions upon the Press and the public meetings which have been imposed by Lord Allenby? That is an important matter, upon which we desire information. Let us have the situation cleared up. The position in Egypt is that vast numbers of Egyptians believe that the action taken in the deportation of Zaghloul Pasha, an action which they greatly resent, was at the behest and under the authority of the people of this country. Englishmen are blamed for it. If that is not the policy of Englishmen and if it is the policy of the Egyptian Government, let the facts be known, and let the Egyptian Government bear its own responsibility. At the present time the position as left by the Leader of the House is that it is the responsibility of this Government, because when the Prime Minister told us recently that the responsibility was Lord Allenby's we were without this White Paper, from which we see that Lord Allenby before he deported Zaghloul Pasha, had sent home and obtained confirmation and authority for doing so. Therefore, that brings the responsibility right home to His Majesty's Government. If the settlement which we all desire to see is to be made enduring, it can only be made enduring with a Government that represents the Egyptian people. It is impossible to get such a Government unless you allow free expression of opinion in Egypt, and it is impossible to get that free expression of opinion so long as you exclude from that country one of the
  2080
  greatest exponents of Egyptian public opinion. Therefore, a preliminary to an Egyptian settlement is the release of this man and his associates.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) that the Government will consider the very great claims of Sir Reginald Wingate to a far ampler recognition by the State of the great services he has rendered not only in the Sudan but also in Egypt. I had the good fortune and the honour to serve under Sir Reginald Wingate for some months, and I know very well the magical influence which he exercised over that enormous area in the Sudan where at one time our influence had been reduced to a minimum, and where the British name enjoyed no such prestige and prosperity as that which it has since enjoyed as a result of the work of Sir Reginald Wingate. Had his advice been followed at the end of 1918, we should have arrived at a settlement of the Egyptian question years ago. Moreover, instead of paying the high price which we are now paying for peace in Egypt we should probably have escaped with a far more nominal recognition of Egyptian independence than we are now obliged to accept by this agreement. I hope the Government will do more than they have done hitherto to recognise Sir Reginald Wingate's great services to the Empire and to the East, and to make up for the extraordinary neglect displayed by the Foreign Secretary towards his claims at that particular time.
  I have no intention to adopt the course adopted by certain hon. Members of making charges and gibes against the Government, because we are all in agreement that the declaration of the Government's policy, if not an ideal solution of the Egyptian question, is the best possible in difficult circumstances. In dealing with the question of Egypt it is no good acting upon first principles and talking in abstract terms about self-determination and about the will of the people. That is not the way in which this problem can be solved. We have to look at the practical facts of the case, and if we do so everybody must realise that what we have to ask is, what is the interest of the Empire in this question, what is the interest of England, and what is the interest of Egypt? Do not let us adopt

  2081
  the far too prevalent folly of speaking in terms of first principles and of abstract metaphysics in regard to what are concrete political problems. The term "self-determination" is one of the flowers of war time rhetoric which were adopted at that time as a solvent for the Central Powers in Europe. It was thought a good way to undercut the unity of Germany and the unity of the Austrian Empire. To say that self-determination is a principle for all races and all conditions and all times is a political absurdity. If you look round the world at the present time, especially if you look at the conditions of Eastern Europe, you will see the pass to which the idea of self-determination has reduced Europe, and the sooner we get rid of the idea that that is any principle of conduct for a great nation or a great empire the better.
  The only foundation on which the principle of nationality can properly live is the appreciation by the inhabitants of a particular country of a common history in the past, a common interest in the present, and common aspirations for the future. If you look at the fellahin in Egypt, who constitute 90 per cent. of the population, and you understand the way in which they live, you will know that they are simply concerned with the practical facts of the hour, that they know nothing about their history in the past, that they have not the mentality to form a judgment on present facts, and that they have no aspirations for the future. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) has described himself as belonging to the same class as the fellahin. That is a very vague and misleading proposition to make. Certainly intellectually he does not belong to the same class. Low and primitive as the mentality of the Labour party may be, it is infinitely ahead of the mentality of the fellahin in Egypt. It is absolutely impossible for the fellahin to form even such judgments as the members of the Labour party are able to form about the conditions under which they live.
  When the hon. Member went on to say that the monuments of British rule in Egypt had been tyranny and misgovernment, it seemed to me that his three weeks in that country had been very ill-spent. The government by the ruling classes among the Egyptians in past times' has meant misrule and misgovernment. Before
  2082
  the British occupation there was forced labour in Egypt, such as is now prevalent in Russia. There was flogging galore in every village in Egypt, and the very people whose acts during the War aroused most of the irritation against British rule, namely, the people who forced the wrong men into the Egyptian Labour Corps and exacted contributions, against the will of the people, towards the Bed Cross funds, were the natives themselves. They were not the English people. Anybody who knows anything about Egypt knows perfectly well that British rule—and this has been admitted by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—has meant far more justice than the people have ever previously experienced, infinitely better government than ever they had, far less extortion, and far less oppression, while at the same time it has brought with it the enormous benefits of irrigation works, railways, a fair system of taxation, and decent administration in the Courts. Hon. Members have spoken as if before 1882 the Egyptians governed themselves.
  Mr. SWAN: I said that the National movement recognised all these inequalities, and that we took sides against the National movement headed by Arabi Pasha.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: He was a member of the Nationalist group among the Egyptians; he represented that military caste which was exercising this oppressive ascendency over the natives of Egypt. Several hon. Members have had the very great advantage of a recent visit to Egypt, and hon. Members read with the greatest interest the account of the reception they got on their arrival at Alexandria and other centres. It must have been very pleasant to receive the plaudits of all the Egyptian ladies, to have flowers thrown upon them, and to receive the acclamations of the crowds. It was that warm welcome that they received which has caused in their minds what we might call their "pathetic contentment" with the Nationalist principles in Egypt. To understand the problem in Egypt they must know the past history of Egypt. It is no use beginning that history with their three weeks' tour. They must bear in mind the fact that Egypt never has governed itself. It has been governed by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans,

  2083
  and by the Turks. When hon. Members bear these facts in mind they will realise that the fellahin, instead of being a people rightly struggling to be free, have no idea of politics, and that all that they are concerned about is freedom from oppression, freedom from oppressive taxes, and the right to pursue their livelihood in peace. That is what British rule has guaranteed to them.
  What are the guarantees which are essential in the interests of the Empire and of Egypt if this solution is going to be a feasible one? We are on common ground with regard to the question of the Suez Canal. There is an old dictum of Napoleon, in which he said, "Egypt, once in the possession of the French, farewell India to the British." Our ascendency in Egypt and the Pacific depends upon our hold over Egypt more to-day than it did at the beginning of the 19th century. We have other interests to guarantee as well as our Imperial and naval interests in Egypt. There is the vital question of trade. It is to the interest of Egypt to preserve the prosperity of its trade. All the cotton growing which we have fostered there is not merely the selfish Lancashire interest which has so often been made a taunt against Lancashire Members, but is a very important interest to the Egyptians themselves. The fellahin, with whom so many Members have expressed sympathy, live, many of them, by the cultivation of cotton crops, and it is very important that the commercial relations between Western Europe, particularly this country, and Egypt should be maintained. You cannot maintain this communication, and you cannot maintain that happy and prosperous interchange of commodities unless you have the assurance of safety to the persons who are engaged in those industries, and to the population altogether.
  We have heard the arguments that with British troops in the Sinai Peninsula, the European populations in Alexandria, Cairo, and other cities would be perfectly safe. The House knows how, like a sudden flame, an outburst of religious or political fanaticism is aroused in a moment in cities of this type, and it would be a fatal thing for the European population and for trade if at such a moment, the British Army were as far away as the Sinai Peninsula. I hope that the Gov-
  2084
  ernment will not dream of withdrawing the protection of British troops from the European population and the important trade of these great cities. I hope that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs can give us some certain assurance with regard to the administration of justice in Egypt before it becomes a self-governing country. It is common knowledge all over Europe that the Courts of Egypt in the past have been exceedingly dilatory. The system of procedure was ancient, and totally unfit for modern usages. The Courts were not infrequently corrupt and the whole system of the capitulations was completely out of date. Those concerned with securing the future of Egypt have been most hopeful that the whole of this cumbrous system of Law Courts would be swept away. I would like to think that such progress as has been made is not going to be ended by Egypt getting self-government, and something should be done to place the Courts of Egypt in some nearer relationship to the needs of such a great industrial community as the modern Egyptians are.
  Then with regard to the Sudan, it has been suggested by a great many critics of the Government, not only here but in the Press and on the platform during the last few months, that the Sudan should be handed over to Egypt. The issue is left open to negotiations between Britain and Egypt, and, apparently, it is a matter to be settled in the near future. I trust that the Government, before deciding the question, will consider what Britain has done to the Sudan, how the Sudan is progressing now and how vital it is to the Sudan now, in the interests not only of trade and of the cotton industry but in the interests of the people of the Sudan, that the country should be preserved from Government by an alien race, like the Egyptians, and should retain the enormous benefits of British rule. When we come to think of it, as recently as 1898, the Sudan was a howling wilderness, without any trade or prosperity, where slavers carried away the masses of the population in droves. It had lapsed into the utmost barbarism, and within 23 or 24 years, the whole face of the Sudan has been changed and it is now a flourishing country. You have these wonderful public works; you have the great cotton-growing areas; you have a good system of education; you see the

  2085
  little black boys going in the morning to the Gordon College in Khartum, with their books under their arm, as if they were going to elementary schools in England. You have disease practically banished from Khartum, and this is not owing to the bloated militarism of England, of which we hear so much from people who know nothing about the way in which our Empire is governed. I do not suppose there are 200 men in the whole Sudan Civil Service; there are certainly not a 1,000 British troops in the whole Sudan, and there are 4,000,000 people. Yet you have this wonderful change in the whole way of living, in the customs, habits and industry of the country. Are we, in order to gratify a mere abstraction, like the doctrine of self-determination, to deprive this great country, this progressive community, of the enormous benefits received from an extension to them of the security of the British Empire after the Battle of Omdurman? It is a significant thing that, immediately after that battle, thousands of men who had been fighting against Lord Kitchener, came over and wished to join the invading force, and to become loyal subjects under British rule. It would be a scandalous thing, not only in our interests, but in the interests of the Sudan, if the idealogues, the people who believe in phrases and catchwords and maxims, such as those of which we have heard so many this evening, should drag our country into the ignominy of handing back the Sudan to the bondage under which it lay before the British sovereignty was there established. I ask the House to remember a remarkable phrase of General Gordon, that the British Empire has been built up by its soldiers and sailors, and may be ruined by its politicians. Let us not in the year 1922 incur that undying reproach.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The House has listened with great interest, and on this side with the greatest sympathy, to every word which has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, and particularly to what he said about the Sudan, which it is most necessary to say at this time. I do hope that the Government will not leave us in doubt as to what is their policy in regard to that great country. I do not think that there is much fear, that if you hand over
  2086
  the Sudan to Egypt that a single Egyptian would live long in the Sudan. I am sure that even unaided, the Sudanese would kick them out in pretty quick time. The Sudanese have a poor opinion of the Egyptians militarily. They were with Lord Kitchener when he advanced, but they could not have advanced without the help of the British. There was one other very true remark made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is what he said with reference to Sir Reginald Wingate. I believe that ever since the Government in Egypt got rid of Sir Henry M'Mahon so mysteriously and suddenly in 1916—a Government under the premiership of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley—until recently nothing has served to unsettle Egypt more than the feeling of uncertainty which the representatives of this country have had as to whether they were or were not to be supported by the Government at home. This has had a most unsettling effect upon the Egyptians. They have come in contact with Press reports. Everyone in Egypt knows more or less what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to their representative in Egypt, and, rightly or wrongly, they have formed the impression continuously in Egypt that those representatives have not had the full support of the Government at home. I think it most unfortunate that such a series of resignations, as they are called—they are really dismissals—should have taken place in Egypt since Lord Kitchener went there.
  Then, again, look at the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to Lord Milner. The Milner Report may have been right or wrong. Lord Milner was a member of the British Cabinet. During the discussion of the Report, or while the Report was being drafted, it was known to the Egyptian representatives that he referred to the British Cabinet time after time, yet when the Report came up apparently the Cabinet had not made up its mind. The Cabinet was not prepared then to back Lord Milner. Again, the whole Egyptian mind was unable to understand how a man of Lord Milner's reputation and prestige and position in the Cabinet could have had his recommendations and Report turned down, as in fact they were turned down, though, of course, it was said merely that the Cabinet had delayed coming to a decision. When the history of this Coali-

  2087
  tion is written, as the history of all previous Coalitions have been written, on no point will the historians lay more stress as showing the essential weakness of any form of Coalition, than on the vacillation of this Government in its Egyptian policy, on its inability consistently to pursue one policy and on its doing what the late Secretary of State for India described as "first standing on one leg and then on the other." That has been proved ever since Sir Reginald Wingate, towards the end of the War, began to press the home Government for some sort of indication of policy.
  I was in Egypt in close touch with people then, and I know the difficulties in which the English administrators in Egypt were placed during those last months of the War, with the word "Protectorate" thrown down in Egypt, with no definition of what was intended, with no guide as to what was to be the policy of the Government in Egypt when the Armistice came. Repeated and urgent messages came home, and the Government could not make up its mind. There were perpetual differences between Ministers as to what was or was not to be one policy. Then the Armistice came. I do not believe that the Leader of the House yet appreciates quite what was the effect in Egypt, not of the refusal to receive Zaghloul Pasha, but of saying to the Ministers who had seen us through the War in Egypt: "Oh, you are too small; we have such big things to consider; we are busy now. Come again later." I do not think that the Government realises yet what infinite harm that slur upon the importance of Egypt did throughout Egypt amongst the most loyal friends of the British Administration. The Egyptians saw Guatemala and every small State in the world sending representatives to Paris. They were asked even to go down to Suez and to see Indian delegates going to the Peace Conference. You never gave them a single dinner in the Astoria or whatever hotel it was that the British occupied. You treated Egypt as something of little account that could wait.
  Can you be surprised that you handed over to the Extremists the good will which you still retained of so many of the better elements in Egypt at the end of the War? There were extremists in Egypt at the time, but that refusal, "We
  2088
  are too busy now; we will see you tomorrow "was translated into Arabic And how? "Bukra," which means never. That is what it meant. When the Zionists were going before the Council of Ten, when the Emir Feisal was visiting Europe, no Egyptian was allowed to come to Paris or London. That was the cardinal and root mistake. What happened afterwards? It is true that until now it has been impossible to feel that this Government will have any settled policy in Egypt, or that Ministers are united in support of a policy. One does hope that at last all the Ministers of the Government are convinced that the policy they are now pursuing is the right policy. It is particularly difficult, in view of what has happened in the last few days, to find out where the Government stands on any Eastern question They have a united view with regard to America and France and Europe, but on any Eastern question they have had perpetually changing views, as in the case of Mesopotamia and Palestine. That is deplorable.
  I will refer to another point in the speech of the Leader of the House. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) my right hon. Friend said that the Anglo-French Proclamation of November, 1918, was meant not for Egypt, but for Syria. In the East you cannot draw a distinction between a policy meant for Syria and a policy meant for Egypt. You may draft your policy in England in Downing Street, but before it gets to the Syrians it has to be translated into Arabic. That is not done in the Foreign Office. It is sent out to Egypt. There you have the Arabic printing press, and that is where the propaganda for the Arab world is printed and where the translation is done. Everything in the Syrian newspapers or in the Proclamations at Bagdad, Damascus or Beirut, is on the same day announced in Cairo. The fact that you have a nationalist Arab policy in Iraq, which is alongside Egypt, meant inevitably that you would have a strong nationalist movement in Egypt. You cannot isolate the two. You cannot say that what is good enough for Syria is not good enough for Egypt, or vice versâ You must remember that in that part of the world of far more importance and significance than modern national divisions is the deep and long history behind Islam.

  2089
  What is good for a Mahommedan in Arabia the Egyptian thinks is good for an Egyptian Mahommedan in Egypt.
  I am the last to say that pan-Islamism would have had anything like the vogue it had but for Turkish propaganda and German propaganda and but for agitations about the Khilifat, which are entirely of recent growth. Yet you have had in Egypt to deal with specifically Islamic civilisation dominated by Islam and in its outlook affected by Islam. It has been said during the Debate that the politics of Egypt come from El Azhar University. The sheiks of that university are undoubtedly the most powerful people in Egypt. Undoubtedly they regard us as Nazarenes. You must take them into consideration. It is quite impossible to say that a proclamation designed for Syria can be confined to Syria. You cannot split up the East. You will never get an Egyptian settlement by such a treaty as is now proposed until you have a stable settlement of the whole of the Near and Middle East. It is intimately bound up with the Turkish problem. After all, the greater part of the so-called upper classes, or pasha classes—I do not say Zaghloul Pasha—but the greater part of the educated classes in Egypt are not Egyptians at all but Turks, still cherishing a considerable regard for Turkey, and not a few of them looking to Egyptian independence simply as a means of restoring the former scope and power of the Ottoman Empire. Prince Omar Toussoun would tell you honestly and openly that that is his view, and it is a very general view to be found in many of the clubs in the towns.
  There is one point of vast importance, for which I looked in the speech of the Leader of the House, but I found no reference to it, and that is as to what we are going to say to France, Italy and Greece and the other Powers who at present enjoy rights in connection with the Protectorate. It is absolutely vital we should be perfectly open and frank on this matter. I do not say that we should always continue to bear on our shoulders the obligation of seeing that no Greek is ever shot in the streets of Alexandria or anything of that sort, but these Powers and Governments should know exactly what we are going to do. Do not let us pretend before the world to be taking upon ourselves the duty of protecting what are called foreign interests, and the
  2090
  foreign subjects in Egypt, unless we have power to carry that out. It would be much better to say to the French and Italian and other Governments, "We are not going to undertake this responsibility because we are no longer going to have the power." It depends on the very large question of whether we shall have the power to carry out the sort of protection which, I believe, these Governments, and particularly the French Government, think we are extending. It will only land us into a most difficult international complication if a Treaty goes through such as is contemplated, and then there is trouble in Alexandria, while we stand up and do nothing. I am quite sure these Governments will say to us, "We understood that you would not conclude a Treaty with Egypt unless the position of the foreign residents was absolutely guaranteed." They would accuse us, and not the Egyptians, of having let them down, and that is why I think it is most important, before this Treaty is concluded, that the full terms should be laid clearly before the several European Powers concerned. Mark you, the French and Greek and Italian populations of Alexandria, Port Said, and Cairo are far larger than the British populations of those cities, and, as has been shown in the past, when trouble arises it is a significant fact that it is not British lives which are usually lost, but the lives of Greeks and Armenians, and people of that kind who suffer most and most unfairly so. If we are going to occupy a special position in Egypt, we have some international responsibility, and in that respect we have to remember President Roosevelt's words, "Get on or get out." There is no other alternative when it comes to a matter of law and order, and when you have international obligations.
  I say quite frankly that if we do get out of Egypt, if we do withdraw our troops and establish complet Home Rule in Egypt, it may be in four or five years, but inevitably I am perfectly certain, neither the French nor the Italian Governments will tolerate it for long, and they will go in and take the place we have vacated. I am certain that the Egyptian people will not find the French Government very much easier to deal with than we were. Something has been said, but all too little I think, about the Egyptian agriculturists—the fellahin. I hope that in

  2091
  any constitution which is made for Egypt, steps will be taken as far as possible to see that the interests of the small cultivator are protected. The number of small peasant proprietors is enormous. The description given of the fellahin by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) was really misleading. The number of the fellahin working on their own account far exceeds the number working for others. The vast bulk of the land belongs to these small peasant proprietors.
  Undoubtedly, to the eye of the European who goes there for three weeks, they are still living under the conditions which have prevailed for 7,000 years; in almost identically the same type of houses and with the same methods of sanitation. They have not made very much change; the same methods of cultivation have gone on more or less interruptedly for 7,000 years, and for the greater part of those 7,000 years they have been flogged and fleeced up to the last 40 years. Admittedly, at the present moment these people have not got the power to assert themselves against the skilled, trained Oriental who, with resources of money and method, could undoubtedly, whatever you say about democracy under present conditions, once again oppress these people just as they were oppressed before Lord Dufferin abolished the corvee. They will be oppressed, make no doubt about that, unless they are protected in some way. They will be oppressed, beaten, cheated, fleeced and forced into corvees just as they were 15 or 16 years ago.
  I wish to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) on a purely personal matter. He did me a great injustice. He said that in my speeches, if I read them, I should find a certain quotation from Kipling. I am quite sure I never used such a quotation. It so happens that the greater part of my political life has been spent in endeavouring to prove the contrary of that quotation to be true; in endeavouring to try to point out to people here what Asiatic peoples are thinking—in putting Eastern points of view before men here and vice versa and similarly with Africa. I will not plead guilty to thinking that the East is unchangeable, or that the East and West
  2092
  can never meet. I think they have met, with peculiar advantage in Egypt and to Egypt, and I say frankly that I should be sorry, not merely on Egypt's account and not merely on England's account, if the continued association between England and Egypt were brought to an end. I believe that it has been of immense value and to the general advancement of human welfare.
  Admittedly, we have not done very much yet—not as much as we ought to have done—in the way of education. We have improved technical education and education for agricultural and irrigation purposes, and mechanical education, and things of that kind, but I grant that we have not devoted sufficient time or money in Egypt to education, and I think one of the things we have to reckon as one of the causes of the trouble to-day is that there is so much half-education, ill-directed and incomplete, in Egypt. Nothing has been more lamentable than the reports of all the results of examinations and the like in Egyptian schools— the enormous percentage of failures and the low standard attained—and the educational service in Egypt has not been a service of which we can be as proud as we can of a great service like the irrigation service. I am quite sure of this, that if we do not retain a British personnel in the irrigation service, your cotton output and your sugar output and the general prosperity of the country will go down. There, however, Egyptians are coming along, and each generation and each year you are getting more and more men qualified technically for the work, but they are still very far from being able to dispense with European-trained, European-qualified technical assistants in that work, and if you are to retain those men you will only get them if they are properly treated and if they see that things are being done straight and on the square. That has to be borne in mind in making the terms of your Treaty.
  I regret that this Debate should have turned so largely on the personality of one Egyptian politician. I really do not see what that has to do with the permanent future relations between Egypt and the outside world, because it is not merely the relations between Egypt and this country or even this Empire, but the relations of Egypt, which is in a unique position in the world and is the aerial junction of the world, have to be taken

  2093
  into account, and the whole question of European and Mediterranean civilisation. I deeply regret that the personality of an individual has been brought in, and I am quite sure that the Labour party and those who have been associated with them on this side are doing an ill-service by making that such an outstanding point in their natural desire to bully the Government. Surely the preliminary, long before you have elections, long before you can get a new régime working, is to get a good step further in the definition of your Treaty, and you will not get a definition of your Treaty in an atmosphere of acute politics. Therefore, I am quite sure that this House would be well advised not to go into criticisms of the personnel of this Ministry in Egypt, or even the next Ministry in Egypt, or the Ministry after that.
  I am certain that we ought to treat whatever Egyptian Ministry there is as representing Egypt for the purposes of preparing the Treaty, and if in his discretion our high contracting officer, Lord Allenby, in whom I believe every man in this House has great confidence, personal and public, thinks the presence of one individual, or more than one individual, is injudicious and likely to injure the furtherance of getting a proper Treaty prepared for submission to the Egyptian people, and the British people, and the foreign Powers concerned, surely we ought not to try and force his hand in this House. That is what hon. Members have been trying to do this evening. I appeal for continuity of policy, for confidence, from all sections in the House in the British representative in Egypt, and, above all, I do hope that good will and an atmosphere conducive to settlement, and not conducive to political rancour, will take the place of the atmosphere which has been all too ready to break out from time to time in the last four years in Egypt, and that Egypt will go forward to prosperity and true happiness, not separated from Western civilisation, not separated from a friendly and even an intimate connection with the British Empire, although outside it, but will go forward with us on the road of true moral as well as material progress.
  Mr. MILLS: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has dealt very largely, as most of the other members of the Coalition have done, with criticisms not of the people of Egypt, but
  2094
  of the policy or the lack of continuity of policy, or the lack of definition of policy of His Majesty's Government, and he said that some future historian of the Coalition would probably indict him for this, that, or the other. I would be more charitable and suggest that some future historian of the Coalition, realising the insistent and consistent claims for genius that many of its members made, would say, "Well, after all, genius is akin to madness," and posterity therefore will be the best judge as to which of the two qualities predominated in that great assembly. It is because we on this side of the House are just as much concerned about the good name of Britain as any temporary custodian of its honour on His Majesty's Front Bench that we claim the right to differ and the opportunity to present a case which, while it may not be welcomed by His Majesty's Government, is still entitled to be put.
  One would scarcely imagine, from what has been said in the Debate, that there was much of an Egyptian connection with Europeans before the advent of Britain. There is an old tag which might have a peculiar relevance to the Members of this House in regard to this Debate. It is said, "Why do they call a Government publication a Blue Book?" and the answer is not "A lemon," but "Because it is never read." I would suggest that if some of the Members of this House had actually read the Blue Books of His Majesty's Government before engaging in debate, they would see that we were not the first in Egypt by a very long way. It is not quite true to suggest that it requires instruction for aviators to drop bombs to preserve law and order, that it is not even necessary for a British army of occupation to protect foreign communities. As a matter of fact, a hundred years before Britain or Britishers went to Egypt, the French had already secured grants by which their nationals were protected, and I have yet to learn that in that long history of French, and Dutch, and then British capitulations, granted as far back as 1675 and extending down to now, there has ever been a continuous series of butchery of Europeans by the infidel. During the time that we made our brief and contemptuous tour in Egypt, we dropped across a British mission which had actually tried to impress upon

  2095
  the Mahommedan mind the virtues of Christianity, as missionaries, 16 years before 1882. They were still living.
  It is a most remarkable thing, if one were to take the utterances of some Members of this House very seriously. The hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James) made many points, most of which were mixed; in fact, he was about as clear as the waters of the Nile, that is, as clear as mud I could not make out exactly what point he was trying to make. All I could be certain about was that Britain had justified its stewardship of Egypt, that Egyptian independence was all right and worth striving for, but "not in our time, O Lord"; we must wait for some other generations to come. I suggest that, much as we desire the old order to remain, one must take cognisance of the altered outlook of the world. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said— and rightly—that he had spent a large part of his life in endeavouring to bring East and West into touch, and, surely, he will agree with me that when European statesmen, for purposes of mutual conflict, bring the coloured people into the sphere of conflict, and teach them that the art of killing the white people is quite all right, when they deliberately destroy the fallacy that the white is a superior race, and call upon the black to kill the white, and then come back to the ordinary pre-War conceptions, then I do submit you are asking too much, especially with regard to Egypt, because these people were witnessing, as the hon. Member says, communities quite close to them, not half so well developed, actually being promised sovereign powers, and being given the rights of nationhood, while this was being denied to a nation which has never yet been declared to be otherwise than under a temporary occupation of the British Government. The declaration of Mr. Gladstone was particularly explicit when he was indicted in this House for his policy. This was what was said then:
  "We are against the doctrine of annexation. We are against anything that resembles or approaches it. We are against it on the ground of our duty to Egypt. We are against it on the ground of the interests of England. We are against it on the ground of the specific and solemn pledges given to the world in the most solemn manner, and under the most critical cir-
  2096
  cumstances—pledges which have earned for us the confidence of Europe at large during the course of difficult and delicate operations, and, if one pledge can be more solemn and sacred than another, special sacredness in this case binds us."
  That was in 1882. In 1914, when a temporary Protectorate was declared, these were the words in His Majesty's Speech, and therefore the words of the Prime Minister of that day, the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and they cannot be lightly thrown aside:
  "I feel convinced that you will be able, in co-operation with your Ministers and the Protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt."
  9.0 P.M.
  After all, we are plain men, not used to the subtleties of the legal mind, many of us coming from the workshop, and taking practically a literal view of the spoken or written word, just as the Oriental mind has probably done; and, just as they absorb the idea of self-determination, so, probably, they absorb the idea that the British King-Emperor, speaking the policy of the British Prime Minister, really meant what the people of Britain intended in their dealings with Egypt. From that point of view, Zaghloul Pasha to me is no more than any other person. Egypt, to my mind, is far greater than an individual; but the great point to remember in this connection is that these people, who had rendered the greatest and most consistent service to Britain during the War, were those behind Sir Reginald Wingate in asking for early recognition of Egypt's independence. But because that was denied, and Sir Reginald Wingate was replaced while on leave in Britain, these other factors have come to the front, and have strengthened their position. Added to that is the fact that the Egyptian Parliament has never met since before the War, and that its term of office has expired after many of its members have died. When you get these circumstances, you have the compelling force behind the Egyptian people's demand that they should have the right of assembly. If they have that right, you must dispose of martial law, and then all questions of the attitude of this one and that one during the War should go by the board. I think it is a very cheap point to make that the members of the Labour party are concerned about the personality of an individual, when all that the Leader

  2097
  of the Government can do to make out a case for the Government is to vilify that individual.
  I prefer to take the opinions of men who have been in close touch with this gentleman. I have questioned the Prime Minister over and over again as to what was the attitude of Lord Allenby. He made the statement the other week that Lord Allenby acted upon his own responsibility. Very well. When Sir Reginald Wingate left Egypt and tried to press upon the British Government, early in 1919, what should be done, during the time while he was on leave Zaghloul Pasha and his friends were deported, and riots broke out all over Egypt. Lord Allenby was sent to Egypt to quell the rebellion and maintain peace. Knowing Egypt, the very first thing Lord Allenby did was to release Zaghloul Pasha and, with the act of release, to have Proclamations put up in every town and village that this particular gentleman was released, and the disorders subsided straight away. I do suggest that if Lord Allenby carried out a policy like that, it was based upon a conception of the ability of Zaghloul Pasha and some idea of his statesmanship, and I would suggest that the Leader of the House, before he makes use of the rather cheap cricicism of an individual, might very well look up the record of a man who has served his country and British administration excellently in the past. In 1906 Lord Cromer described the party to which Zaghloul Pasha belonged as
  "a small but increasing number of Egyptians. They are truly Nationalist in the sense of wishing to advance the interests of their countrymen; but they are not tainted with pan-Islamism. Their programme involves not opposition to but co-operation with Europeans in the introduction of Western civilisation into the country."
  In 1908, when Lord Cromer, at a farewell banquet, left Egypt, he went out of his way to refer to Zaghloul:
  "Lastly, gentlemen, I should like to mention the name of one with whom I have only recently co-operated, but for whom, in that short time, I have learnt to entertain a high regard. Unless I am much mistaken a career of great public usefulness lies before the present Minister of Education, Saad Zaghloul Pasha. He possesses all the qualities necessary to serve his country. He is honest; he is capable; he has the courage of his convictions; he has been abused by many of the less worthy of his own countrymen. Those are high qualifications. He should go far."
  2098
  Coming to more recent times, Lord Kitchener, in 1913, said.
  "Saad Zaghloul Pasha, originally an advocate of great reputation in the native Courts, and later a prominent member of the Native Court of Appeal, was appointed Minister of Education in 1906 … and in 1910 exchanged the portfolio of Education for that of Justice. In both these Departments he introduced, and was responsible for, several valuable reforms."
  Both these men are men who, it has been admitted by the Leader of the House, and by every one of the critics of their own Government, are men whose opinions ought to have been taken into consideration in dealing with this problem. Lord Milner, speaking of Zaghloul's importance in 1920, said:
  "The Egyptians with whom we conversed one and all (including Adly, Rushdi, and Sarwat) were emphatic in stating that they were only expressing their own individual opinions, and that they could not claim to speak for the great body of their countrymen. Indeed almost all of them went further and referred us to Zaghloul Pasha and his delegation as being the only men authorised by general acclamation to represent the Egyptian people."
  We have no desire to deal with the question of individuals other than those. We feel very keenly that this particular fact, the deportation and probable death of a man in his seventy-fifth year in exile, will do more to embitter and make impossible a settlement than any other act of which you can very well be guilty. If you were to release him, then the election would, take place, because with or without him his influence will be there. I submit that in this ease it will be a policy of wise statesmanship to allow this man his freedom, because where he is to-day he is in the position of many other men who have been forcibly repressed and put out of the way, that they become martyrs at once.
  There is another point. The Leader of the House stated that we were doing this, that, and the other; that Egyptian independence had been established, and it only remained for the Constituent Assembly to meet and before doing anything else pass an act of indemnity, and then everything would be all right in this best of all possible worlds. After all, however, we are entitled to ask what does an act of indemnity do? It has to be passed before the recognition of Egypt as an independent Government. What is it? Is it not to perpetuate the Protectorate for all time? Is it not to indemnify the Government against all sorts of possible

  2099
  claims? The whole question of the Versailles Treaty, the confiscation of the property of the nationals of Bulgaria, Germany, Austria—their property in Egypt is all bound up in this, and possibly the claims of the men who are deported might work under the ordinary procedure and will be wiped out by the Act of Indemnity! To my mind if this Bill is passed it is merely to perpetuate the Protectorate. Therefore we do ask that we should have some information in regard to it because we are quite certain that we can read into it a very insidious attempt to pay lip service to independence at the same time carrying through the Protectorate. In the Versailles Treaty, in Article 153 I read:
  "All monies and property, property of the German Empire in Egypt, becomes (by natural right) the property of the Egyptian Government without demanding from thorn any compensation. And this property and monies comprise all the property and monies of the German Crown, the German Government, and the German countries as well as the private property of the Emperor, and all civilians, and all property, monies, and buildings, the property of German subjects in Egypt, and will be dealt with according to the said Articles in Sub-sections (3), (4), and Section (10) in this Treaty."
  This has apparently a wide application. In this connection because we must remember one of the Government's organs, bought for the express purposes of influencing its readers on Coalition lines, and directly it was bought dismiss its editor, Mr Donald—a man who had rendered splendid service to journalism—went out of its way in a leading article to say:
  "The next step on Egypt's part will be to pass an Act of Indemnity, this including even more than an Amnesty Act, for everything done under martial law, including the deportation of Zaghloul Pasha by such an Act, would be legalised."
  I do suggest that we ought to know something more about the Government's real intentions and the powers conferred under that Indemity Act before we lightly act upon that assumption. The Government, after all, are the custodians of the honour of the British Empire. Whatever bitterness of opinion there was in Egypt was due to the fact that when Lord Milner and his colleagues went out there their terms of reference were to inquire as to what could be done under the Protectorate. The Egyptian people looked upon the Protectorate as merely a transient scheme
  2100
  of relationship between Egypt taken from the Turkish Empire for a period until the end of the War, and that after the end of the War the claims of Egypt, based upon the consecutive declarations of statesmen ever since 1882, would be recognised. Probably it is within the recollection of hon. Members of this House that within five years of 1882 Sir Henry Drummond was sent to Constantinople to sign a Treaty of Agreement with the Sultan of Turkey by which the British troops should leave Egypt within three years. The Sultan of Turkey at that time objected even to the three years, because he considered that that three years was too long having regard to the circumstances under which the occupation took place.
  All these things, I do suggest, lead to the impression that the Egyptian people have a case which cannot be met by mere repression, and that it must be met in the fuller sense of the term, and that because Egypt never was a part of the British Empire. This point is specifically alluded to on page 6 of the Milner Report. I am quoting from the Report of the Special Mission, and it says:
  "It appears to be frequently assumed in current talk and writing in this country that Egypt is part of the British Empire. That is not, and never has been, the case."
  That is most explicit, and to gentlemen of military experience who talk to us about the tactical value of this or that part of a country, I would suggest that on the Palestinian side of the Suez Canal you have a population who at the moment are welcoming British occupation, and, under the pledge given to the Zionists, it makes it a desirable circumstance for the transfer of the garrison; that in itself is an alternative place where troops can be kept if the Suez Canal is deemed to be such a dangerous part of our communication. Personally I think that the international pact which guaranteed the international character of the Suez Canal makes a very large number of these assertions valueless even if they ever contained some, amount of value. Having regard to the changed circumstances in the East, having regard to the changed circumstances on the Palestinian side of the Canal, we are justified in asking this Government and its military advisers to consider the alternative garrison for the troops, if they are necessary, in order that we may

  2101
  in fact as well as in word carry out this generation-long pledge to the Egyptian people.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON: Having lived in Egypt for some time, I should like to touch on certain points which have been raised by earlier speakers. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) rightly said that Egypt never was part of the British Empire, and as was pointed out by Lord Milner's Report the difficulty of the Egyptian problem is very great. Lord Milner said:
  "The problem may well be as insoluble as it is certainly unique, but everything in and about Egypt always has been unique."
  We went there in 1882, and it was certainly our intention to come away as soon as we honourably could, but that was never possible. An hon. Member has quoted Lord Salisbury's Convention of 1887 which endeavoured to arrange that we should leave Egypt within three years, but that Convention the Sultan would not ratify and it fell to the ground. Up to 1904, when we entered into the Anglo-French Agreement, we had never sanctioned any alteration in the status of Egypt. It was only in 1914, after Turkey had come into the conflict against us, that it was necessary for us to do something in this direction owing to the fact that the Egyptians had been Turkish subjects and we declared a Protectorate. Our record during all these years shows that we desired to maintain the status quo.
  Now this declaration has been issued by the Government to Egypt under which we terminate the Protectorate and declare Egypt to be an independent Sovereign State. Let us hope that this will lead to the establishment of good relations between Great Britain and Egypt. The status quo is preserved with regard to four important reservations, and with one or two of those reservations I should like to deal. The first is the safeguarding of our Imperial communications. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who has done some distinguished service as an aviator, knows the country well, and he knows the conditions that prevail there. I think he rather elaborated the point that we dwelt too much on British interests. It does not seem to me that there could be any interests more vital to the British Empire than the preservation of our communication through the Suez Canal. I was
  2102
  stationed in the neighbourhood of the Canal in 1916, and when one saw the troops coming through the Canal from Australia to reinforce our armies in France and Egypt when we were fighting the battles of the Allies, when we saw ships coming through the Canal pouring merchandise into Europe, articles absolutely essential to the continued life of the allied peoples, one realised what an appalling catastrophe it would be if this little strip of water should be closed to the ships of Great Britain. Any British statesman dealing with this problem cannot shut his eyes to the vital importance of safeguarding our communications on the Suez Canal.
  Look at the second reservation—the defence of Egypt against all foreign aggression or interference, direct or indirect. On this point we have only to look back to the years of the War. What would have happened to Egypt had not our strong Army been there to defend her in 1914? The Turkish troops actually reached the Suez Canal in the early months of the War, and in the spring of 1916 the Turk was within a few miles of the Suez Canal, and again in the summer of 1916. During the War Egypt enjoyed a great measure of prosperity and security at home, which was solely and entirely due to the fact that the forces of Great Britain were there to prevent invasion by the Turks who were used by the Germans as the pioneer of their power in the East.
  Then there is the protection of the foreign communities, which is referred to in one of the reservations. Egypt is unique in respect of the position of the foreign communities. There is a very considerable industry and commerce in Egypt, and it is work entirely in the hands of foreigners. There is no country in the world in which so large a proportion of the commercial interests are carried on and managed by those of foreign nationalities. We know very well what would happen if all our influence was withdrawn from Egypt. Other foreign nations having their rights there under the capitulations would come in, and would the lot of Egypt be any better or fairer in that case than is the case at the present time? Since a date centuries before the Christian era, Egypt, has never been an independent country, and we have only to look to the time before the British occupation when the suzerainty

  2103
  of Turkey was a reality in order to make a comparison. Egypt in the years before the British occupation, owing to misgovernment of the Khedive, was hopelessly in debt, and it was only after the arrival of the British power and the setting up of a Government under our auspices that she was put on the road to prosperity.
  I only rose to intervene in the Debate because, having been in Egypt, I could not fail to form an admiration for the work of the last forty years there, and I want to place on record my sincere admiration for it. I know there are blemishes. I know that the improvement in education has not been such as we could have desired. Education has not progressed in the way one would have wished. I think, however, we should look all round at the other things that have been done. Hon. Members have mentioned earlier the fact that when we went to Egypt forced labour existed and the lot of the unhappy fellahin was of the most miserable kind, and misgovernment, heavy taxation, and corruption were prevalent and the lot of the fellah was miserable in the extreme. Lord Cromer, working with a restricted revenue and often thwarted by the interference of foreign powers, carried on from year to year, abolished the abuses, and forced labour was done away with.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely forced labour was done away with before Lord Cromer went to Egypt?
  Mr. THOMSON: I do not think so. At any rate, during Lord Cromer's time taxation was put on a regular basis. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith said there was the land and plenty of water coming down the Nile, and plenty of industrious peasants and something should be done for them. I would like to point out that a great deal has been done in the way of storing and thereby increasing the water available from the Nile. I only want to emphasise that point in order to let it be realised how glorious the work has been. There have been blemishes, no doubt, but on the whole it has been a great achievement. One word as to the Sudan, a question, which was raised by an hon. and gallant Member. I think the Prime Minister made it clear in his remarks on the 28th February that, having in view the great interests we have in the Sudan
  2104
  the money spent in developing the country and the great interest our industries had in supplier of cotton, that no important industry would be jeopardised by any change in the future—this being always borne in mind, that the Sudan is to guarantee a full supply of water to Egypt. I have no more to add except to say that I think it is not much good looking back at the past and criticising the Government for this and that policy. The matter has not been an easy one. There have been many interests to consider, but now I think that with this Agreement there ought to be a fair prospect of good relations between Great Britain and Egypt, always bearing in mind that the essential interests of the British Empire and also the real and fundamental interests of Egypt are safeguarded as proposed in these reservations.
  Mr. G. BARNES: I have heard most of the Debate to-day, and would like to offer a very few observations and say why I shall vote for the Government. I should like to try and visualise the problem in a general way. I look upon this matter from two points of view, first, the good of the Egyptian fellahin and, secondly, the development of political institutions in Egypt in accordance with the underlying principles of the British Empire. In regard to the first, I think that our record in Egypt is one of the finest records of British enterprise in my time. I have watched the conditions prevailing in Egypt for nearly 50 years. I am old enough to remember when the Egyptian fellahin and the Egyptian country generally was bled on the one side by the Turks and on the other side was continually raided from Southern Sudan. I am old enough to remember the dispatch of Hicks Pasha and Baker Pasha and the swallowing up of both of them and their armies in the Sudan and when the Egyptians were constantly being raided by the Fuzzy-Wuzzies. I remember the miserable condition of Egypt prior to 1882. I remember our people going there in 1882 and the great talk there was about our going there to protect the Egyptian bondholder. Possibly, probably in the eyes of many people at that time the interests of the Egyptian bondholders figured a good deal more than anything else, but that is 40 years ago, and I am disposed to let the dead bury their dead. Looking at the

  2105
  occupation of Egypt since that time, what are the conditions of the Egyptian people now as compared with then? A year or two ago I sat in the balcony of a hotel in Assouan. On the left bank of the river, looking up the river Nile, I saw the block-houses which had been put up by Sir Garnet Wolsey's soldiers in 1884 and 1885. At that time these block-houses were the outposts of civilisation. At that time, beyond that place to the south, you had the Fuzzi-Wuzzies, who constantly came to raid Egypt. I suppose the lives of the Egyptians at that time were a constant terror from morning till night, as they did not know when they were to be raided or who was next to bleed them from the Turkish side. What are the conditions now? As regards peace and security in Egypt, nothing could be better. It has been one of the few countries in the world that has had no fear of war. During the late War, in which the best and bravest and most promising young men in all the European countries were being sacrified, not a single Egyptian life was lost. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that was the statement I got.
  Captain BENN: The Labour Corps had heavy casualties in disease.
  Mr. BARNES: Therefore there is a marked contrast between the condition of Egypt when we went there, so far as peace and security are concerned, as compared with the Egypt of to-day. Something has been said—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said something about what Mr. Gladstone had said in 1884 and 1885. I do not care twopence about what Gladstone said in his speeches. Gladstone's speeches and the policy outlined in the 'eighties could not face the logic of facts. The logic of facts were such that we had to remain in Egypt and secure the good of the Egyptian fellahin and the good of the country as a whole. As regards the material conditions, here, again, I take an object lesson from my experience at Assouan. I saw that wonderful work, the result of British skill and enterprise and investment. The very day I wag there they were in communication, as I suppose they were every day, with Cairo, either by telegraph or telephone, and they were passing down through the sluices of the Assouan dam about 42,000 tons of water, which were going down to the lower regions of Egypt to
  2106
  bless and fertilise the land there. That is something for which we may take credit. We have protected the Egyptian, people from raiding, we have protected them from the exactions, of the Turk, and I think that the people of Egypt owe us something for having done that for the last 40 years. I do not say that we should continue that responsibility, and that brings me to my second point Egypt must progress in its political development in accordance with the underlying principles of the British Empire, which consists of the tutelage of infant peoples until such time as they can paddle their own canoe and take charge of their own destiny.
  The only thing we have to consider is whether this settlement is in accordance with that principle. In my humble judgment, it is. I am not going back over the last few years; I am not going to say that the Government have been perfectly consistent in all their actions during the last three or four years. I suppose no Government ever is and no Government ever will be. What I am concerned about in the main is: is this agreement that has recently been made on the whole for the good of the Egyptian fellahin, and does it promise steady progress in the direction of the fellah looking after himself. I think it does. It is true that it reserves certain things to be discussed before it takes effect. Here, again, I think we are perfectly right in looking after our own interests. It is more important now, I suppose than even 40 years ago, that we should provide that the, arteries as between one part of the Empire and another, so far as they go through that particular part of the world, should be kept clear.
  The second condition had reference to the continued defence of Egypt. It seems to me that is absolutely necessary. Are we, after 40 years' occupation of the country, call it Protectorate or what you like, are we after that 40 years of struggle, to give that up? I have been in recent years going round and seeing distant parts of the Empire, and I am full of admiration for the men who go out to live in those distant places, very often in isolation, to look after large areas. It is a great, testimony to the ability of our people as administrators. With regard to the defence of Egypt, it is perfectly true that for some reason or another the Egyptian people have for

  2107
  centuries been subject to somebody. I suppose that can be said to have existed not merely for centuries but for thousands of years. The Turks, the Greeks, the French, and then ourselves have all been concerned, and a stronger and more virile people have somehow or other always had control of the Egyptian people, not because the Egyptian is not a big man physically, for he is that, but because of something in the Egyptian or in his environment which makes him glad to be made secure by somebody outside himself. Even going back within our own memories those of us who know anything about Egypt within the last 40 or 50 years will remember the constant friction which existed between ourselves and France when we had dual control, and if we divest ourselves of responsibility for Egypt now, we shall not only get dual control but triple control and other forms of control, and there will be constant friction. No other country has spent more men and money in Egypt than we have, and if there is anyone who has a right to see that Egypt is made secure it is this country.
  Then we come to the question of the protection of foreign interests. I am not so much concerned about them. As a rule, they are well able to look after themselves. But this is probably considered very important by those who have to preserve and protect foreign interests, and included in those foreign interests is the protection of minorities, a principle which ought to be subscribed to by everyone in this House. The last provision is with regard to the Sudan. I suppose that is getting more important to this country. Forty or 50 years ago it was inhabited by Fuzzy-wuzzies, a race of first-class fighting men. It was given over to barbarism. Now the first-class fighting man is a fetcher and a carrier, a manual worker for his own good, and for the continued prosperity of his country. There are railways right up to Khartum, and as we have assumed responsibility for this area it seems to me we have a perfect right to put in a provision that our interests and our obligations there shall be looked after. For these reasons, and without going further into the matter—for I do not profess to have read all the documents which have, been circulated in connection with this Debate, although I have read some of
  2108
  them, and I have seen the country—I hold that this arrangement now open to the Egyptian people in one that may reasonably be put into execution, and which will operate for the good of the Egyptian people and for the development of their political constitution.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I have listened with great pleasure to the very helpful contributions which have been made to this Debate from all sides of the House upon this new phase of democratisation which the British Government is now accepting and passing along to her sister nations. The story of Greece to many of us was the proudest and greatest when she commenced to Hellenise Asia; she gave us some of our knowledge of dealing with our sister nations. The British Empire since the War has accepted responsibility for the guidance of many new nations which have come into the world. Much has been said respecting Ireland, but it would not be right or proper for me, serving in an insignificant capacity to those who have guided the fortunes of Ireland during the last 12 months, to say much on that matter, but when we consider the psychology which now obtains in many of these new sister nations that are bound to us by affection, service, and sacrifice, it well behoves us to carefully diagnose the method and manner in which we guide these new nations now being born into the world. I think we do right in congratulating the Government that they are pressing for the solution of the problem of the growth of this new nation of Egypt. It is an old world nation; it is a nation which has crept onward and forward through many diverse courses and methods, and although we in the earlier days have endeavoured to eliminate the splendid mysticism which must obtain in the civilisation of the East by so-called education which is really only book-learning and which we have given to the new men leading in the East in our Western universities, I do think, when we understand the splendid lead of the great pro-Consuls of this Empire in Egypt, and other parts of the world, we have done much; and it well behoves us to be careful what we now do, so that we may give this new old nation a proper opportunity and outlook in the sisterhood of the British nation, as well as in the great concert of the nations of the world.

  2109
  When one comes to definite details, and endeavours to consider some of the problems which arise in respect of Egypt, and in respect of its relationship to the British Empire, and also in respect of its relationship to the other nations, there are many difficulties to be solved. I want to say at once that when I endeavour to place bread and butter considerations before this House, I do so in no selfish or narrow spirit. I do not think we should be worthy of the trust we carry as representatives of a great industrial people if we did not consider some of the final chances in regard to industry, both here and in Egypt, in the bearing to peoples of both Britain and Egypt, also in respect of the problem which is now being dealt with, and which, as we hope, will be satisfactorily settled.
  I must remind the House that while this nation has indeed spent both money and blood in respect of the enlargement of the life of Egypt, we also at the present time are accepting very heavy financial responsibilities in the trade and industry of Egypt and the Sudan. The House will forgive me if I remind them that during the last 18 months the Treasury, in a splendid and helpful fashion, by the guarantee of interest on a loan of £6,000,000 to the Sudan, have done much to provide work and opportunity not only for the inhabitants of the Sudan and Egypt, but for some of our Lancashire cotton industries also. They have applied useful and helpful agencies in both sections. When, however, I consider carefully the correspondence and negotiations which have taken place between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and Lord Allenby, and when I read, as I have carefully read, some of the recommendations which have passed, I must say that there is a very great uncertainty, which may lead to some trouble unless a clear and decisive understanding be arrived at, with regard to some of the financial obligations and conditions that at present obtain between Egypt and ourselves. In a Command Paper dealing with the negotiations of the Egyption Delegation in regard to the Sudan, we read:
  "Great Britain further undertakes to secure for Egypt her fair share of the waters of the Nile, and to this end it is agreed that no new irrigation works on the Nile or its tributaries south of Wadi Halfa shall
  2110
  be undertaken without the concurrence of a Board of three conservators representing Egypt, the Sudan, and Uganda, respectively."
  Taking that at its bare face value, I suggest that some further and more definite explanation with regard to the guarantee that we have undertaken in respect of the loan of £6,000,000, and the promise of a further obligation which my hon. Friend gave me some 18 months ago, when this loan was under discussion—something more definite in regard to our association and agreement with Egypt—is required if there is not to be future trouble in regard to our relationships on trade, and especially on cotton. This matter is a very vital one to Lancashire and to the country in general. I would remind the House that to-day the United States of America is taking double the quantity of cotton that she did in earlier days (much of it also from the Sudan and Egypt), and is thus limiting the amount of crop that it is possible and vitally necessary for us to obtain in this country if the second greatest industry in England (the cotton industry) is to retain its capacity and position in the commerce of the world. Further, I know that at the present time Germany, Japan, China, and many other cotton-spinning and cotton-weaving countries are making daily and increasing onslaughts in regard to the superfine growth of cotton which we get from the Sudan and Egypt, from which they are gradually spinning finer and finer counts. The time may come when we people in Lancashire will have to come and tell this House with sorrow that, although much has been done in regard to cotton growing in the Empire by Lancashire cotton spinners themselves—although the cotton industry in Lancashire, by purse and by research, are doing much to conserve cotton—yet, unless we have an assured opportunity for the purchase, on a fair basis, of an increased crop in Egypt, the time will come when there will be a greater cotton famine in Lancashire than ever there has been in past days. We are faced with our Indian cotton yarn and cloth trade problem, and care must be taken that Egypt and the Sudan do not also develop a raw cotton problem.
  I hope the House will understand that this is not merely a selfish point of view from Lancashire, but represents an interchange of opportunity for both Egyptian

  2111
  workers and Lancashire workers. The greatest trade which the Egyptian industrialist will have will be in cotton. Cereals and those foodstuffs which Egypt is also at present growing have no such potentialities, as regards value and profit, as the Egyptians may and can obtain with the high price of the special long-stapled cotton which they produce, and which is not equalled anywhere else in the world. It has been suggested that Iraq may be able to supply us with fine cotton in a not distant future, but at the present time, with the special requirements and demands of Lancashire for this very vital material, it is right and proper that—with full opportunity for making and protecting her own industries—Egypt should not become the exploitation ground of China, Japan, the United States of America, Germany, and other great cotton-using countries, especially when we consider the British blood and British capital expended in Egypt and the British proconsuls' guidance and leadership which have been given to Egypt.
  Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, to give us some definite assurance from a threefold standpoint: firstly, in respect of the loan of £6,000,000, the interest upon which we are guaranteeing; secondly, the irrigation work on the Gezireh plain; thirdly, the railway extension work from Khartum to El Obeid, and also in respect of the Tokar cotton producing areas. I should like to repeat that this is no selfish point of view from Lancashire. It is simply a question of the preservation of the cotton industry which is to be found in Lancashire—the second greatest industry in the country—and also of giving a fair market, without exploitation by foreigners, for the growers in Egypt itself. I shall support the Government in the Vote they have claimed. I feel assured that if careful thought and consideration be given to the whole of the conditions, it will save much uncertainty and, perhaps, distrust, between Egypt and ourselves with respect to irrigation, cotton growing and other related matters in the future, if these are now, at the commencement of this new era, fully decided and dealt with in that amicable fashion which I am sure they can be, if the best spirit and good-
  2112
  will, both in Egypt and here, be given to the question.
  Mr. A. T. LOYD: This is the first occasion upon which I have had the honour of addressing the House, and I would beg hon. Members to show me that indulgence which I know they are so ready to grant to those who are situated as I am now. I spent a good many years in Egypt in the service of the Egyptian Government, and I formed there a good many friendships, not only with my own fellow-countrymen, but, I am happy to think, with Egyptians. If I might say so, the impression which the course of this Debate has left upon my mind is that possibly some hon. Members of this House do not realise what very good friends we who work in Egypt and the Egyptians can be. I think it would be a great pity if there were any impression that the British officials in Egypt are less anxious to do the best they can for Egypt than are their Egyptian colleagues. One of the happiest recollections that I have of the time that I spent there is that of the real spirit of good fellowship which I am sure prevails on both sides of the Civil Service. I think that hon. Members who know Egypt well will agree with me that it is extraordinarily difficult to speak with any comfort or freedom about the problems in that country. The Egyptians are so peculiarly sensitive. A chance phrase is so easily misinterpreted that one cannot be too careful in what one says here as well as there. I speak with great hesitation, because I am aware that it ill-becomes one who is addressing the House for the first time to seem in any way, may I say, to wish to lay down the law; but I would say that many of the points which have been raised by hon. Members who have spoken to-night had much better be left to Egypt to settle. I would not suggest for a moment that they are not very important points, but it is so difficult to get the right atmosphere here.
  But in saying that, I would not have it thought that I am ignorant of one point which no one who wishes to look at the Egyptian problems of to-day can ignore. I would not have it thought that I wish to shirk saying something about the question of Zaghloul Pasha. My experience in Egypt, such as it has been, has taught me that it is always wise to avoid extremes, and I rather regretted that the Leader of the House should have taken quite so decided a line

  2113
  about Zaghloul Pasha. When I was in Egypt I never ventured any portion of my modest salary in bets as to the future career of Egyptian politicians. It was too great a risk to take. And in my short experience I have seen so many turns of the wheel, I have seen so many who have been denounced, shall I say turn up trumps, that I should be very sorry to say there is no future for Zaghloul Pasha in Egypt. But having said that I would add this. I try to look at it fairly and honestly, and I am almost prepared to say that when Zaghloul Pasha first raised his banner it was the banner of liberty and independence that he raised. But since then he has had some strange recruits, and that banner that he hoisted is now the emblem of licence. If Zaghloul Pasha were to return to Egypt to-day I would say with great conviction that it would be the end of the dream of Egyptian independence, for I am convinced that his return at this moment would be the signal for an outburst of the most ghastly nature. If His Majesty's Government have any desire to wreck Egyptian independence let them send Zaghloul Pasha back to-morrow.
  10.0 P.M.
  There is one thing I should have liked to hear from the Leader of the House. I should have liked to hear, in the course of the changes which are to take place in Egypt, how far, in giving the Egyptians greater freedom, we are also going to insist upon their assuming greater responsibility. It is not fair to give people increased liberty without delegating to them as well the responsibility that is entailed. I see a distinct danger that, while we may rejoice that we have arrived apparently at the prospect of a settlement, we may overlook the fact that changes are bound to come. Unless the Egyptians know definitely what their responsibilities are, things may go wrong and we, as we always do, may accept a responsibility for which we cannot justly be charged. I believe myself that in showing the Egyptians what the real responsibilities of independence are, in bringing home to them the great burdens which they will have to shoulder, lies our best chance for a real and permanent settlement.
  I would take leave, to say one word on behalf of those with whom I have been
  2114
  for long associated, in sunshine and in storm—my old comrades in the Anglo-Egyptian Civil Service. I sometimes wonder whether those who live at home can ever realise enough how very lonely, how very homesick their fellow countrymen working overseas can feel. They look so eagerly for some sign of recognition, that I am sure there are many British officials in Egypt to-day who will be very grateful for the kind references which have been made to the work they are doing by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Besides that, the British official working abroad feels so deeply criticisms that are made, and I think what cuts him really deepest is the suggestion that his motives are purely selfish. I am happy to think that that suggestion is not often made. In the course of the changes which are bound to take place it is, I fear, inevitable that some of the very best of the British officials in Egypt, officials whom I am sure the Egyptians themselves would be only too glad to retain, will find that they will have to retire. I would ask the House to believe that it will not be from motives of pique. There will be no desire to leave simply because the new policy is not the policy to which they were accustomed. I think I know my old colleagues better than that. If some of them have to go they will go because they are married men with families. They must provide for their families, and it would be idle to pretend that a purely Egyptian administration, or rather, an administration which depends upon the changes and turns of the Egyptian Government, will offer them quite as good a guarantee as they had in the past. If any such British officials should have to leave, the question of the compensation they will receive and the pensions they will be awarded will be a matter to be arranged between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government. I feel perfectly certain that the Egyptian Government would want to do the right and proper thing. If these changes have to be made, if these men do have to go, there is something a little more than the question of mere pensions and mere compensation. It would mean a great deal to them if they could think that we in this House had a kindly thought for them, that we realised their difficulties, and that we were grateful to them for the service which they have, tried to render. I am very grateful to

  2115
  hon. Members for the kind consideration they have shown to me. I only fear that I have trespassed upon their kindness, but I am convinced that it is in this House, not in the street or in the columns of the public Press, but in this House alone that we can create an atmosphere favourable to a settlement which may bring peace and contentment to a very old, and a very weary land.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I shall carry the general sense of the House with me in expressing appreciation of the very interesting and very able speech to which we have just listened. Every hon. Member who makes his maiden speech hopes to make a success of it, but very few do so. The hon. Gentleman can congratulate himself on having made a thorough 100 per cent, success in his first effort. I should like to assure him that I believe in all quarters of the House there is a very full appreciation of the great men who rule Egypt, and of the lesser men who are not so often heard about, that the work they do in the face of great difficulties is fully appreciated, and that the whole race and the whole Empire are proud of them. When on this side of the House we have to say certain things in criticism of the policy or lack of policy of the Government, we speak of the Government as a Government, and we are not attacking their servants or their instruments abroad. I believe that the whole trouble in Egypt since the Armistice has been the indecision and lack of policy on the part of the Government; first of all in arresting certain Egyptian patriots, deporting them, then releasing them, then rearresting them, and again deporting them; then sending one Mission and then another Mission; then negotiating with this group in London and with that group in Cairo, and then sending the Colonial Secretary to Egypt, where ho made no secret of the contempt which he and his little clique in the Cabinet had for the national aspirations in Egypt. It is to these things that we can look for the present disorganisation and the sorry figure that we have been cutting in the eyes of the world. A great part of the Debate has been taken up in the abuse or praise of one of the leading Egyptian nationalists Zaghloul Pasha. That is a matter which could well be left to the Egyptian people. If they want him back, they will demand him
  2116
  back. I have not been in Egypt for some years, but from what I hear of the temper of the people there, if they want him back they will insist on having him back, and there will be no peace in Egypt until he is brought back. If, on the other hand, as the Lord Privy Seal has said, they are glad to be rid of him, they will not insist on his return. That is a matter which only the people of Egypt can settle.
  The name of Gladstone has been derided in connection with Egyptian policy, but I would remind Conservative Members that great leaders of the Conservative party like Lord Derby and Lord Salisbury fully endorsed Gladstone's policy when they came into power, and gave most solemn pledges that they would not attempt to annex Egypt, incorporate it in the Empire, or occupy it permanently. I have quotations in my possession to prove that, if necessary. One of the causes of trouble in Egypt which is of great importance and will have to be considered is the same cause of trouble with which we are being faced in India, and that is that we somehow or other seem to have lost the art—and here I am not attacking the regular Civil Service in India or Egypt—of conciliating to our rule the peoples of Asia or Asia Minor or Egypt.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is your fault.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, it is because there are certain people in the House of Commons, in spite of their being few in number, who are prepared to stand up and to speak out when there is any oppression of minor nations that there is yet hope of friendship with those people. Thank heaven there are some Liberals who are not ashamed of championing the cause of the oppressed, and who intend to do it for many years, so long as there are any oppressed in the world. We beg the Government to look very carefully at the causes of the present unrest in Egypt. Everybody admits the value to Egypt of the great works of engineering and the good system of jurisprudence that we have introduced, and the commercial prosperity we have brought to the country. Egypt is a wealthy country to-day. Alexandria is one of the wealthiest cities in the world. We have a splendid Civil Service there, the Anglo-Egyptian Service. Why, then, is there this passionate desire for independence? It is because of the lack of

  2117
  sympathy with people of a different race and of a different creed from ourselves. Egypt has been ruled by 37 dynasties. It is not a new nation, and they are not a people with no interest in their history, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst). They are people with a great history, and they are proud of it. They resent being treated as underlings, as hewers of wood and drawers of water. If we wish to continue our association with Egypt under the new régime we have to instil into the people that we send our there, whether as merchants, soldiers or officials, that they have to treat the Egyptians as equals. I cannot help drawing attention to the greater success of the French in their African and Asiatic Protectorates and Colonies compared with the success we have achieved. Anyone who travels in the French colonies and then visits our own Protectorates or Egypt must become aware of that difference. The French treat the people of their Protectorates and Colonies on the plane of equality, and make them feel that they are not looked down upon. Unless we get that trait of sympathy, unless we get that art of reconciling these people to association with us we shall lose, not our self-governing Dominions, because they are Commonwealths, but our Dependencies, Protectorates and Asiatic Dominions.
  Speeches like that delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) do harm. That speech will be repeated in the Egyptian papers and held up by the firebrands as representing the views of the English gentry. I hope that it will be understood that speeches like that of the Noble Lord could not have been made but for the awful years of war. Before the War the Noble Lord could not have abused an old, broken, exile like Zaghloul in the extremely vulgar way that he did. I only hope that the proposed settlement in Egypt will be a settlement. I hope that the Government have at last found a policy and mean to stick to it and carry it through vigorously. I have not heard of any die-hard attacks to-night, but they are to come. When there are some disturbances in Egypt then the die-hards will begin to wake up and find that they have lost a fresh line of attack just as in the case of the Irish settlement when we heard nothing for the first
  2118
  few weeks, and then they gathered their courage and attacked the Government and the Government very nearly weakened in their Irish policy. Let them go through with their Egyptian policy, leave it to the people of Egypt to elect the men they are to negotiate with. It is no use negotiating with statesmen nominated by the Sultan on the advice of English officials. At the very first moment when we have got our guarantees we must invite Egyptian people to chose their representatives to negotiate with us. All this could have been done in 1919, early after the Armistice. That was the time for us to implement our pledges given during the War and to carry into effect the ideas.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I welcome the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull that the British Government have at last taken the right path in Egypt, and I only hope that he and his Friends will try to impress that view on those in Egypt with whom they may have influence and will abstain from any action which will tend to fan again in that unfortunate country the flame which has been burning for the last three years. I listened to the speech of the Leader of the House with a great deal of disappointment because he was very unsuccessful in giving any explanation of the unfortunate conduct of the Egyptian negotiations. If Lord Allenby is right in thinking that a settlement of this longstanding and difficult problem could have been arrived at by such simple means as are not being adopted, why on earth have the Government waited so long before taking this course? Why did not they listen to Sir Reginald Wingate at the end of 1918, and what reparation do they propose to make to that great public servant who was made a scapegoat for their own shortcomings? I have not met him for more than 20 years and I have had no communication with him of any kind, but I do think that to that great representative of the British Government some recognition is now due for the injustice which was meted out to him and the ill-mannered treatment which he received when he was recalled from Egypt at the beginning of 1919 and kept hanging about for weeks before the Government would even listen, as I understand, to what he had to say. The acknowledgment of Egyptian independence sacrifices no British interest of any kind. This in-

  2119
  dependence was admitted far more recently than appears from any quotation which we have had to-day. It was even admitted in the explanatory note, of such an objectionable character, which Lord Allenby was forced to present to the Khedive only last December, on page 11 of Egypt, number 4—
  "When the Ottoman Empire joined the side of Germany not only British communications but Egyptian independence were forthwith jeopardised."
  Why, if we admit this independence even when we disregard Egypt in this very unfortunate manner, have we made such a tremendous difficulty about abolishing the Protectorate? The great interest of this country is to avoid foreign interference in Egypt, and for this purpose we must remain the sole protectors of foreign interests. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and other Members wish to see us clear out of Egypt altogether. That is an impossible solution. Foreign interests must remain, and if we go right out it is certain that when foreigners have any dispute other countries will interfere and others will benefit by our self-sacrifice. We have to stay in Egypt, but we must stay with the consent of the people and for our mutual interests.
  A good deal has been said about the Milner Report. I shall offer only one criticism of that most valuable document. I think they showed very little appreciation of the difficulties of the Egyptian Government when they proposed that the matter should be settled by treaty under the then conditions. The Legislative Assembly has been suspended in Egypt from the outbreak of war, and there is no one capable in Egypt of binding that country by any treaty. I think the Government were very much to blame for not seeing this fact before, and for putting themselves into a vicious circle—that Egypt could not expect this country to make any concessions until in advance she pledged herself to accept those concessions as a final settlement. No Egyptian Government without opportunity of taking the opinion of the country, could possibly commit itself in that way. In view of that fact, it is difficult to understand why the Government allowed Lord Allenby to go on putting this point of view for 12 months before accepting it.
  2120
  In his dispatch of 6th December, 1921, Lord Allenby said:
  "During the past twelve months I have more than once given it as my opinion that no signed agreement was practicable unless His Majesty's Government were prepared to accord to Egypt a higher degree of independence than they are clearly disposed to grant, and that it would therefore eventually be incumbent upon them to define their own policy and give effect to it."
  They have done it now. Why did they not do it before? Who was responsible for the astounding blunder of the lecture which was addressed to the Sultan in the declaratory Note of 3rd December? If there had been any chance of a treaty being signed it would have been ended effectually by this most unfortunate and ill-advised document. Throughout this controversy Lord Allenby has combined conciliation and firmness, whereas the home Government have combined tactlessness and the utmost vacillation. They have played into the hands of fanaticism by showing that they were incapable of listening to reason. I express no opinion as to whether Zaghloul might have compromised at an earlier period, but I am afraid there is no doubt that by their procrastination the Government have now made him a fanatic. It is quite probable that, having been forced into his present position, if he were brought back to Egypt it might mean a great deal of bloodshed and the loss of hundreds and thousands of lives. Under these conditions, I think the House will hesitate to endorse the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and other hon. Members opposite, that Zaghloul Pasha should be released. In this matter, surely we must leave the decision to the man on the spot. Now that the Government have at last had the wisdom to listen to him, I hope they will continue in their new course and not attempt to force the hands of the local administration in such matters. Personal influence is very powerful in the East, and Lord Allenby's success, if success it proves to be, as we all hope it may, will make him as great an asset to Egypt and Great Britain alike as Lord Cromer was. The Government's attitude in this Debate has been to show indifference to the criticisms advanced as to their past conduct, and to take up the attitude that "All's well that ends well." I do not think that is enough. We have to try

  2121
  and avoid the repetition of these mistakes in many other difficulties which beset our Empire and will beset it in the future. I hope the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will give us some explanation as to why this trouble was allowed to develop so badly and continue so long.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As Members who have sat throughout the greater part of this Debate, are aware I have listened to a great part of it myself, and I do not think I have ever listened to a more satisfactory Debate in this House. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just resumed his seat, said that the attitude of the Government has been that of those who say "all's well that ends well." All is not yet ended, but I think to-day we are able to record a satisfactory advance. I am not disposed, at this late hour, to traverse the history of our relations with Egypt during the last few years. We have discussed these matters before, and I do not know that all of our discussions have tended to the bettering of conditions in Egypt, or of our relations with Egypt. I will say quite frankly for myself that I think mistakes have been made. I will qualify that by saying I have never seen any situation so important, so critical, touching so intimately the 'welfare of two peoples, in respect of which it could not be said that mistakes have been made. Considering that the worst of the Government difficulties emerged from the furnace of the War, that some of the action of His Majesty's Government which has come under the severest criticism was actually in the midst of the War, how is it possible that it should not be easy for critics to advance this, that or the other charge against the Government and those who have been responsible for the administration of Egypt?
  The circumstances have been very difficult. I want to say nothing, myself, disrespectful of any Egyptian public man. I never have said in this House anything disrespectful, even of Zaghloul Pasha, but I must say that statesmen of great influence who conduct campaigns similar to those which Zaghloul Pasha conducted, from time to time are assuming enormous responsibilities. I think it is fair to say that a considerable part of the difficulty that has been experienced in Egypt, and in our relations
  2122
  to Egypt in the last two or three years, is directly traceable to the ill-advised, as I think, and reckless agitation of a man who in former times had rendered admirable service to Egypt. I do not myself see any advantage at this moment in going over all that ground. I hope we may be permitted to make a fresh start, and it is interesting to observe in connection with this Debate that the proposed Treaty, the actual terms of the Agreement, have not been challenged by any speaker who has addressed the House this evening. That surely is the most important, the most significant, and the most interesting feature of this Debate. I expected myself that those terms would have been criticised from one side as being far too much in the direction of British interests, or that they would have been attacked from another side as perhaps involving some danger to our particular interests in Egypt. Unless some speech was made during the short time when I was absent from the House myself, no attack has been made on the actual subject under discussion, namely, the present policy of this Government in this House to-day.
  May I, in a word, refer to one or two specific points that have been raised by hon. Members, and before I do that, I hope I may, without any presumption, be permitted to join in the greetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Loyd) has met with in the House. It will be agreed in every part of the House, I think, that we have rarely listened to a maiden speech of so much distinction, based on so intimate a knowledge of the subject under discussion. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) was the only hon. Member, I think, who sought to criticise one of the excepted matters in the terms of the Agreement. He referred to the Act of Indemnity, and I think, if I may be permitted to say so, he was under some misapprehension as to what the Act of Indemnity means and for what it is intended. It is intended to make strictly legal all acts done in Egypt under martial law, and it is, I understand, a common form in regard to situations where martial law is superseded by the ordinary processes of law. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that this House passed an Act of Indemnity to cover the extraordinary proceedings that were done under D.O.R.A. There is nothing, I can

  2123
  assure the hon. Gentleman, in the least sinister about the proposed Act of Indemnity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) referred to a very important matter, that is to say, the question of the Sudan, and cotton-growing in the Sudan. It is not a matter, I think, that I need develop at length this evening, but I can assure him, and other Members of the House interested in the subject, that the whole question is very much under the consideration of the Government at the present time. There was one other matter—the only other matter to which I myself will refer—that has been raised by several Members of the House, and that is the question of Sir Reginald Wingate. I wish one or other of the hon. Members who touched on that question had felt himself able to formulate definitely what exactly is the nature of the complaint.
  Sir H. CRAIK: One of the definite complaints is that the proposals which the Milner Commission blamed Sir Reginald Wingate for not having insisted upon more strongly have never been put before the public. We do not know what they were.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have asked for the publication of these Papers, and the Leader of the House refused to let us have them?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Proposals which Sir Reginald Wingate made, which were rejected by the Foreign Office, which were much more than have been granted now, and which Lord Milner's Commission blamed him for not having pressed with greater insistence.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: Another complaint is that, on his return to England, he was kept waiting for a fortnight before he was received by the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: One of my hon. Friends below the Gangway mentioned the other day that, at some stage or another, it was proposed to raise in the House the question of the treatment of Sir Reginald Wingate. I went to very great trouble, and embarked on a very considerable study of documents in order to discover the definite and concrete com-
  2124
  plaint that was made on behalf of Sir Reginald Wingate.
  Sir H. CRAIK: You have turned off a man in the full vigour of work, and left him without employment, when he was carrying it on with the greatest efficiency. You turn him out without notice, and finally adopt his policy.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid my right hon. Friend would draw me into a controversy, on which I do not think we ought to embark.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Why not?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It must surely be in the discretion of the Government to choose its great officers for certain important work of the British Empire.
  Sir H. CRAIK: You ask us what our complaint is, and you have given no answer.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it is necessary, also, to repudiate the doctrine that any officer of State, no matter how distinguished, has a sort of freehold in the office which he occupies.
  Sir H. CRAIK: He has a right to be treated fairly.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not for a moment going to contrast the merits of one great official with those of another. I have, myself, the profoundest admiration for the merits of Sir Reginald Wingate. I am not going to contrast, as I say, the merits of one great official with those of another, but the House in every quarter has borne testimony to the exceptional qualities and the exceptional suitability of the present High Commissioner to advise the Sultan of Egypt at this time. I have gone most carefully into the whole of that question. It involves the examination of an immense number of documents. I should profoundly regret if I thought any injustice had been done to Sir Reginald Wingate, but, on an examination of the papers in question, I am unable to support the charges made in this House by my right hon. Friend and other Members.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Let us see the documents.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: In conclusion, I say again that this is one of the most remarkable Debates that has taken place in this House since I have been a Member of it. Although criticisms of the

  2125
  foreign policy of the Government have been frequent and free, this is about the only occasion in the recent history of this Government when all parties in the House and all Members of this House have combined to congratulate the Government on the policy which they are now pursuing. I venture to think
  that that is a most happy augury for the further development of this policy, and for the increased prosperity of our relations with Egypt.
  Question put, "That '£148,300,000' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 70.

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES.

  [10.43 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Atkey, A. R.

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perring, William George

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Hallwood, Augustine

  Pollock. Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Rt. Han. Stanley

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

  Purchase, H. G.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. sir Frederick G.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

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

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Reid, D. D.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Remer, J. R.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

  Hinds, John

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

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

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

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Berwick, Major G. O.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

  Briggs, Harold

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

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Smith, Sir Haroid (Warrington)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Brown, Major D. C.

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

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

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

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Steel, Major S. Strang

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

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carew, Charles Robert S.

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

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Sugden, W. H.

  Casey, T. W.

  Kidd, James

  Sutherland, Sir William

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

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Larmor, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

  Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

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

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lorden, John William

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Waddington, R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Wallace, J.

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Edge, Captain Sir William

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

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

  Ednam, Viscount

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

  Manville, Edward

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Evans, Ernest

  Matthews, David

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Fildes, Henry

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

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

  Morris, Richard

  Windsor, Viscount

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Winterton, Earl

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

  Wise, Frederick

  Forrest, Walter

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Neal, Arthur

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

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

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Ammon, Charles George

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Barton, sir William (Oldham)

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

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Halls, Walter

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Hancock, John George

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Hirst, G. H.

  Spencer, George A.

  Bromfield, William

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Sutton, John Edward

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Irving, Dan

  Swan, J. E.

  Cairns, John

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

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Lawson, John James

  Wignall, James

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

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

  Wintringham, Margaret

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

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

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Mills, John Edmund

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Foot, Isaac

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Myers, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Henderson.

  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  WOMEN POLICE.
  Major BARNETT: I have given notice of a Motion to reduce the Police Vote by £100, in order to draw attention to the question of women police, and to ask why the Home Office has not given effect to the Report of the Committee on Police Duties. Two years ago a very strong Committee was appointed to deal with this question. That Committee held a large number of sittings. For 11 days they took evidence: they examined 47 witnesses, and they came to a unanimous Report, which was in favour of the continuance of the system of women police. The summary of their Report was:
  "We consider that the experience of the War has proved that women can be employed with advantage to the community to discharge certain police duties that formerly were exclusively discharged by men. For the efficient performance of these duties it is essential that the women should be specially qualified, highly trained, and well paid, and that they should form an integral part of the police force."
  That recommendation has not been carried out. These women have not been made an integral part of the police. What is the result? They have been handed over to the tender mercies of the Geddes Committee, who, very naturally, have said that with the present duties that they have to discharge they are not worth the money that they are paid. That is a very natural Report from a Committee which we appointed simply to look for
  2128
  economy. But if my right hon. Friend had given the women police the powers which the Committee recommended that they should be given, the question of their utility would not have arisen at all. Last year I drew attention to one province that had been neglected and that is our great parks where there are traps for young children. It was shown over and over again that offenders were undetected and unpunished, whereas women police might have brought the miscreants to justice. The preventive work done in London and other large cities by these women police has been of the greatest possible value. There was a very large amount of work done in London by the hundred women police during the past year, 1,080 women prisoners were searched. That is work which must be done by women, and if the Geddes Report is acted upon more women will have to be employed by the police for this purpose. There were 322 women prisoners escorted. There were 58 who had attempted suicide watched in hospital. That also is work which must be done by women, and must be paid for out of the police fund, so that the economy suggested by doing away with the women police will only be a partial economy. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider the Report of his own Committee which is unanimously in favour of the maintenance of the women police. If this is done, no very large sum of money is involved, but the effect will be that this force set up during the War, which has done such excellent work, will be maintained and not

  2129
  sacrificed on a false plea of economy. The Committee acknowledge the good work done during the War by special bodies of women. They say they are convinced that such work must in normal times be solely entrusted to women under the direct order of the police authorities, who must be left free to decide how far the circumstances of a locality for the policing of which they are responsible require the employment of women constables, and where women are so employed they consider their pay and conditions of service should be uniform throughout Great Britain. This report is based on a very comprehensive examination of the whole problem. I think my right hon. Friend ought to give attention to his own Committee's Report.
  Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: May I ask the Government if they will give an opportunity, before very long, for a more lengthy discussion on this very important question? Women all over the country feel the importance of maintaining these women patrols and their preventive work. It will be a great drawback to social progress if they be withdrawn, and I therefore press the Government to afford a fuller opportunity for discussing this subject before a final decision be taken.
  Sir J. D. REES: Surely if there be any economy for which this country might cry out, it is the determination of this fantastic and expensive piece of feminism. It is impossible by practical enquiry to find out what duties are done by these women perambulating the parts in unbecoming and expensive uniforms, but with no powers whatever. We have never discovered what is at the bottom of this force or what duties they can perform, having no powers. But we do know that they cost £29,000 and that that sum can be saved. If we do not save it we may as well scrap the whole Geddes Report.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [PAYMENT OF CALLS].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such
2130
sums, not exceeding in the whole nine hundred and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the payment of calls on share capital in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited; to authorise the Treasury to borrow money by the creation of securities for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and to amend the Law with respect to the application of dividends or interest on capital held in the said company."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): This is the Report Stage of the Ways and Means Resolution which was recently taken, leading up to a Bill which it will be my duty to introduce shortly in order to give authority for paying up the uncalled amounts still due upon the shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which are owned by the Government. The House may remember that, when this matter came up in Committee, I explained at some length the nature of this obligation, and, in particular, dwelt upon the fact that this was the ordinary obligation upon shares with uncalled liability which the Government, with the authority of the House under the original Act dealing with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, undertook several years ago, and that it is now following out the scheme of the Act to give the House authority in due course to fulfil our obligation on the shares. It is not, however, for the purpose of giving once more an account of this matter, which I have already given at some length, that I now rise, but simply in order to correct an error which I made in the course of the discussion on the last occasion.
In reply to questions, I stated in the course of the Debate that the actual resolution making the call, and thus crystallising the legal liability, had been passed by the company. At the time, I was under the impression that that was so, but I have since found that I was in error. The actual resolution making the call has not yet been passed by the company. The impression arose in this way. The company passed a resolution resolving that the call should be made, and the Treasury assented to that being done.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Could the hon. Gentleman give us the date?
Mr. YOUNG: Yes, I will give all particulars. That was on 31st October. Thereafter the company wrote to the Government director stating that the resolution actually making the call would be passed at the next meeting of the company. That letter was dated 31st January, and the next meeting of the company was to take place on 27th February. It was assumed that at that next meeting of the company the resolution had been passed. Since our previous Debate, however, I have been informed that that was not so; the resolution was not actually passed at that meeting. I thought it right, since under this impression, I made a statement to the contrary in the course of the previous Debate, to correct it at the first opportunity that presented itself. I believe, however, if I have made the matter clear to the House, that the House will see that this is something in the nature of a formal step. The company has decided that the time has come for calling up this uncalled liability, and, on the advice of our advisers on the company and in other matters, we have come to the conclusion that the right time has come to meet this contingent liability, which will have to be met sooner or later in any case.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to divide the House on this matter, but I should like to say a few words in continuation of the discussion that took place last Friday. I should like to tender my thanks to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the candid confession of an error he made on Friday. It was a very important error, because the House understood from the hon. Gentleman that a legal obligation had been entered into which the House was obliged to conform to, and now we find the company has not parsed a resolution, and therefore there is no legal obligation of any kind. The Committee was under the impression that this company was founded in order to preserve to Great Britain the right to produce oil in certain localities and that it was necessary for purposes of the Navy that this oil should be preserved for Great Britain. On Friday I was only able to find the Stock Exchange Year Book of 1920 in the Library. Since then I have found the Stock Exchange Year Book for 1921 and I find that, so far from the operations of this company being limited in the inter-
2132
ests of England, to a very considerable extent they are in the interest of foreign countries. I am not in the least blaming the company for that. The company are no doubt doing what in their opinion is the best for the commercial interests of the shareholders. But I am prepared to prove that the idea that this company is actuated solely by the idea of preserving oil for the Navy is incorrect. The Anglo Persian Oil Company entered into an agreement with a certain French company to provide a company with a capital of 100,000,000 francs, of which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was to find a half, and that company was to create and maintain oil refineries in France and to develop oil in French colonies. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said this money was required to build tank steamers.
Mr. YOUNG: No. partly required. That is rather important. One of the purposes to which the money will be put is the building of tank steamers, but there is another reason. I am informed that the development of the oilfields of the company actually on the site of the oil will require more capital than would otherwise be obtainable.
Sir F. BANBURY: We were told it was for tank steamers, and I pointed out that, as far as I could ascertain, the company had 22 tank steamers. I now find they have 27. The company has entered into this agreement with the French company to provide 50,000,000 francs each in order to develop oil wells in the colonies and start refineries in France. That may be extremely good business from the point of view of the company. I do not blame the company. It is a prosperous company, and it is quite right in carrying on business on commercial lines to develop its business in the way the directors think is most advantageous to the company; but the fact that they are spending £2,000,000 in developing oil in French colonies and starting refineries in France does away with the idea that this is a company whose sole object is to maintain oil for the British Navy. If it is right, and I am not saying that it is not right, for our Government to see that certain oilfields are preserved so that oil can be obtained for the Navy, they ought to take over these particular oilfields and manage them solely in the interests of the Navy.

2133
They ought not to put money into and give the protection of their name to a company, however good—and I am in no way casting any reflection of any sort on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company—which carries on business in all parts of the world for commercial profit. That is an extremely dangerous position. I have had certain particulars handed to me by responsible people, and I understand that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has made very large losses. I do not pay much attention to that, because if you enter into a highly speculative business such as oil business you must make losses as well as profits. Therefore if they have made losses it does not show-that the company is not properly managed. It is a company which, besides being formed to develop oil in the Persian Gulf, holds shares in other oil companies. It is a holding company in other companies, and anybody who has had any experience in the City knows what that moans. I do not say it is not a proper thing to do; but it is not a proper thing for the Government to take an interest in, and as there is now an opportunity for the Government to realise their securities, the better thing for the Government to do would be to realise the securities, which they could do at a profitable price.
I should like to draw attention to a statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which so covered me with confusion that I could not answer it at the time. He said that if this liability was called up the company would be able to borrow money cheaply. During 30 or 40 years' experience I have always understood that if you wanted to borrow money the debenture or preference stock were a security on the assets of the company, and if there was ordinary capital on which there was an uncalled liability that uncalled liability was a further security for the debenture and preference holders. Now I understand from the Financial Secretary that if you do away with that uncalled liability and take away from the debenture and preference holders that security which they had possessed you will be in a position to enable the company to borrow cheaply. That has not been my experience; I always thought it was the reverse. There is no legal obligation on the House. A Bill will have to be introduced if this Resolu-
2134
tion is passed authorising the expenditure. The expenditure is unnecessary. The Resolution demanding it has not been passed. The Committee last Friday did not realise the difference between a call made by an impecunious company and a call made by a prosperous company. The former must be met or the company may have to go into bankruptcy. The latter is a different thing, because if a call is made a shareholder always can say, "I do not want to pay the call, but I will sell my shares," and as the company is prosperous there is always a number of buyers who are willing to buy the shares and pay the call. Therefore, if you do not pass this you will be doing the company no harm. I hope before the Bill is passed that the House will consider whether or not this is not a good opportunity to enable the Government to come with flying colours out of a speculative enterprise. I think that it is the only enterprise of the sort from which the Government could emerge with flying colours. That being so, I strongly advise them to take that course.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: The House is deeply indebted to the right hon. Baronet for the further information which he has supplied. That information, to which I hope to add a little, changes the position in which we were on Friday when the House took the Vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members who say "No" must be unaware of the position of the company at this moment. As the right hon. Baronet has argued, the consent of the Committee to the Government taking this course was based entirely upon the strategic policy—that the British Navy in conformity with the latest decision of scientific opinion was changing more and more from being a coal burning to being an oil burning Navy, and in view of the vast distances separating the fleets of the world there must be a certainty that the British Admiralty could always rely on having an adequate supply of oil for the Navy. The House consented to that. It so happens—it must be by the jest of fate: certainly it is not by their calculated wisdom—that the Government have made a good investment, the only investment which they have made in a commercial enterprise which to-day shows a profit. It cannot be due to their wisdom, because they have gone into business after business,

2135
and in every business into which they have gone they have lost their money.
Mr. STANTON: They have gained by experience.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Here are we the only guardians of the taxpayers called upon to exercise that protection which this House only can give to prevent another £950,000 of public money going into a concern under private control and conducted for personal profit. I now want to change the position which I took on Friday. [Interruption.] I do not object to an intelligible interruption, but I am rather embarrassed by a gutteral interruption. On Friday I did not see my way to go as far as the right hon. Baronet when he urged on the Committee that the best thing that the Government could do would be to sell these shares. The position, I understand, is this: These ordinary shares are now standing somewhere round £4. The particular matter with which we are concerned is that a million shares upon which a shilling, or £50,000, has been paid, should now be fully paid by a further payment by the Exchequer of £950,000. That would mean that when the shares are fully paid there is a profit of something like £3,000,000. But as the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said on Friday last, if you want to go successfully you must go when the going is good. At present this company stands very high in public regard, but when certain facts are known, I think the present high regard will be somewhat lowered.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Has the hon. Member assumed that if they are standing at £4 the market could possibly absorb a million shares?
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: It is obvious that the Government cannot turn on the tap in that way. I am not proposing that.
Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps it would be easier for the Government to authorise the Bank of England to issue a million shares, on the ground that the Government have found that it was inadvisable for them to continue associated with private enterprise. There could be an issue of a million shares with a shilling
2136
paid and a liability. In the present state of affairs they would probably have to take 5s. less for the shares.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: The right hon. Baronet's experience in the City is much greater than mine, and I will allow his answer to stand as a reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths). In some way it would be possible for the Government to dispose of this vast block of shares. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, in which the Government has made this large investment, is acting as a holding company and subscribing for vast quantities of shares in various other companies, each of which seems to me to be having most unfortunate results. There is the company described as for the control of the Scottish-American oil companies. They also subscribe to Tankers, Limited. As a matter of fact, when the public knew, the shares in the Tankers, Limited, went up as high as 27s. 6d. They are to-day 3s. 6d. It is reported that in this investment the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has lost £3,000,000. Also the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has bought a large block of shares in a Rumanian oil company. They bought at £1 shares which are now worth 12s. 6d. This will press very hardly on the Government in proportion as their holding is so large. There is another very important point, and that is that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has invested £2,000,000 sterling in French and Belgian oil distributing companies.
Mr. J. JONES: What Members of the House are in it? Give us the names.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I know of no Members of the House who are in it. This is not an occasion for personal imputation. I am dealing with the principle of the Government using the taxpayers' money to subscribe for shares in proprietary companies—shares which are of a highly speculative character, which show a premium now but very shortly may show a loss. This company has invested £2,000,000 in French and Belgian distributing companies, and orders have been placed in France for the building of tank steamers which are going to run under the French flag and over which the British Government will have no control. Obviously the Government is a

2137
large shareholder in a highly speculative commercial undertaking. It is, of course, true that the first decision of the Government to go into the Anglo-Persian Oil Company arose out of strategic policy. Because of the War, the Government has again and again invested large sums in various commercial concerns. The country is, however, dissatisfied that the Government should go on investing the taxpayers' money in any commercial concerns whatever, and before the House agrees to passing this Report stage, and consents to the Treasury paying this further sum of £950,000, we ought to have definite assurance that the policy which the Government has hitherto pursued in this matter is at an end.
The whole commercial community is opposed to the Government subscribing for shares in any commercial undertaking, chiefly because there is no public end to be served, and also because small investors are encouraged to take shares in undertakings which result in the loss of their money. Because the Government have taken large blocks of shares, people think it must prove a sound investment. There are thousands of shareholders in various concerns to-day whose losses by investment are entirely due to the fact that the Government was applying for large blocks of shares, and therefore they thought the thing was settled. It was not settled. Company after company to which the Government subscribed is in the last dregs of distress. This company, for the moment, is prosperous, but it is engaged in such speculative undertakings that it is losing money by handfuls, and before long it may not be in its present highly prosperous state. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the House an assurance that the Government has ceased to approve of Treasury commitments in commercial undertakings. If that assurance is given we shall not press for a Division; if it is not given, we shall press for a Division. In taking up that attitude we are serving the best interests not merely of the taxpayer, by protecting him against the loss of public money by investment, but also those of the general investor, who is being lured into ridiculously speculative undertakings because of the Government making these large subscriptions.
Commander BELLAIRS: In the few words which I shall address to the House I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments already used in the Debate. I wish to point out in reference to the £2,000,000 which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has invested in French and Belgian distributing companies, that the only result must be a diminished supply of oil for the British Empire and the British Navy and the sending of the oil in other directions. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Lyle-Samuel) points out, that tankers which will fly the French flag are being built out of the £2,000,000 invested by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in the French and Belgian distributing companies. We had the most positive assurances from the Government in 1914 that the investments of the British taxpayer would be devoted entirely to developing the Persian oilfields. The then First Lord of the Admiralty—now Secretary of State for the Colonies—said on 7th July, 1914:
"The hon. Member for Melton asked for, and I can give him, an assurance that money voted by Parliament shall be devoted to development exclusively in the Persian areas. … We shall instruct our delegates that this money is to be expended in developing the oil in the Persian sphere alone."
He also said at the conclusion of his speech, in reference to contracts being arranged, we would get them
"on terms which will be the result of fair and independent bargaining on each side and not on terms which are those usually imposed upon a forced purchaser in a close and cornered market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1914; cols. 1047–8, Vol. 64.]
The actual result was that the Anglo-Persian Company sold their products to the Shell Company, so that we did not get any benefit from it as taxpayers whatsoever. It is now said that we shall get the future prices, for 1923, about one-third less for the Admiralty, but the French and the Belgians will get similar advantages, and if the Government were to sell their shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company they could drive any bargain they liked in doing so. It is said the Anglo-Persian Oil and the Burma Companies would become the prey of the Shell Company. I am not sure that a very good bargain might not be driven by the Government in that direction, by which the majority in that company would be English instead of Dutch, and that is therefore another point to be

2139
considered. The Anglo-Persian oil product is, I understand, one which has valuable by-products. The Shell Company possesses the resources for getting out those valuable by-products and selling them, but the Anglo-Persian Oil Company does not possess those resources, and therefore there would be an advantage in that direction as well. What I recommend to the Government is that they should sell their shares and drive as hard a bargain as they can with the Shell Company, so that, in the event of their getting possession of the Anglo-Persian Oil and the Burma Companies, the British Government's position will be quite clear in regard to future contracts, and the British side of the company will hold the majority of the shares over the Dutch side, so that this great company really becomes a British company.
Sir J. D. REES: I do not follow the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. Lyle Samuel), because, as I understand him, if I do understand him at all, he has taken a totally different line to-night from that which he took two or three nights ago, and I am rather puzzled.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: In what sense have I taken a different line?
Sir J. D. REES: It is a matter of very little importance. It is the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) with whom I am concerned. How does he hold that a call is only an obligation when it is made? Surely it is an obligation irrespective of the date on which it is made. It makes no difference in law, as I understand it, whether the call is made before the House discusses this matter or after. Anybody who has shares is liable for the call.
Sir F. BANBURY: The call has not yet been made. The Government, I understand, through their directors, have the power of veto, and therefore, the call not having been made, the Government can tell their directors to veto any further attempt to make the call.
Mr. YOUNG: Perhaps I ought to deal at once with the statement made by the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down. Legal opinion is that the Government directors have no power to veto the call on the ground that the call is purely a financial matter and not a question of
2140
general policy. I do not think it is absolutely certain, but there is legal opinion to that effect.
Sir J. D. REES: It would be quite impossible for the Government, if it is in any business concern, to set an example which no private business would dare to follow, so I do not suppose that the right hon. Baronet would seriously maintain that.
Sir F. BANBURY: Of course I would maintain it. Over and over again it has been held that when a call has been made, and the shareholders have objected to it, the call has been withdrawn.
Sir J. D. REES: I must confess I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to hold up their heads for the rest of their lives if they directed their directors to repudiate the call, which is a legal liability upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman—and I have always admired him for it—has been one of the greatest opponents of anything like Government management or nationalisation, but tonight, having commenced with this heterodox, and, I think, untenable position with regard to this call, he actually winds up by saying that if the Government want to get oil for their ships they had better have a company of their own, and man-ago it, thereby falling into the depths of Socialism.
Mr. J. JONES: He is a Bolshevik in a top hat.
Sir J. D. REES: With reference to what the hon. Gentleman opposite said, I was in the House when this investment was originally sanctioned, and it was then stated, and, as I understand, is still believed to be the case, that it was not solely for the supply of oil from Persia to our warships that this investment should be made, but in order that the British nation should have under British control one of the three great suppliers of oil in the world. That is the point, and if this company passed into the control of the other two companies, which are under foreign management, we should not be in a position to feed our ships with oil. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the whole of the products of this company were sold to the Shell Company. That, as I understand the matter, is not

2141
exactly correct. What, I think, is the case is that after the end of the present year they are free as to the price of their oil. As to the number of ships, I know nothing about tankers, but I have seen a vast refinery at Swansea, and I should think it would require a great number of tankers to bring the crude oil from foreign ports, because there is not much being got from Derbyshire or any other districts in England, to feed the refinery in South Wales! My hon. and gallant Friend, whom I am rather surprised try find opposing any scheme to provide oil for the Navy, referred to the Belgium and French investments of this company. I know nothing about them, and I did not know, until the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke, that any existed; but it certainly does occur to me that the distribution companies are not exactly like oil companies, and that the more distributing companies any great producing company has under its control, the better means it has of selling oil—which is not all wanted for the Navy in time of peace—all over the world, and, therefore, the better means of producing those excellent returns about which everybody is agreed, in this particular investment the Government have succeeded in getting for the taxpayers.
I was really only dragged to my feet by what I considered to be the heterodox and astonishing attitude taken up by the right hon. Baronet, to the effect that the payment of calls is almost optional, and that it really differs in proportion to the more or less prosperous condition of the company making the calls, which two propositions—although I say it with great hesitation to so great a financial authority—I believe to be totally untenable.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I only rise to ask the Financial Secretary for information to clear up a point. I understand that this company to-day is controlled as to policy by the Government, so that, although it may be advantageous to go into this foreign business, such as selling oil to France and Belgium, should occasion arise we could, by our control, force all the oil owned by this company to come to this country. Having paid up our call do we if we sell these shares lose control of the company? That seems to me to be a very important point.
Mr. YOUNG: Undoubtedly the Government at the present time by its voting power have control of the company. There is no question whatever in this measure of any re-affirmation, far less of any expansion, of any policy such as has been indicated. We are simply here carrying out the necessary consequences of the original decision to make this investment, come to before the War. I can certainly say that this measure is not to be looked upon in any way as giving any hint or showing any indication on the part of the Government to invest any further thousands in such enterprise as is looked upon as private enterprise.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Hilton Young and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (PAYMENT OF CALLS) BILL,
"to provide money for the payment of calls on share capital in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited, acquired under the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Amendment Act, 1919, and to amend the Law with respect to the application of dividends or interest on capital held in the said company," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

EDUCATION ACT, 1902.
Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move,
"That the Draft Order amending Final Order No. 8, made, under Section 11 (8) of the Education Act, 1902, laid upon the Table of this House on the 7th day of February, be not proceeded with."
I apologise to the House, but it is necessary for me to bring forward this matter, even at such a late, hour. This is a matter which requires to be dealt with within 30 days, and that period has now well nigh elapsed. This proposals deals with an Order to be drafted by the Board of Education for the purpose of amending the Final Order relating to the church schools in a Suffolk village. The trust deed provided that the superintendent of the

2143
moral and religious instruction of the scholars should be allowed to use the schools for the purposes of a Sunday school and other purposes. Under the Act of 1902 there were certain statutory provisions which created foundation managers and it was necessary to make orders in different places adapting the provisions of the trust deed to these four foundation managers. The Final Order provided that one manager should be the vicar, one nominated by the vicar, one a member of the Church of England living near the parish to be co-opted, and one appointed by the vestry for three years. The Final Order provided that any dispute should be determined by the Board of Education, so that there were ample powers for the Board of Education to deal with any question raised by the Final Order. It was also provided that the Board of Education might vary or amend any Order made under this Section by an Order made in a similar manner. Obviously this machinery enabled the Board of Education to do that which they had power to do in the first instance, namely, to make a Final Order where the provisions of the trust deed were unsuitable for the purpose. What the Board of Education are proposing is not to use the powers which they originally had to adopt the trust deed, but they are using this power to make an entirely new Final Order which is absolutely at variance with the trust deed. Having had my attention called to the matter and having no interest in the question at all, I must say that I think this proceeding is an absolutely novel one in the history of the Board of Education.
The proposed Order, instead of leaving the vicar and the persons fixed by the Final Order at four managers, which is consistent with the provisions of the trust deed, provides that there shall be four foundation managers, one of which shall be the people's warden and the other three are to be persons nominated by the Archdeacon of Suffolk, and he may even nominate himself. The reason why the amending Order is now made is that it is said that during a number of years there have been disputes in the parish. The history of the school would take too long to describe in detail, but I will state one or two facts. The population is 600, and the vicar and other persons, includ-
2144
ing the vicar's wife, have conducted the school with great success. The average attendance is 107, which is not bad considering that the population of the village is only 600. It appears that the trouble has arisen over non-compliance with the Final Order which provided that one representative should be elected by the Vestry. Hon. Members are aware that in these country villages very often the Vestry proceedings are not so harmonious as they ought to be, and perhaps that is one reason why the Vestries have been practically abolished and their duties passed on to another body. But it appears that what has led to this Amending Order is that in 1911, the Vestry having been held and a representative having been duly elected, since the War broke out and throughout the War the vicar—probably wrongly, though I say so with respect—continued the then Vestry representative in office, simply going through the formality of re-electing him by the existing foundation managers instead of calling a meeting of the Vestry. In 1920, it appears, he was requested by the Board of Education to call a Vestry meeting. The vicar thought in the circumstances of that period it would be difficult to call a meeting and he did not call a meeting; but the Board of Education could not have been aware of the circumstances in the village.
It may have been an error of judgment that the meeting was not held. There may have been a great many circumstances which the Board of Education had not the time or probably the patience to inquire into, and the vicar thought it was not worth while, having regard to the opposition from one very limited quarter, to call a Vestry meeting. But the fact that he has had no desire to interfere with the duties of the Board of Education is proved by the fact that on many occasions he has visited the Board of Education in the course of the past year, and conferred with them as to the proper procedure to be taken, and that on 26th January of this present year the Vestries were summoned and they elected a new manager, who is perfectly prepared to take up his duties and who, in fact, has been taking up his duties and acting under the Final Order made in 1903.
I have undoubted evidence as to the efficiency of the school. I have undoubted evidence, which my right hon. Friend will not dispute, that the vicar and his

2145
managers collected comparatively large sums of money, that they have erected a new infant room at a cost of £300, and new offices and playgrounds at a cost of £250 in recent years, and that the parish have shown sympathy with the vicar and the managers by protesting against the interference with the rights of the vicar and the persons who are interested in the parish. My right hon. Friend may say he attaches very little importance to petitions. In general. So do I. But in a village of 600 inhabitants, when a considerable number of those who take an interest in the spiritual and moral welfare of the parish have said that they do not wish this Order made, this is a circumstance to which I hope my right hon. Friend will give weight. Those of us who are familiar with county parishes do not expect to find that every parish in the land is as harmonious as it ought to be. It does appear to be an undoubted fact that there was one gentleman in the parish, some two or three years ago, who desired to turn this school into a Council school, and we know what bitter controversies questions of this sort have aroused, and he made an offer of a playground to the Local Education Authority on condition that the vicar and the Church people had nothing to do with the school. His offer not having boon accepted, this gentleman unfortunately has not helped to make things as happy as they might have been. Possibly there are faults on both sides. It is a novel principle to me that because persons are found who do not work a trust deed as well as they ought to do that any authority ought to come in and alter the trust deed. The proper remedy is to direct and compel people to work trust deeds properly and not to alter them. That is a sound principle which, I think, this House ought really to observe. There was another incident in connection with certain sanitary arrangements which the vicar was concerned in with the local sanitary authority. It turned out that the scheme pressed on the vicar by the local sanitary authority was not adopted and an entirely different one—providing filters instead of cesspools—was put into operation. That seems to indicate that he had some show of right on his side.
The last matter I would ask leave to mention is this: There was a disagree-
2146
ment with the East Suffolk Education Committee as to structural arrangements and alterations which they thought necessary. Now anyone familiar with country schools who has had experience of the tyranny of local education authorities as to the outlay of money will not be surprised there should be a disagreement as to the requirements which they put forward. The authority seem to have objected to the insufficiency of the cloak room accommodation because probably it consisted of nothing more than a passage four or five feet wide. There was a disagreement, but a plan was eventually carried out and the necessary funds were collected by those responsible for the management of the school. I do not pretend to have related all the incidents that have caused heat possibly between, the; local education authority and the foundation managers, but I hope I have said enough to show that the vicar and the foundation managers under the Final Order have taken a very real interest in the school and it is really intolerable from their point of view that they should be entirely ousted from any management of their own school of the control of which they were placed in charge by the trust deed which was only displaced to some extent by the Act of 1902 and that the Archdeacon of Suffolk—whom I do not know—he may be an admirable gentleman and who has only once visited the village, should be placed in control of this school as he will be under the amending Order. It is said to be an injustice to the vicar that this should be so, and I have no doubt he feels it keenly. I venture to think, however, that the observance of trust deeds is of much more importance than even doing an injustice to individual persons. It is on that ground that I have taken the responsibility of bringing the matter before the House, and I respectfully challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say whether there has been any previous case within his knowledge, or within the knowledge of the men on whom he depends for information, where a trust deed has been set aside and replaced by an Order which is absolutely at variance not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the deed which created the foundation school. If it is said that the gentlemen in question have not been so easy to deal with as they might have been, if it is said there has been long-standing

2147
trouble, I would merely observe that there have probably been faults on both sides. Is not this too drastic a proceeding as against one of these gentlemen who in course of time—as we all shall—must pass away. It seems to me it is entirely wrong to take out of the hands of the village the management of their own school, and I beg my right hon. Friend—who, I am sure, will not think I am actuated by any hostile spirit to his admirable management of this question—to find a way of dealing with this matter in a manner which will give more satisfaction to the village, which will be less harsh to the gentleman chiefly concerned, and above all which will give effect to the provisions of the foundation deed in connection with this village school. I beg to move that the Order be not proceeded with.
Dr. WORSFOLD: I beg to second the Motion.
12 M.
For 60 years this trust deed has been administered in its entirety, faithfully and well, not only by the present incumbent but by his predecessor. The work has been continued harmoniously as regards the children, and the school is in excellent condition. For over 30 years the vicar has devoted himself to the work, and has carried it on successfully. Now, because at the time of the War, when many greater matters were put out of joint, a vestry was not called, he is to be taken from the work and a stranger is to be put in his place who could not possibly have the same interest in it. The fact that the recent outlay of several hundred pounds has been possible in a small place like this, of only 600 inhabitants, is a sure test of what the work is and how it has been carried on. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is fair that the man who has done all this work should be taken from it and a stranger put in.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I greatly regret that the Board have found it necessary to lay this Order upon the Table of the House. It is, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, an unusual Order. The Board have no desire to interfere with the rights of vicars under the Act of 1902, and it is only because they have had experience of 30 years of contumacy on the part of this
2148
particular vicar that they have at last, with very great reluctance, and at the instance of the local education authority, taken the step of which complaint is now made. I wish it to be clearly understood that in taking this step I make no imputation upon the character or the spiritual qualities of the vicar. He may, for aught that I know, be an ideal parish priest. He may have all the eloquence of a St. Chrysostom and all the charity of a St. Francis. Of that I know nothing. I only know about his relations with the management of the village school, and these have been consistently unfortunate. The hon. and learned Member has invoked, as he was entitled to do, the sanctity of the trust deed. I quite agree that it is a very serious thing to interfere with a trust, but the facts of the case are that we cannot get the vicar to observe the trust. Our difficulty is that he will not summon the vestry in accordance with the law. As the hon. and learned Member has pointed out, it is the duty of the vicar to summon the vestry and appoint a representative of the vestry upon the board of management. The Board of Education have for two years been pressing the vicar to adopt this course, but he has refused to do so. He has been openly contumacious, and it is in the light of that, and in response to the appeal of the local education authority, that the Board have made an Order, as they are fully entitled to do, under Section 11 of the Act of 1902.
Mr. INSKIP: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman caught what I stated, namely, that the reasons—which may have been good or bad—included a breakdown in health lasting some time. Undoubtedly the vicar did summon a vestry meeting on 26th January of this year, and elected a fourth representative. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman allow that to be treated as a proper election, in spite of the fact that the draft Order has been laid?
Mr. FISHER: I am informed that they have only had one unchallenged vestry meeting in the last 18 years.
Mr. INSKIP: There was one in 1911.
Mr. FISHER: I accept that for what it is worth, but I submit to my hon. and learned Friend that here is a vicar who, in spite of frequent requests addressed to him by the Board of Education that he

2149
should obey the law and summon a vestry meeting and appoint a representative of the vestry on the board of management, takes no steps for two years, and then, when he is threatened with the order, summons a vestry meeting—which will certainly be challenged—in order to satisfy the Board. I think that the vicar, in these circumstances, has no case. I do not wish to enter into the history of the matter, but the vicar's doings during the last 30 years would supply material for a good deal of comment. I quite realise that some objection may be taken to the making of the Order permanent, but we did not limit it in point of time, because it seemed to the Board that to take that course would be to inflict some stigma upon the vicar. If, however, it would meet my hon. and learned Friend, I am quite willing to make a public declaration that upon a change of incumbency we will reconsider the Order.
My hon. and learned Friend has stated the facts quite correctly. The Order does alter the board of management. It provides that the foundation managers shall consist of the people's churchwarden and three persons appointed by the Archdeacon of Suffolk, and the managers are required to be members of the Church of England. It cannot be suggested that such an Order docs not safeguard the peculiar denominational interests for which the trust deed made provision, and it does secure that the appointment of the foundation managers shall be in the hands of a responsible ecclesiastical Authority, who will be able to see that the scandals which have occurred in the past shall not occur in the future. There is nothing in the Order which prevents the archdeacon from appointing the present vicar as a foundation manager, should he so desire, as no doubt he will, if he can receive an assurance that he will so conduct himself as to avoid a recurrence of the troubles of the past. No protest against that provision has been made by the bishop or by any of the ecclesiastical authorities of the diocese or by the National Society or by any persons specially interested in the matter of denominational schools. The hon. and learned Gentleman fairly pointed out that it, statement, in opposition to the Order, had been sent in by about 80 parishioners, to the effect that the moral and religious training of the children would be impaired. For the last 30 years there has
2150
been a continuous struggle in this village with respect to the management of the school, and I cannot believe that any view which the archdeacon will have as to the composition of the board of management will produce any such effect on the morals of the children. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend, in view of the undertaking which I have given with respect to the currency of the Order, will not persevere with his Motion.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I add one word in view of the fact that this village is in my constituency? I am sure that if the villagers knew that they had been detaining the House of Commons after midnight to consider this parochial dispute, they would be highly nattered to learn that this purely domestic squabble had reached such a position of national significance. I do not recognise the locus standi of my hon. and learned Friend in the matter.
Mr. INSKIP: I do not ask you.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: And I must express surprise that, without consulting the Member for the Division, the hon. and learned Member for the Central Division of Bristol detains the House to give his view of this local situation in a way which, to say the least of it, suggests an ecclesiastical partisanship which the people living in the district and knowing the facts would not at all accept.
Mr. INSKIP: It would be an extraordinary thing if the House thought that I gave an exhibition of ecclesiastical partisanship. The hon. Member makes a charge for which there is no foundation. The hon. Member has no right to make such a suggestion.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If the hon. and learned Member thinks that I said anything which would justify the use of the word "charge," I would like to withdraw it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, without having, so far as I can sec, any local connection with this district, and with the dispute which has confronted the Board of Education for 30 years, detains the House of Commons by intervening in a matter in which he has no direct personal concern. The whole trend of public opinion is opposed to the right of the vicar qua vicar to dominate the educational life of the village. The last thing I thought of was

2151
to make any personal imputation against my hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have a great personal regard. I was glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend, not only for the decision, but for what he said, and if it terminates this long existing controversy and tends to heal old sores, smooth away this agitation and bring calm to the district, it will be received with great gratification in the locality, and as Member for the constituency in which the village is situated, I offer the right hon. Gentleman my personal support for the course which he has taken.
Question put, and negatived.

CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EX-SERVICE MEN.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  IRISH PEISON SERVICE.
  IRISH PEISON SERVICE.
  GOVERNMENT SERVICE (SPECIAL CLERICAL EXAMINATION).
  GOVERNMENT SERVICE (SPECIAL CLERICAL EXAMINATION).
  POST OFFICE.
  POST OFFICE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WAR MEDALS (TENDERS).
  WAR MEDALS (TENDERS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING, DEVON AND CORNWALL).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING, DEVON AND CORNWALL).
  RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS.
  RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS.
  SMALL ARMS FACTORY CHURCH, ENFIELD.
  SMALL ARMS FACTORY CHURCH, ENFIELD.
  HOLMBUSH FARM, KINGSTON-BY-SEA (COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPATION).
  HOLMBUSH FARM, KINGSTON-BY-SEA (COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPATION).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT (CORPORAL G. COOPER).
  SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT (CORPORAL G. COOPER).
  LIEUTENANT-COLONELS.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONELS.
  ESTIMATES, 1919.
  ESTIMATES, 1919.
  FIELD ARTILLERY, INFANTRY, AND CAVALRY (COMPARATIVE COST).
  FIELD ARTILLERY, INFANTRY, AND CAVALRY (COMPARATIVE COST).
  WEST INDIAN REGIMENT.
  WEST INDIAN REGIMENT.
  FRENCH MILITARY MISSIONS.
  FRENCH MILITARY MISSIONS.
  NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  BRITISH AIRSHIPS.
  BRITISH AIRSHIPS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  WAR GRATUITY (W. TODD).
  WAR GRATUITY (W. TODD).
  APPEALS.
  APPEALS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BELIEF WORK.
  BELIEF WORK.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  GROCERY TRADE (WAGES).
  GROCERY TRADE (WAGES).
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TEST).
  DIPHTHERIA (SCHICK TEST).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
  SMALL-POX, PHILIPPINES.
  SMALL-POX, PHILIPPINES.
  PRESTWICH ASYLUM (APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE).
  PRESTWICH ASYLUM (APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE).
IRELAND.
  MINES AND QUARRIES, SOUTHERN IRELAND.
  MINES AND QUARRIES, SOUTHERN IRELAND.
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
  GENOA CONFERENCE.
  GENOA CONFERENCE.
  TRANSPORT STRIKE, CONSTANTINOPLE.
  TRANSPORT STRIKE, CONSTANTINOPLE.
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE, BECKENHAM (ARBITRATOR'S AWARD).
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE, BECKENHAM (ARBITRATOR'S AWARD).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  CITRATE.
  CITRATE.
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES, CROYDON.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES, CROYDON.
  COST OF TEACHING.
  COST OF TEACHING.
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
  PARISH COUNCILS, GLASGOW.
  PARISH COUNCILS, GLASGOW.
POST OFFICE.
  NEW BUILDINGS, EPPING.
  NEW BUILDINGS, EPPING.
  CIRCULARS.
  CIRCULARS.
  BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICE (GIRL MESSENGERS).
  BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICE (GIRL MESSENGERS).
INDIA.
  COLONEL WEDGWOOD, M.P. (LETTER).
  COLONEL WEDGWOOD, M.P. (LETTER).
  STATEMENT OF POLICY (PUBLICATION).
  STATEMENT OF POLICY (PUBLICATION).
  CORONERS BILL.
  CORONERS BILL.
  EXPLOSION, TIPTON.
  EXPLOSION, TIPTON.
  STEAM-DRIVEN ROAD VEHICLES.
  STEAM-DRIVEN ROAD VEHICLES.
  CHRISTMAS WAITS.
  CHRISTMAS WAITS.
  EXPLOSIVES (SALES).
  EXPLOSIVES (SALES).
  CANADIAN CATTLE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  CANADIAN CATTLE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  TAXATION.
  TAXATION.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  ROYAL NAVY (LIME AND LEMON JUICE).
  ROYAL NAVY (LIME AND LEMON JUICE).
  MINES DEPARTMENT EXPERIMENTAL STATION.
  MINES DEPARTMENT EXPERIMENTAL STATION.
  FOOD PRODUCTION.
  FOOD PRODUCTION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª. — (The Earl of Bradford.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, as I stated in the House last Wednesday, the promoters of this Bill have agreed to withdraw Clause 31 when the Bill reaches Committee. I should like to say that they informed me that they had hoped to find that the clause would be accepted by all parties concerned, but that in view of the opposition which had developed they were prepared to adopt whatever course I thought best with regard to the clause. On this I expressed the opinion that it would be better that they should withdraw the clause, and they at once gave me their formal undertaking to do so at the Committee stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed.

THE FOREIGN SECRETARY'S REPLY TO MR. MONTAGU.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am sorry to have to ask your Lordships' attention for a few moments to a personal matter arising from the references to myself contained in a speech made by a late

465
colleague of mine, Mr. Montagu, on Saturday last. I had thought that the Foreign Secretary, who is about to proceed to Paris for the discussions on the Eastern question, was the chief sufferer by the astonishing act of the late Secretary of State for India, inasmuch as the authorisation by him of the publication of the manifesto of the Government of India could not but gravely affect the position of the British representative in the forthcoming Conference. But I learned, greatly to my surprise, from Mr. Montagu's speech, that I am deemed in some way to have connived at this injury to the public interests in my charge. And this amazing proposition Mr. Montagu endeavoured to establish by a public reference to private correspondence with me and to a private conversation in the Cabinet chamber, which I cannot help thinking must be without parallel in the history of Cabinet proceedings. I am compelled therefore briefly to state the facts.
In common with my colleagues I received, on Saturday afternoon, March 4, from the Cabinet Office, a copy of the telegram from the Government of India in which they sought permission to publish their manifesto about the terms of peace with Turkey. Knowing that there was to be a Cabinet at the beginning of the next week, and not deeming it possible that Mr. Montagu could sanction publication without reference to his colleagues, I regarded it as certain that the question would be brought up at the meeting on Monday. On that day, before the proceedings began, I mentioned the Viceroy's telegram to Mr. Chamberlain, who presided in the absence of the Prime Minister, and expressed to him the view that when the permission of the Cabinet to publication was sought it must be unhesitatingly refused. In this he concurred.
A little later, in the course of a private conversation of a few seconds only with Mr. Montagu, I said: "Of course, you will not authorise publication without reference to the Cabinet." To this he replied: "But I have already done so on Saturday last." I was so dumbfounded at the avowal that the Secretary of State had already given his sanction—as it has since transpired., before the telegram from the Government of India could even have been seen by many of his colleagues—that I closed the conversation and returned to my seat. Had Mr. Montagu given me the
466
slightest hint that there was still time to cancel or to postpone the order which he had sent to India by telegram two days before, or had I regarded such a suspension as possible, I should at once have brought this matter before the Cabinet. But I assumed that publication had already, under Mr. Montagu's authority, taken place in India—all the more so that the Government of India had pressed for immediate sanction to publish.
I presumed, therefore—and in the circumstances no other presumption was possible—that it was too late for me to intervene. Furthermore, the responsibility for the step was not mine; it was for the Secretary of State to explain and to justify his own action, already taken, to the Cabinet. He was the Indian Secretary, and not I. Whether he then or afterwards proceeded to do so or not I did not know, for being ill at the time and having only risen from bed to attend the Cabinet for certain Foreign Office matters, I left the room as soon as these had been disposed of. Feeling, however, profoundly disturbed and dismayed at the action which Mr. Montagu had just revealed to me, I wrote to him a private letter the same afternoon, deploring the action that he had taken and protesting against a repetition of any similar occurrence. Of so intimate a character was this letter, written by one colleague to another, that I did not even take a copy of its contents. I regarded it. as no less confidential than scores of similar letters which Mr. Montagu has addressed to me while we have served together, sometimes at the rate of two or three a week, the character of which I will not follow his example by attempting in public to describe.
I awaited a reply to this letter throughout Tuesday and Wednesday before deciding what further steps, if any, it might be desirable for me to take. Neither then nor since did Mr. Montagu favour me with any answer. Instead of this, the late Secretary of State, reversing the ordinary procedure by which a Minister who has resigned makes his explanation in Parliament, where his statements can be checked or answered—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON:—went down to his constituents, addressed a political club of his own supporters, publicly referred to and travestied both my private conver

467
sation with him and my private letter, vilified the colleague whose advice in relation to Indian foreign and frontier affairs, he has not ceased both to solicit and to receive in unstinted measure in most weeks of recent years, and endeavoured to shift some portion of the responsibility for his lamentable indiscretion on to thy shoulders.
My Lords, I have this morning recovered from Mr. Montagu a copy of my letter, and I hold it in my hand. It was marked by me "Private." It seems to me an intolerable, as I believe it to be an unprecedented, thing that an ex-Cabinet Minister should, by quoting and distorting in public a private letter written to him under the seal of confidence by a colleague, compel its publication to the world. Such a proceeding appears to me neither consistent with the confidence which should prevail between Ministers, nor with the honour of public life. But Mr. Montagu has left me no alternative, and I will now read the letter to your Lordships. But first let me ask your Lordships to recall Mr. Montagu's description of it. This is what he said at Cambridge:—
"But what did Lord Curzon do? He maintained silence in the Cabinet and contented himself that evening with writing to me one of those plaintive, hectoring, bullying, complaining letters which are so familiar to his colleagues and to his friends, which ended with the request—what? Not to discuss the matter in the Cabinet, but in future not to allow publication of such documents without consultation with him. That was all."
I will now read the actual terms of the letter:
"Private.
"March 6th, 1922.
"Dear Montagu,
"I much deplore that you should have thought it right without consulting the Cabinet to authorise the publication of that telegram even as amended. Had I when Viceroy, ventured to make a public pronouncement in India about the foreign policy of the Government in Europe, I should certainly have been recalled. As it was, I was once rebuked for making a casual reference in a speech. I consulted Chamberlain this morning in the absence of the Prime Minister, and found that he entirely shared my views.
"But it was too late.
"That I should be asked to go into Conference at Paris, while a subordinate branch of the British Government 6,000 miles away dictates to the British Govern-
468
ment what line it thinks I ought to pursue in Thrace seems to me quite intolerable. But the part that India has sought to play or been allowed to play in this series of events passes my comprehension. Moreover it is of very dangerous import. For if the Government of India, because it rules over a large body of Moslems, is entitled to express and publish its views about what we do in Smyrna or Thrace, why not equally in Egypt, the Soudan, Palestine, Arabia, the Malay Peninsula, or any other part of the Moslem world? Is Indian opinion always to be a final Court of Moslem appeal? I hope this may be the last of these unfortunate pronouncements. But if any other is ever contemplated I trust at least that you will give me the opportunity of expressing my opinions in Cabinet before sanction is given.
"Yours ever,
"(Signed) CURZON."
Your Lordships can form your own opinion as to the tone of the letter which I have read.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: But you will observe that instead of requesting, as alleged by Mr. Montagu at Cambridge, that he should in future discuss such matters with me without bringing them to the Cabinet, I said on the contrary precisely the reverse. I urged that it was before the Cabinet that I should be given an opportunity of expressing my opinion before any independent action of this sort was ever again taken by the Secretary of State for India.
Such are the facts of the case upon which it is open to anyone who hears or reads my words to pass his own judgment. They leave me still quite unable to determine whether the private or the public conduct of the late Secretary of State for India has been the more inexplicable and surprising, and, my Lords, in using those adjectives, I am astonished at my own moderation.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in the first place I desire to express the sympathy which I am sure all your Lordships feel with the noble Marquess opposite in the circumstances in which he has had to come to the House to make this statement. The noble Marquess, as we know,

469
has been seriously ill; I am not overstating the case in using that adverb, and we all watched, I think, with sympathy the difficulty and the necessary emotion with which he made the statement which he thought it his duty to come down and present to your Lordships at the earliest possible moment.
On the actual circumstances of this unhappy event I do not wish to say much. I have been a colleague both of the noble Marquess opposite and of the late Secretary of State for India, and I have no desire to engage in any personal criticisms of the actions of either. The noble Marquess has stated his case with the utmost fairness, and I am bound to say that so far as the original cause of his indignation is concerned, he will, as I believe, receive the universal sympathy of the House. Mr. Montagu has rendered, at any rate in the opinion of many of us, great services to India in the past, and I could not mention his action on this particular occasion without paying that tribute to him. It will, I believe, be the universal feeling of your Lordships' House, and I am bound to say it appears to be of everybody outside, that in having sanctioned the publication of this particular telegram—the manifesto, as the noble Marquess described it—of the Government of India expressing, it is true, views which they were known to hold but which they were not entitled to give formally to the world, Mr. Montagu committed a breach of the ordinary proprieties of Cabinet Government to which, like the noble Marquess, I can recall no precedent.
I do not desire to enter into the circumstances of the correspondence that ensued. I will say this—that the letter of the noble Marquess as read by him—and, of course, I bad no conception what it contained—does not appear to me to deserve the particular epithets applied to it by Mr. Montagu. If I had had to criticise it as between colleagues, I should have said that it was couched in rather more formal terms than, perhaps, is customary between men who are in the habit of sitting round the same table many days a week and perpetually working together. That is a somewhat opposite kind of criticism to that which its recipient levelled at it, and it is the only one that I at all feel inclined to make.
I do not desire to say anything more on the personal question, but I cannot help
470
observing, and my observation is in no sense or way aimed at the noble Marquess, that action of this kind on the part of a Minister, surprising as it may be, is less surprising than it would have been from a member of a Government in which the old tradition of collective responsibility had been more uniformly respected. We cannot help recalling other cases in which His Majesty's Ministers—I do not name any—seem to have arrogated to themselves the right to make speeches either on platforms or sometimes even in Parliament, conveying views distinct from, and even opposed to, those which were understood to be entertained by the Government as a whole. If this particular Minister has gone too far, as we all think he has, in the assertion of this independence, I am afraid he has been encouraged to do it by the manner in which No. 10, Downing Street has conducted the system of Cabinet Government.
But what really matters after all is what is going to be the effect on India, and what is going to be the effect upon Europe at the Conference of which the noble Marquess has told us. That is what really matters, far and above all these lamentable personal questions. This is not the moment to discuss what the possible effects on either may be. All that anybody can do is to ask people to view the whole of this episode as soberly as possible, and we trust that when it comes to the discussion regarding Greece and Turkey, this will not be allowed, in the mind of Europe, to enter into the question at all. I hope this episode will be completely blotted out from the minds of those who attend the Conference in Paris. There is this much to be said, that the particular opinions of the Indian Government, going, as I personally hold, far beyond the needs of the case, were at any rate well known. I trust, therefore, that being so, that this most unfortunate publication will not in the event interfere with the smooth progress of that Conference, whenever it takes place.

SUMMER TIME BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself in Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Application to Channel Islands and Isle of Man.
2. This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in like manner as it applies to Great Britain, and the Royal Courts of the Channel Islands shall register this Act accordingly.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection—
"(2) For the purposes of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act in its application to Northern Ireland shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day."
The noble Earl said: The application of the Bill to Northern Ireland is made at the request of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. He tells me that the Cabinet of Northern Ireland are unanimously in favour of retaining the same time as the rest of Great Britain throughout the year, but owing to the fact that the. Northern Parliament does not meet till April 4 the passage of this Bill would be delayed if we waited until that meeting, and Sir James Craig has asked me to put in this clause. The Parliament of Northern Ireland, of course, will, at any time hereafter, be able to modify the hour, if they so desire. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Interpretation, short title and application.
3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act the period of summer time shall be taken to be the period beginning at two o'clock, Greenwich mean time, in the morning of the day next following the last Saturday in March, or, if that day is Easter Day, the day next following the last Saturday but one in March, and ending at two o'clock, Greenwich mean time, in the morning of the day next following the first Saturday in October.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Summer Time Act, 1922.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to substitute
472
"September" for "October." The noble Marquess said: Lord Bledisloe, I understand, is unable to be here to-day, and I am willing, therefore, in his absence, to move this Amendment which is down in his name. As the noble Earl will remember, I raised the point in the debate on the Second Reading. I do not wish to repeat what I said then, except to enforce the view that it would make a very marked difference to the agricultural community in the greater part of England, and of course equally, or even more so, in Scotland, if the date in October could be struck out of the Bill.
It is during that month, which is the month when the harvest north of the Trent is taking place, that agricultural operations are so heavily interfered with by dew. Dew, of course, pays no attention to lets of Parliament, and the result is that the morning hours are very often entirely wasted, and the men have to kick their heels about the farm instead of getting to work in the fields. If it were possible to change the farm hours in the way which the noble Earl seemed to think possible, the difficulty might to some extent be met so far as harvesting is concerned, but the practical difficulty, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, is that you cannot, in farming, make overtime under present conditions take the place of the regular hours. The workers very often will not undertake it. They have a distinct distaste for working overtime, which has become a rather novel feature in agricultural life, because, as those of us who are getting on in life remember, the agricultural hours were very loosely interpreted in former years, particularly during harvest time.
There is the further difficulty, which I mentioned to the noble Earl on Second Reading, presented by the dairy districts. There the operations of the farm have very largely to be governed by the times at which the trains run, and it is impossible, where milk has to be sent a long distance, to get the hours of the trains altered in a manner which will suit the operations of milking, cooling the milk, and sending it straight off by train. Those are regarded by a great many farmers in many districts as insuperable difficulties, and if it were possible for the noble Earl to meet the very large number of people who are affected by this, even as regards this one month, I can assure him it would give very great satisfaction.
The noble Earl mentioned in his speech on Second Reading that this Bill was designed to suit arrangements in France, but some of your Lordships may have noticed that there is a great deal of disagreement in France on the subject, and, I take it, on precisely the same grounds. It is a question of the interest of the country as against the urban interest, as here. I see that on March 8 the French Chamber voted, by a majority of five—205 to 260—against the adoption of Summer Time, thereby following the lead of the Senate, which did the same thing last December. The Government were enabled apparently —I do not quite know by what method of procedure—to introduce an Amendment which allowed the introduction of Summer Time for the current year, pending a final decision, in order to fulfil the arrangements made with this country and with Belgium. That was carried by about 70 votes, and there will be Summer Time in France for the current year. After that the whole question will be considered again.
According to the newspaper reports the question seems to have excited much more interest in the French Parliament than it does here. It is said that the House and Lobbies were thronged, and that as much excitement was shown as if some great national question was on foot. No doubt there are a great many people who do regard it as a national question, and I hope the noble Earl will be susceptible to some persuasion on this point. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, knows that some concession would give the utmost satisfaction to a class of the community who are not having at all a good time just now.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out ("October") and insert ("September").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope the noble Marquess will not press the Amendment, and that he will agree to a suggestion which I have to make. As I mentioned in the debate on the Second Reading, the times in this Bill have been agreed upon between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and Belgium. As the noble Marquess has mentioned, considerable opposition developed itself in France to Summer Time, the existing Law was repealed by a small majority, anal the proviso was introduced by the Government that for the current year
474
Summer Time should be in existence between the dates agreed upon by the three Governments. We are this year bound to carry out our agreement with France and Belgium and commence Summer Time on March 26 and end it on the first Saturday in October. It is possible to do this without legislation. It can be done by an Order in Council; and in view of the fact that it may not be possible to obtain the passage of a Bill by March 26 it is proposed to issue an Order in Council for the current year fixing the dates as specified in this Bill.
It is a matter of common consent that it is desirable to affirm the principle of Summer Time in an Act of Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will agree to the passage of the Bill in its present form, including the month of September as agreed upon with France and Belgium—and as will be laid down An the Order in Council—subject to the understanding (and this is the suggestion I have to make) that when the question is raised next year an alteration in the dates shall again be considered, and before coming to a decision on the matter His Majesty's Government will carefully review the interests of all sections of the community, including the views of the agricultural industry.
The question may be put to me as to why it is necessary in these circumstances to pass a Bill at the present moment. My answer is that while it will be possible next session to bring in an agreed Bill amending the dates, if necessary, there will be serious difficulty in getting through a substantive measure next session in time to enable Summer Time to begin at the end of March. It is essential, if Summer Time is to continue, for a Bill to be passed through Parliament this session. That is quite clear. It is, however, difficult to get this Bill through Parliament before the time at which it is proposed to introduce Summer Time this year.
It is not necessary for me to refer to the advantages of Summer Time in the month of September. The disadvantages to the agricultural community have been set forth with great ability by the noble Marquess who has moved the Amendment on behalf of Lord Bledisloe, and although I do not agree that many of the difficulties cannot be met, yet it is accepted that the adoption of Summer Time in September is unpopular with the agricultural community, more especially in the North. At

475
the same time, the extra hour of daylight in the early autumn is of great benefit to holiday makers, allotment-holders, and all those not directly connected with agriculture. There is no doubt that on grounds of general hygiene, public convenience and welfare there is everything to be said for the extra hour in the month of September. In addition to this, its expediency may be urged on the ground of economy, because the saving of light in September is substantial. This was recognised in the year of the coal strike when Summer Time was extended to October 25 for the purpose of saving coal and light. I hope the noble Marquess will not insist upon the Amendment and that your Lordships will agree to the clause as it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sure the noble Earl has done his best to meet the objections which have been raised and I am sorry that he cannot give way on this point. I own, too, that I am not convinced by his desire to pass a permanent Act of Parliament including this particular provision. It is far more difficult to repeal an Act than to re-enact it, if its re-enactment is proved to be necessary, and I should have thought that if the Bill bad been passed for the current year and the whole matter left subject to re-consideration a year hence, it would have met the particular case of foreign countries.
The noble Earl spoke of an agreed Bill. You will not get an agreed Bill on this particular subject. There are some people who would like to see Summer Time lasting through October, and so far as our own personal convenience is concerned, Summer Time is no doubt a very pleasant feature.
But I ask the noble Earl to consider seriously whether, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament solemnly affirming that Summer Time is to last till the end of September, it would not be extremely difficult, in this Parliament or in any forthcoming Parliament, to alter the dates? If the noble Earl persists in his view the agricultural community will feel that they have been played rather fast and loose with, and will not be consoled by the promise of reconsideration which the noble Earl has given. I rather hope some other noble Lord who appreciates the objection to the continuance of Summer Time to this particular month may say a word. I do not want to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division if it can be avoided.
LORD HARRIS: I cordially agree with the noble Marquess opposite, not merely as a resident in the North, but from the general point of view of the inconvenience to agriculture, and I cannot help commenting—as it is quite appropriate to what I may have to say presently—upon the very different way in which this subject is treated in France and in England. In France agriculture, is recognised as an important industry, and is supported in Parliament, where, as may be judged from the quotation made by the noble Marquess, a very large number of members obviously considered it their duty to do their very best to protect the interests of agriculture. I am afraid we cannot claim the same sense of duty in this country.
On Question, Whether the word "October" shall stand part of the Clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Harrowby, E.

Aberdare, L.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lichfield, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lucan, E.

Askwith, L.

Argyll, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Marlborough, D.

Morton, E.

Bearsted, L.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Blyth, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Carson, L.

Curzon of Kcdleston, M.

Scarbrough, E.

Chwyd, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Strafford, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Cottcsloe, L.

Normanby, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Burnham, V.

Desborough, L.

Ancaster, E.

Clilston, V.

Gorell, L.

Bradford, E. [Teller.]

Churchill, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Chesterfield, E.

Devonport, V.

Hylton, L.

Chichester, E.

Knollys, V.

Islington, L.

Clarendon, E.

Peel, V.

Killanin, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Pirric, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Eldon, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lamington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Raglan, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lee of Farcham, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sudeley, L.

Loch, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sumner, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Swaythling, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Rotherham, L.

Terrington, L.

Meston, L.

Sackville, L.

Treowen, L.

Newton, L.

St. Audries, L.

Walsingham, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wavertree, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Shandon, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Ystwyth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M. [Teller.]

Denman, L.

Lyell, L.

Crewe, M.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Monk Bretton, L.

Monson, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Ernle, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Gainford, L.

Pentland, L.

Harris, L. [Teller.]

Trevor, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wyfold, L.

Chalmers, L.

Leigh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.

STATE OF AGRICULTURE.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the state of agriculture; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they contemplate taking any, and if so, what steps to check the reversion of arable to pasture. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can well understand that with all the grave and anxious questions that are occupying our minds from various parts of the world and in Great Britain itself, it might appear inappropriate that I should bring forward this subject for consideration, and occupy your time to-night, but I venture to submit to your Lordships that the subject is of vital importance to the country and to its population. It is not only a question of the success this year, or the reverse another year, of the harvest. It is not a question of the prosperity of this or that individual, or even of a class, for a time. There are questions underlying it far more important, affecting the vitality and the vigour of the nation—silent forces working as mysteriously as the germination of the seed in the ground, and yet capable of production of something as glorious as the golden column of straw ending with its beneficent ear. Therefore, I have not hesitated to put this Question down and to detain your Lordships if you care to hear me.
My Notice on the Paper, besides calling attention to the matter, asks a Question, and in that Question is an assumption. I assume that a large part of the soil of
478
this country devoted to arable farming is very shortly going to be converted to pasture. I cannot pretend to a general knowledge of the situation, or of the condition, of agriculture throughout the island. I can speak of my own neighbourhood only and I imagine that what applies there applies also to the principal corn-growing counties of the country. The noble Earl in charge of the Department will be able to give us information upon that, and will correct me if I am wrong, but certainly, so far as my own neighbourhood is concerned, I have no hesitation in saving that it is impossible to conceive a more serious state of affairs than that which exists. And I can speak with some experience. I have had experience of the crisis of 1878, through the 'eighties into the 'nineties, when a combination of unkindly weather and the introduction of the triple-expansion engine, resulted in wheat being poured into this country from America in such quantities, and at such rates, that it was impossible for the British farmer to compete. It had the result of sweeping away a generation of farmers, and of impoverishing, in many cases for all time, a large number of landowners. So bad was it that Parliament eventually recognised that it was necessary to do something, and in 1896 introduced a Bill which became an Act, called the Agricultural Rates Act.
I could not have believed it possible that so much Money could be lost in farming as has been lost this year in my neighbourhood. It was supposed, and was constantly alleged, that farmers were making very large profits in the years 1916–17–18. In 1917–18 they did make considerable

479
profits no doubt, and the farmer who went out in that period did very well. But I have no hesitation in saying, from experience, that whether profits were large or small, every penny of them has since had to go back into the land, and those who have stuck to farming all through can now, on the result of the eight years since 1914, not show any great profits. I make this statement very deliberately to your Lordships—that I have never known agriculture in such a serious state as it is this year, so far as the areas of which I can speak are concerned. I can substantiate that, and not on my own authority.
I have here a letter, which I can read if necessary, from an eminent firm of land agents, who give me some typical cases in a neighbourhood where the land is extremely good and where the farmer has the assistance of fruit. I am not including any farms that have bolos, because hop farms are quite different; this year they have been successful. In one case 230 acres of land produced no rent at all, and there was a loss of £1,800. The second case is one of 250 acres: No rent at all, no wages for the owner and two sons who worked it, and a loss of £1,157. In a third case, 300 acres, the loss was £2,000. In another, 250 acres: No rent, and a loss of £700. They add: "These are merely typical, we can give you numbers more if you need them." I think the noble Earl will acknowledge that some figures that. I sent to him some time ago bear out the statement I have made here. What was the cause? We were growing our crops for 1920–21 at the maximum possible rate of wage, and on the assumption—for part of the year, at any rate—that the control was going to be kept on. Suddenly the control was taken off, and there was a most disastrous fall in the prices of cereals and of other agricultural and pastoral produce. There was a fall of very nearly 50 per cent., and unfortunately the £3 per acre bonus given by the Government, although it was helpful, could not make up the difference.
Of course, we know that the cost of growing wheat varies materially according to the soil. Doctors differ, and so do experts as to what it costs to grow an acre of wheat. The Royal Commission on Agriculture, in the course of their inquiries, found the very greatest difficulty, and the very greatest difference of opinion,
480
as to costings. But, taking land where it costs from £16 to £22 an acre to grow wheat—and I could give you details of that if it was worth while troubling your Lordships with them—the loss has been this year from £3 to £5 an acre. It is arrived at thus. I am taking four quarter land, the average of the country, and I will take 50 s. as the price. A tremendous lot of corn was sold at 45 s. and less. It is 54 s. or 55 s. now, I think, and so I take the four quarters at 50 s. That conies to £10; bonus £3; giving £13 for the crop. The cost is £18, so that you get a loss of £5 an acre on the wheat we grow this year.
What was the reason? It was a simple one—the cost of labour. I can give you some figures which are very startling. They are from a Return showing, On a group of farms amounting to 1,100 acres, excluding a lot of grass land, that the weekly wage in 1913–14 was 18 s. and the average of 1921 was 40 s. per week. This is a startling difference. The total spent upon labour in 1914 was £2,855; in 1921 it was £8,374, or more than three times as much. The acreage under wheat was rather less in the last year, and therefore the total amount of cereals has decreased. The total amount realised in 1914 was £4,219 and in 1920, £7,754. That is very significant, because in 1920 we had the controlled price. Those figures showed £600 profit over the total cost of labour. In the following year, 1921, the total amount realised, with the £3 bonus from the Government, was only £5,313, whereas the cost of labour was £8,374. Thus there was a loss of £3,000. The average return per acre in 1914 was £8 18 s.; in 1920–21 it went as high as £14 8s. 9d.; in 1921 it was £12 10 s. 7d., an increase of about 50 per cent. over 1914. The average cost of labour, per cereal acre, went up from £6 in 1914 to £13 in 1920, and to £19 15 s. in 1921, or more than three times as much. Of course, it is impossible to compete against such figures, and that is the cause of this disastrous state of affairs—the sudden drop, owing to the control being removed, in the value of what was produced, whereas the cost of growing it had shown no reduction at all, though it has done so since, I admit.
I submit that, with such losses as that, it is absolutely certain that some cheaper form of farming must be introduced. Therefore—and I submit that I have made out my case as regards the losses—I am

481
justified in assuming that some other form of farming must be adopted if a farmer is to remain solvent. He will have to save on labour; he will have to reduce the amount of labour; and it seems to me inevitable that a great deal of arable land must go back to pasture. In my experience farmers are extremely reluctant to drop wages unfairly. They are trying strenuously to keep them as close to the calculated cost of living as possible. But they are still so high, and the value of produce has dropped so much that, so far as I can see, it is inevitable that they must get rid of a certain amount of labour, and must convert arable land into pasture. I noticed, incidentally, in a newspaper the other day, the statement that Messrs. Sutton Lad never had such a demand for grass seeds as they are getting this year.
Is that something to be feared? Should it be regarded as a calamity? Is it something that ought to be avoided if possible? I should be very much interested, if one could get it, to know what the answer would be now, as compared with the opinion of that Royal Commission to which I have referred. They presented an interim Report, as your Lordships may remember, and I should like to cull from it one or two expressions of opinion. They referred to a Committee appointed by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, which reported on June 19, and they extract this from the Majority Report—
"A healthy riral population forms a valuable recruiting ground for those departments of urban industry which require a high standard of physique, and for the class of emigrants chiefly desired by our Dominions. Indeed, it is frequently urged that it is highly desirable, on the grounds of physique and health alone, to increase the numbers of our rural population. The desirability of increasing our home production of food, both for military and economic reasons, has also been urged by many of our witnesses, and there are, we think, indications that, as a result of the war, the nation may decide that national security demands a substantial increase in the agricultural output of the country."
And again, they refer to another Report of 1916—
"It is evident that after the war the financial and physical welfare of the country will demand that the productive capacity of the soil should be developed to the fullest extent. Burdened with a huge debt, the nation will be strongly interested in producing as much as possible of its food at home that it may buy as little as possible abroad. Exhausted in man power, it will find in the expansion of the rural population of these islands the best restorative of its vital and creative energy."
I am afraid we have seriously fallen away from those opinions, and that it is a matter rather of indifference whether we revert to pasture or not, and whether we can attract a large population to the land or not.
I wonder what has happened to those aspirations, to that grandiloquent boast of sonic twenty years ago when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman declared that the pleasure grounds of the rich were going to be turned into the treasure grounds of the poor. What progress has been made with that, I wonder. Where are the homes for heroes? In suburban and urban districts possibly; but I do not notice any in the rural areas. We may very well regret that period from 1851 to 1879 when there were 24,000,000 acres of arable land, 10,000,000 of which were under wheat and produced 13,000,000 quarters, and when the agricultural workmen numbered 2,700,000. In 1914 there was a reduction of 4½ million acres, a production of only 7,800,000 quarters of wheat as compared with 13,000,000, and a reduction in the number of agricultural workmen from 2,700,100 to 2,000,000. That was the fall up to 1914.
Is that heavy fall to be allowed to continue and, perhaps, to be accentuated? Is it desirable; and, if not, can the Government do anything to stop it? It may be regarded from various points of view. There is the question of the manhood of the nation, the vigour and vitality of the race, referred to in the quotation I made at the beginning of my remarks. Surely it is the ambition and desire of everyone to get as many people on to the land as possible. That is our desire at any rate. We have on our shoulders at this moment the most terrible and threatening burden that possibly any nation has or over has had. There are nearly 2,000,000 men unemployed, exclusive of those thrown out of work by the strike that has just commenced. There are hundreds of thousands of acres upon which many of them, I do not say all, could be put. There are hundreds of thousands of frontages to our roads from which small holdings could be worked if we could attract the people on to the soil. But we have not proved that those lands are the treasure grounds for the poor.
Can it be said of small holdings that the results of all the efforts of the Government and the county councils are anything more than somewhat meagre? And as to the farm colonies—a subject which was dis-

483
cussed last week in this House—the whole scheme is scrapped after an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Why? Because it could not be made profitable. To what does all that point? That Government after Government is not afraid, is not ashamed, to put burden after burden upon real estate, until the industry is not profitable, is not attractive. It is proved by results that men will not come on to the land although it would employ at this time, and desirably employ, hundreds of thousands of those who are unemployed.
The whole world competes with us in our cereal production and to some extent in fruit and vegetables. It is very different in France. As I said just now, in supporting the noble Marquess opposite on another point, in France the subject of agriculture is recognised as of national importance and the cultivator is protected. He has no chance of that here; every kind of burden is put upon him. Take one little item. The noble Marquess appealed on behalf of agriculture that Summer Time should not extend throughout September. I think one can claim that your Lordships—most of whom are keenly interested in agriculture—voted in the interests of the whole populace and not selfishly in your own interests, when you poured into the Lobby and insisted upon Summer Time being continued into October. That is an illustration of how indifferent to agriculture we are in this country as compared with France.
I ask: What is the policy of His Majesty's Government? I am not expecting an encouraging reply in reference to the growing of wheat. The only possible way of insuring the continuance of wheat growing is a subsidy or a duty. His Majesty's Government has already shied at the idea of a subsidy, and as to a duty, if Mr. Chamberlain, with all his energy and all his enthusiasm, could only maintain a duty of 1s. for about two years, when it was scrapped, what chance has any Government in the future of putting a duty on wheat? Therefore, I rule that out. I am not for one moment blaming the Government for disregarding that item. It is no good their breaking their heads against the stone wall of the absolute objection of the urban classes of this country to paying anything in the shape of a duty upon their principal food.
But in the February Report of the Land Union there are some very useful and
484
helpful suggestions as to what might be done not only by this but by future Governments to help farming and real estate, and I hope that someone here who is officially connected with that. Association will deal with the point. I will touch only upon one suggestion of the Land Union, because I have had to do with it officially. I have mentioned that in 1896, under the late Lord Salisbury's Government, I had the honour of conducting through this House the Agricultural Rates Act. This relieved occupants from paying half of the rates, and the Government made up the balance to the other ratepayers. But, unfortunately for both the ratepayers and the agriculturists, the amount set aside for that purpose was limited to the amount necessary for that year, and the consequence is that although the rates have been multiplied since some eight or nine times, the amount received in relief of the rates is still about the same as it was in 1896. A hope was held out in another place by the Minister of Agriculture that he might be prepared to look into this matter. I think that is an indication of the interest taken in the subject by the Department. I cannot conceive of our being better served in any Department than we are by the heads of the Ministry of Agriculture at this moment—Sir Arthur Boscawen, the noble Earl on the front bench, and Sir Daniel Hall. Their interests are in the industry, and I am certain that they are doing their best for it.
I will put this question—it is an old question, and an old grievance—why should real estate be burdened with national necessities such as education, which has been put on since 1896, sanitation, highways and (I am going to refer to this particularly) animal diseases? These are all national questions, but, when the amount granted by Government out of the National Exchequer is exhausted, the balance is thrown upon real estate, and in increasing amounts and on increasing subjects almost every year. Take the case of animal diseases—a matter of such national importance that the Government ordered that all animals suspected of a certain disease were to be slaughtered and the owners compensated. I see from a communication in the newspapers this morning (which looks like an official communiqué) that the amount to be granted in compensation this year is likely to reach £1,000,000. The amount estimated for was only about £100,000,

485
and I understand that a Supplementary Estimate is to be brought in for about £400,000, making altogether £500,000.
In this communication it is stated that tic Local Taxation Fund is going to bear some portion of the remainder of the £1,000,000. I am not sure what that Local Taxation Fund is, but I presume it is a fund in the hands of the Government, who may legitimately use it for this purpose. But from information given me I learn that the fund does not amount to more than £130,000, so that on this national question, as a consequence of the Governments order to destroy these herds, £370,000 is going to be thrown upon the rates. That means that in those areas where the disease has been rife farmers will have to pay a rate. Those who have been compensated for the loss of their stock will not mind it so much, but the rest, who have been seriously inconvenienced by the embargo on the removal of cattle, are going to be taxed because their neighbours' animals caught this disease.
That is another illustration of the indifference of the Government to the laying of burdens on the unfortunate local taxpayer. That was not the policy of Mr. Goschen or of Lord Salisbury, both of whom tried to help the land, but it has been the policy of Sir William Harcourt and his successor s to throw all the burdens possible upon real estate, aiming, of course, at the great landowners. The missile, I rather think, has missed. The great landowners are "out"; in the parlance of tint ring, the Dukes have dodged the blow and got down to avoid it. They are nod going to be the sufferers by this increase of rates. They have had to part with their land, but the burdens remain on the land, and it is those who have bought from the great landowners who are now going to suffer—people in a very different position in life, a great many of them yeomen farmers. They are the people who are being hit, and who are going to be hit more and more if the rates go up, and if more burdens are laid upon local taxation.
This sounds a very gloomy speech, but I am not afraid of agriculture in the future. As I said when the Agriculture Bill was introduced, agriculture pursues the even tenour of its way, and by degrees accommodates itself to the circumstances which surround it. And as in the disastrous period of 1878 and 1898 agriculture by degrees adapted itself to circumstances
486
and eventually emerged successful, so agriculture will, after this crisis, in course of time once more emerge successful. But I am very apprehensive indeed for farming at the present moment, and I would venture to ask my noble friend on the front bench to give attention to the position in America where, in some of the States, it is precisely the same as here. There is a vicious circle due either to lack of demand (as in the case of cotton), or bad crops (as in the case of potatoes); and in those States where those are the principal crops farmers had bad times and were unable to buy fertilisers. The land suffered, with the result of poorer crops and poorer returns. And so it goes on round the vicious circle.
That is what I am afraid of here. If farmers have suffered such losses as I have indicated, it is inevitable that they will not be able to afford such artificial manure as, possibly, the farms want. Reduced crops and reduced returns will be the result. If the noble Earl will make inquiries with regard to America he will find, I think, that the Federal Government is contemplating making a grant to farmers for the purpose of buying fertilisers. It is a gloomy view that I am taking of the situation as it exists at present, but there is one saving factor. We have the whole world competing with us in the sale of our products, but there is this saving factor—that the whole world comes to us for our pedigree stock, and it seems to me it is in that direction that the industry will have to turn its attention. More and more we shall have to depend on those products in which there is the least chance of competition; milk, vegetables and fruit.
You cannot depend on the individual to supply capital for a great movement towards the land. If it is desirable, and I submit that the pious opinion I quoted from the Report is sound, to raise a sturdy and vigorous race, you must get people on the land. It does not matter whether the land is held by a landlord and cultivated by the tenant and his labourers, or whether, as in certain parts of India, large areas are held by the cultivators themselves from the State; those who are in favour of nationalisation have only to go to India to see the two systems working side by side. But if the country wishes to raise a vigorous, hardy and active race it must tempt people back to the land, and you are not going to tempt them back by throwing such burdens on the land as deprive the cultivator of any real profit.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, there is no doubt that the very serious situation which has arisen in agriculture is owing to the sudden drop in the price of agricultural products, the suddenness of which has been acknowledged by the Minister of Agriculture to be without parallel in the history of the industry. I hope we shall hear from the noble Earl that the policy of the Government in regard to agriculture is, in the main, to leave it alone and not to interfere with the running of the farm. I believe that is the policy of the Government, as the Minister of Agriculture, speaking last month in another place, said that he thought the duty of the Government was to confine itself to its proper function—namely, to assist agriculture so far as it can outside and not to interfere with the farmer in the conduct of the farm.
The price of wheat, barley, oats, livestock and wool has fallen at a sudden rate, but, unfortunately, the prices of articles which the farmer is bound to buy have not fallen in the same proportion. That is what is causing the serious situation for the farmer at the moment. Rates, too, are very high, and Income Tax is high. I think the greatest praise is due to the farm labourer for the way in which he has accepted a drop in wages. He realises that the farmer is no longer able to pay the old wages. The farmer is unable to pass on the cost of production to the consumer as those engaged in so many other industries are able to do. Agricultural prices are world prices. They are governed from Chicago, the Argentine, Australia, Europe and Asia. He cannot do what some other industries—coal mines or factories—are able to do and close down his industry temporarily. He must go on, and go on working at a loss perhaps, for if the land is left derelict it can only be recovered at a practically prohibitive cost. Therefore I maintain that agriculture is in a class by itself.
I am not going to suggest that the Government is in any way responsible for the fall in the price of agricultural products, but I would remind the noble Earl that the Government has been spending its time lately in repealing its own Acts—the Corn Production Acts. These Acts were passed with the intention of assisting agriculture and, therefore, agriculture has a right to very serious consideration at its Lands. The noble Lord, Lord Harris,
488
has alluded to the Report which has been issued by the Land Union pressing forward certain considerations and suggestions. I believe every one of your Lordships has received a copy of that Report. Let me briefly mention some of their suggestions.
Most unfortunately when the Agricultural Rates Act was passed in 1896 provision was not made that the grants from the Exchequer should keep pace with the rise in rates, and the Minister of Agriculture has informed us that agricultural rates have risen four and a half times since the passing of that Act. Then there is the question of the roads, with which I will not deal at any length as the noble Lord has a Notice dealing with it on the Paper for next week. Let me say, however, that to my mind the upkeep of the highway should not fall either on the ratepayer or on the Imperial Exchequer. It should be paid for wholly by the users of the roads as in the old turnpike days. I am not suggesting that we should go back to turnpikes and tollgates; that would be impossible with the present fast through motor traffic. But I think the present system of licence duties should be extended and that those vehicles which are the most likely to do the greatest damage should be the heaviest taxed.
Then there is the question of Schedule B, now levied on double the rent. I think that assessment should be reduced. It should, at any rate, not be more than the rent, and I am not quite sure that we should not go back to the old system of one-third. Salesmen should be compelled to mark their agricultural produce to show whether it is home-produced or comes from abroad. There are a great many people who would be quite ready to pay a little more if they were quite sure of getting the home-produced article. I hope also that before long the railways will see their way to reduce their charges for the carriages of agricultural produce.
Sales of land are going on continuously, and they have been enormously increased by the onerous nature of the present Death Duties. Really the Death Duties at the moment have got beyond breaking point. These sales are creating a feeling of un-certainty among tenant farmers. If they knew for certain that there was a chance of the landowner keeping his land and not being compelled to place it in the market, they would have a greater feeling of security, which would be all for the benefit of the industry. Income Tax and Super-

489
Tax have got to a prohibitive figure. Many landowners find it impossible to keep their property in order; and that is to the detriment of farmers and of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture said the other day that if you tax the landowner out of existence he cannot properly look after his property. I maintain that he is being taxed out of existence; and it follows that the property in some cases is not being properly looked after. The maintenance allowance under Schedule A should be extended. I should like to see property owners allowed to do practically what industrial companies are allowed to do—produce balance sheets under Schedule D—receipts on one side, expenditure on the other; deduct one from the other and pay Income Tax and Super-Tax on the net profits.
The Committee of the Land Union, upon which I had the honour to serve as Chairman, put forward the proposals, not from a political point of view but from the national point of view, in the hope that agriculture might thereby be enabled to weather the storm through which it is passing at the present moment, and the future is none too bright. We wanted to confine ourselves to what was reasonable and practicable and to what could actually be put into force at the earliest possible moment. If you take those proposals one by one they may not sound very considerable or of very great assistance, but if they are treated as a whole, we believe that their cumulative effect, would be considerable, and I sincerely hope that I shall hear from His Majesty's Government that they will accept them.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two, if I may, to inform your Lordships of the position at the present moment of that great agricultural industry which has been started in this country as the result of many years' work and agitation, the sugar beet industry, which has this year reached a very critical situation. We have had two factories working during the last season, but the industry is not yet out of the experimental stage; in fact, owing to the peculiarities of the industry, the experimental stage will probably have to extend for quite a number of years. The net result has been that, although a very considerable amount of sugar has been turned out—about 6,000 tons altogether, and about 2,000 tons from the new factory at Kelharn—there is a loss on the year's
490
working, and a strong demand is now being put to His Majesty's Government for the purpose of limiting the Excise Duty on sugar, which conies to about £20 a ton, and which, if it is continued, will make the industry absolutely impossible.
The noble Lord who introduced this subject said with great truth that excessive wages have made profits on arable land almost impossible. We all want to see the agricultural labourer earning the best wages that he can earn, and there is no doubt that wages before the war were too low. I think also that everybody is in agreement with the general proposition that what we want is to increase the population on the land in every possible way; the great rural population is an enormous asset to a country's strength; but there is no doubt that unduly high wages operate against that equally with unduly low wages. We are seeing for ourselves at present how unduly high wages are driving land out of cultivation. Unduly low wages drove men off the land into the towns. Both processes tend to reduce the rural population. I think, therefore, that it would be of great assistance to do everything we can to encourage industries dependent upon agriculture, which bring a large amount of employment into the rural districts, and I contend that nothing proves so effective in that direction as the sugar industry.
I do not expect any answer from the noble Earl opposite, because the question is now for consideration by His Majesty's Government, but a considerable amount of interest has been taken in this matter, and I find, from the number of questions I am asked on all sides as to what is being done, that people do not quite realise the situation at the present moment. Therefore, I call your Lordships' attention to the subject by these few remarks.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, it is not my intention to speak at any great length on this subject. First of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the manner of his speech, and, if I may say so, for the flattering remarks he has made about the Minister of Agriculture, myself, and the officials at the Ministry. I do not know whether he will be so well satisfied with us when he has heard my reply. When he

491
first put this Question on the Paper, I confess that I was in very great difficulty, because I did not exactly know what line he intended to take, and whether he was going to blame the Ministry, and His Majesty's Government as well, for not taking some very drastic action in order to make corn-growing profitable in this country. He traversed a large amount of ground, and recalled a good deal of history.
There can be no doubt that last year a certain amount of land was laid down to grass, and I expect the process will go on this year. The figures are not so alarming as one might perhaps expect, in looking at the severe depression in agriculture. I have here the figures up to the end of 1921. There was a decrease in 1921 of 401,000 acres of arable land, but, taking the arable land of last year and the average amount of arable land of the last ten years, we find that there was an increase of 150,000 acres, and those ten years, of course, include the period of the war, when a large amount of land was broken up and cultivated under the orders of the agricultural committees, so that up to the present there has not been a very rapid change. It looks very much as if we shall revert in this country to the state of things which existed in 1913 and 1914, when farmers devoted their land to the most profitable purpose; that is, where it was more profitable to have grass they had grass, and where it was more profitable to plough they ploughed.
That will not suit everybody. People make speeches, saying that we must get the population back to the land and that much more land must be ploughed. If I may say so, I believe there is only one way of doing it; perhaps one might say that there are two ways, but they both come to the same thing whichever you adopt, for in either case the people will have to pay for it. One way is by Protection. If you put a sufficiently heavy protective tax on all food stuffs coming into this country, making it worth while to produce them in this country, they will undoubtedly be produced here and at a profit. The price will go up, and the British consumer will have to pay. There is another way of doing it. You may choose to give high enough subsidies, by enormous grants from the taxpayer for the cultivation of certain crops, and I suppose that eventually, by pouring out money, you will make it profitable to grow those crops, and people
492
will grow them. But in that case as well the taxpayer will have to pay, for he will have to find the subsidy.
When you come down to the bedrock of this question, you get to this economic fact, that people will not grow anything unless it pays them to grow it, and in order to make it pay you must either give a direct subsidy or else—a course which I have always believed to be the more honourable—put on a stiff protective tariff, and tell people they have got to pay for it. As regards the first of these proposals, I am one of those who, in my short Parliamentary career, was bold enough to advocate a protective tariff. I told my constituents perfectly plainly that I did propose to tax their food, and that I hoped the taxes which were going to be put on would put up the price of farming products. I believe that some of those who took the same line did not speak quite so plainly, and the result was that I was successful where others failed. But I may say that mine was a peculiarly agricultural constituency, and that I had the nearest shave in my life. I got in by only 150 majority whereas at every other election I had got in by a majority of 500 or 600. If you were to ask me to go and advocate that policy again I should flatly refuse, because I believe there is hardly a constituency in the country where you would have a chance of getting elected.
Now we get to the policy of subsidies. I have never made any false statement about that. I believe your Lordships know my views upon the matter, and I do not intend to repeat them. I do not think you have a chance now of asking the country to give an enormous subsidy to encourage corn-growing in this country. There is one extraordinary fact which we have to take into consideration. In the year 1920–21, which every speaker and the noble Lord who introduced this matter has told us was the worst year in all their experience—
LORD HARRIS: In that particular area.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In Kent, but I think he is very likely right about the whole country—it is a rather curious thing that this should have happened in the very year when the British taxpayer paid the farmers £20,000,000.
LORD HARRIS: They wanted it badly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not say they did not, but it is a remarkable fact that this year, which so many speakers have said is the worst year they have ever known in the history of agriculture, is the very year in which the taxpayers of the country have found £20,000,000 to assist them. I only make those two remarks on this question. The noble Lord did not, I think, for a moment advocate that we should adopt either of those policies, but if you want this country to revert to a large corn-growing country, and perhaps half of the land now in grass to be ploughed up, I am bound to say that it is one of those policies which you must adopt, and adopt permanently.
Unless it is made an economic and paying proposition to grow corn people will not grow it, and I know that the noble Lord, when speaking on the Agriculture Bill, rook exactly the same view that I do, although I think he expressed it rather better than I can. He was referring to the Report of the Royal Commission, and he said—
"On rising from the perusal of these three volumes the effect on my mind was that we ought to be very well satisfied in this country with the arrangement of landlord and tenant and as regards the system of agriculture; that we grew on the whole as large craps as the elimate of the country permitted; and that those crops were well adapted, having regard to the price, to the soils upon which they were grown."
Then, later on, he said—
"The system of agriculture in this country rises superior to legislation, and it will proceed in its calm and methodical way despite all the laws you may pass."
I agree with those remarks, but the point is that we get to the further suggestion whether, in any lesser degree, we can help in any way.
I think we can help to a certain extent. The first thing I should like to say, if I may do so—I express a personal opinion, but I know that it is shared by many others—is that I am not one of those who deplore that the land has changed hands to a large extent. I believe that it is for the great security of the country, and a very good thing for the country, that the number of owners of land in this country should be largely increased. I go another step and I say—I believe it cannot be contradicted—that the man who has the chief interest in the land, and who is chiefly interested in seeing that it does not deteriorate and does not fall in price, is the owner of the land;
494
and that so far as securing that the land should be well cultivated is concerned, it is far better that the owner should cultivate it himself than that he should let it to another party. The tenant who takes the land can always go when he likes; during the last two or three years of his tenancy he can take what he wants out of the land, not caring how it may deteriorate, and then go off. But in the case of the owner it is to his interest always to keep up the, productivity of the soil, and to turn it to the best advantage. Therefore, so far as the question of the ownership of land is concerned, I do not in the least lament that there has been much change in the ownership of land in this country. I think it may have the effect of carrying out what the noble Lord and we all desire—namely, that there should be greater interest in agriculture, because I believe that the owner is the man who really is interested in it. He is no middleman, but he stands or falls by the -prosperity of his industry.
Now I come to another matter, to which I should like to refer. The noble Lord pictured the highways and main roads stretching through our country, and he said: "What beautiful frontages there are, and what splendid land available for unemployed people to settle upon." I agree. There is a splendid lot of land and splendid highways, but there are no houses, and if I may say so it is again a question of £ s. d. Only a few nights ago I was standing here defending the policy of the Ministry which had been trying to settle soldiers and sailors on the land, and I, or rather the Department, was charged with spending some £400 or £500 per head in settling these men on the land? That is perfectly true. It cost that.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: A thousand pounds.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, that was in one or two cases of building houses. I know the cases which the noble Marquess instances, where with the houses and buildings it cost a great deal more than £1,000 to settle the men on the land. I believe that during past years the lowest price for building a cottage was £650, rising in sonic eases to £1,100. I cannot tell you at, the present moment what is the cost of building cottages. It may have fallen, but I do not think it has to any considerable degree. It is purely uneconomic to build houses along the main roads

495
as is perhaps suggested, in order to put these people back on the land, when every house is going to cost £600 and buildings perhaps another £200 or £300. It cannot be made a paying proposition, but if you want it done, and the country is determined, in spite of our present rather poor financial position, to spend ten, fifty or perhaps a hundred millions more in settling people on the land and building houses on these sites, no doubt it can be done, but I think that at the present moment it would be a very rash Chancellor of the Exchequer who made any such proposal.
Next I come to the question of taxation on land. The first thing to do, if we want to get taxation taken off the land, as we all so strongly desire, is to reduce the taxes, and the first thing to do to reduce the taxes is to give up uneconomic methods of spending money. It is no use advocating settling the unemployed on the land in cottages along the main roads, or giving large subsidies for growing wheat or potatoes, because that means that the taxes will go up. I am thoroughly in agreement with those noble Lords who have advocated a reduction in taxation. I do not think agriculture is peculiar in that respect. From what I read in the newspapers, it appears that the one cry from almost every industry in the country at present—from agricultural bodies and Chambers of Commerce—is: "We cannot carry on our industries with this enormous burden of rates and taxes."
I thoroughly agree with the noble Lords who have spoken that land is suffering, and for many years has suffered, from an undue burden of taxation. I can only hope that the Minister for Agriculture may be successful in making such representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we may get some relief on this occasion. Of course, I cannot say now what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do, and I do not think that any noble Lord will expect me to say what the Minister of Agriculture, in private conversation, has said to me about the different measures which he proposes to place before the Chancellor of the Exchequer with that object in view. But I can assure noble Lords that there is no question that has been lost sight of, and that the Ministry are doing their best to press on the Government the need for some relief.
I recollect that what I think was the first debate on the question of the taxation
496
of agricultural land to which I ever listened was one in which the late Lord Wolverhampton, many years ago, replied to a discussion in the House of Commons. Then, all the satisfaction he could give us, when we complained of paying a great deal more than we ought, was that they were hereditary burdens. That is very poor consolation, because, although the hereditary burdens always seem to remain, and get heavier and heavier, a great many of the hereditary privileges and advantages which went with the holding of land have now absolutely disappeared. I think, therefore, that having none of the hereditary advantages left, we have rather a stronger claim now that some of the hereditary burdens might be taken from us. Here again, however, we are always up against the difficulty that nobody else likes to undertake our responsibilities.
The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, mentioned the question of sugar beet. He quite rightly said that a very great experiment had been made in that direction, and in order to show that the Government are not entirely deaf to the claims of agriculture, I may mention that they have very considerably helped in this experiment. Whether they will be able to continue that help I cannot say at the present time.
One thing in which the Ministry, if they have money, can direct and help agriculture is by education and research, and by research especially. I still believe that we have a great deal to learn from science as regards agriculture. Undoubtedly, if it is aided by the Government, and to a certain extent directed by Government Departments, overlapping can be avoided, and research can perhaps be turned into the best channels. We have been doing a good deal in that direction. I am pleased to say that here again the Government were not completely deaf to the agriculturists, and, when the subsidy on corn was lost, part of the bargain was that £1,000,000 was voted by the Government in aid of education and research.
LORD HARRIS: Has not that been subsequently cut down?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: It has been extended from three years to five.
LORD HARRIS: But has the £1,000,000 been cut down?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Some of it goes to Scotland, as it always did, and I believe it is now to be spent over a period of five years, instead of three years; but that is the whole extent of the alteration. I hope that, with these increased funds, we may be able further to develop this important work. It is expensive, because it is no use going in for research unless you employ the best men and the best apparatus, and do it under the best circumstances. But it is a thing which repays expenditure, and which may be of ultimate benefit. I do not think that noble Lords expect the Government to advance some great scheme by which agriculture will suddenly be restored to prosperity. If we only knew a method for getting rick quick for farmers I can assure you we should publish it promptly enough. But I do not suppose any such scheme exists. Undoubtedly, this veal' has been a very bad year, but I am doubtful whether it is as bad as some people say. Some have had heavy losses; others have not had heavy losses. During the war sonic farmers undoubtedly made a great deal of money, though others were not so successful. After all, there are ups and downs in every trade, and I think that noble Lords themselves did not absolutely despair of agriculture. If we are left to ourselves, given a fair field, and treated fairly as regards taxation and the charges to be placed upon us, though I do not believe that agriculture will ever make fortunes for people, I still believe that an honest, good and healthy living can be made out of it.
I have heard it stated here to-night, and frequently on public platforms and have seen ill the newspapers, that the great thing to do is to get masses of people back on the land. It may be desirable, but I believe it is an economic fact that those countries where crops are most easily produced, and which are the most fertile countries—the countries where you get heat and damp in sufficient quantities to grow crops quickly and profitably—are the countries where the great mass of the population are living on the land; but as the population living on the land increases the rate of wages and the standard of living of the people seems to go down. I state that as a general economic principle, and nobody knows it better than the noble Lord who introduced this Question. In certain parts of India where you find fertile lands on which it is easy to grow crops,
498
you will find a dense population. At the same time, that population is living at a very low standard of life, and on very small wages. I am always doubtful whether it is sound policy, by any artificial means—which, after all, may be afterwards reversed—to try to place an enormous number of people on land which is really not suitable economically for providing them with a living, and when it is quite possible that those people may in the long run be reduced to great destitution.
But in those small ways that I have mentioned—by pressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the claims of agriculturists in respect to the burdens upon land, and assisting in every way by education and research—the Ministry will do their best to help forward this great industry. I have said, and I repeat, that I do not think the Ministry is prepared to come forward with any very grandiose scheme to try to make corn growing in England generally a profitable business, especially on land which is not suitable for growing crops of that description.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, it seems to me that what agriculture wants most of all is to be left alone. Agriculturists as a body ought, once and for all, to get rid of any idea either of protection or a subsidy. I have had some experience of contested elections in large constituencies and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the country will never stand a protective tariff or a subsidy. I voted against the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill which would have cost the country the annual sum of £40,000,000 or more. The Government evidently reconsidered their opinion and came to the same conclusion as I did—I think wisely. Were the Government giving £30,000,000, £40,000,000 or perhaps £50,000,000 a year to one industry at the present time, I am sure they would be sent about their business for doing so. What I really want to point out, however, is that agriculturists should get rid of all idea of State aid of the kind I have mentioned. If they have legitimate grievances, as I think they have, with regard to rates and so on, let the Government direct its attention to those particular points.
The noble Lord who introduced this subject said that he thought the future lay with pedigree stock. There is, however,

499
only a certain amount of pedigree stock sent abroad, and the demand is but a limited one. The losses of pedigree stockbreeders of late have been as heavy as those of anyone. Exporters of pedigree stock to South America, particularly to Montevideo, have lost thousands of pounds on stock exported from this country to those places, and there is hardly any demand whatever for pedigree stock. Therefore, I do not think there is any very great future for it.
I think the policy of putting on the land soldiers who know nothing about land does very great injury to them and to the country. If you put on the land men who very often have to pay high rents and who sometimes have to try to farm forty or fifty acres in the same way as people cultivate large farms, they are bound to fail and lose their money. If the Government persist in making great efforts to put soldiers on the land I think they will be doing them a very ill turn and not much good to the land itself.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord will pardon the interruption, but up to the present time the men settled on the land have all been approved by the county councils.
LORD CAWLEY: I am afraid the county councils are not always the best judges of whether a man understands land or not. From what I know, a great many of those men have made failures and are going to make greater failures.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his very full reply. I think we ought to appreciate the fact that he has disclosed as much as he may of the intentions of his Department, and that, as I anticipated, the influential people at the head of that Department are doing all they can to persuade the Government that land may be justifiably relieved of some of its burdens.

PAYMENTS TO FRANCE.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the sum of £32,000,000 paid to France by this country for railway services, billeting, rent of houses, occupation of land for military purposes, and compensation for damage
500
during the years 1914 to 1920 inclusive, has been actually paid over, or whether it has been deducted from the French debt to this country; and whether a similar payment to France has been made by the American Government.
This Question was asked a short time ago in another place, and I repeat it here only because the reply given then seemed to be of a somewhat ambiguous character. Everybody knows that the French Government owes this country a sum of between £500,000,000 a ml £600,000,000, and I am merely asking for information as to whether we have actually paid over this amount of £32,000,000 or whether it was deducted from the French debt to this country. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he may be able to inform me whether similar claims have been made against us by the Belgian and Italian Governments, because the circumstances appear to me to be precisely similar.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I will endeavour to give as unambiguous an answer as I can to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. Prior to March, 1919, when an Agreement was entered into between His Majesty's Government and the French Government in accordance with which all future payments due to be made by His Majesty's Government to France would be set off against French indebtedness to Departments of His Majesty's Government, certain payments were made by the latter to the extent of some £30,000,000. That is, prior to March, 1919. In the greater number of these cases payment was made to the French Government as agents for railway companies and other French private individuals and companies. All payments due to France are now set off against French debts to this country.
An approximate division of this total of £30,000,000, which has been paid as I have already mentioned, would be as follows:—For railway services, £11,000,000. As regards this payment, at the outbreak of hostilities the French railway companies were obliged by law to place their undertakings at the disposal of the French Government at special rates of charges which were also enjoyed by the British military authorities, and monthly advances were made to the French Government—acting as agent for the railway companies—

501
by the British military authorities on the basis of eleven-twelfths of the sum estimated to be due for payment. In reference to railway charges, since the Agreement of March, 1919, which I have mentioned, was entered into between His Majesty's Government and the French Government, a further sum of approximately £4,000,000 has been set off against French debts to this country.
Besides the £11,000,000 I have mentioned as paid approximately in respect to railway charges, payments have been made of about £8,000,000 altogether for billeting, rent, occupation of land, compensation for damage and so forth. These payments were met by two bodies known as the Claims Commission and the Directorate of 'firings and Requisitions, and arrangements were made by them in most cases with the Maire of the Commune concerned direct. All billeting and requisitioning ceased, however, in December, 1919.
Faits de guerre did not carry any right to an indemnity (and damage caused by trenches and other works on the field of battle or its borders was, therefore, excluded), but "preventive measures of defence"—for example, trenches constructed for instructional purposes—rank for indemnity. From the early part of 1919 onwards opportunity was taken by our Government to dispose of surplus stores, situated on land occupied by British troops, to the authorities or occupiers of the land in extinguishment of claims for rent or damage. This proved, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, a
502
most economical form of settlement. Of the £30,000,000 of which I spoke in the first instance, I have accounted for £11,000,000 paid for railways, and £8,000,000 under the last heading.
I now come to the third item—Miscellaneous. This is an amount of £11,000,000. The chief items included in this total were:—firstly, purchase of supplies, etc., by our military authorities in France (approximately £8,000,000); secondly, dock, harbour dues, and miscellaneous services for the British naval authorities (approximately £1,000,000); and, thirdly, insurance premix on French chartered steamers, and miscellaneous disbursements by the French Government on behalf of the Ministry of Shipping (approximately £1,000,000). As regards the last portion of my noble friend's Question, while I have no definite information on the point, I am given to understand that similar payments were made to France by the American Government. My noble friend desires to know if payments similar to those which I have mentioned as being made by our Government to the French Government were also made to the Belgian and Italian Governments. It was only last night that I heard from my noble friend regarding this particular point, and I am unable at present to give further information, but if he wishes to have detailed information on this matter I shall be happy to procure it for him.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Robert Morton, Junior, with Alice Mary Georgina Morton, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented, on Petition, and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the Decree of Divorce of, the King's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland: Delivered (on oath): Bill read la; and to be read 2ª on Thursday, March 23: The usual Orders made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate front the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Croydon Gas.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION (GAS CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Earl of Drogheda be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Manton (deceased): read, and agreed to.
Clare College, Cambridge (Blythe's Benefaction).
Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.

RUGBY SCHOOL BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday, March 23.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on February 21 last and March S discharged, and Bill committed.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Chalmers be proposed to the House as a Member of the Panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act in the place of the Lord Oranmore and Browne; read, and agreed to and the said Lord appointed accordingly.
CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2ª on Thursday next. (Viscount Burnham.)
JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2ª on Tuesday next. (The Lord Chancellor.)
LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2ª on Tuesday next. (The Lord Chancellor.)